I found the events of this weekend in London to be most interesting. Now I'm normally the most apathetic of people, but on Saturday I decided to wander along to the 'Stop the War' march in London. Quite an interesting day all told. But what concerned me most was the complete lack of coverage the event managed to attract - particularly after we were inundated by 'Countryside Alliance' propoganda the week before. I could understand if it was some sort of minor event, but this was the largest anti-war march over seen in the UK. The police estimated the total number of protestors at around 150,000. Organisers say 350,000. I can tell you, as someone who was there, that even this may be an underestimate. It was a BIG march. The end of the demonstration did not even begin moving by 3 in the afternoon (from Embankment) by which time the front of the march had already reached Hyde Park! To anyone who knows London you'lll understand just how many people this must have been (it's about a 2-3 mile route). Organisers expected 100,000 - this was at least quadrupled. We ae talking of nearly half a million people here. This is not insignificant. Polls also tell us that a majority in the UK are against, yet you would think that there is no opposition to our leaders. A similar sized march by a bunch of countryside protestors (marching mainly against the proposed ban on fox hunting) was plastered across the pres last week. There was virtually nothing on this anti-war march. I have to admit that it was an interesting assortment of people. Socialists, communists, unions, anti-racists, Muslims, Palestinians, anti-globalisation protestors and a fair number of drag queens! To see some guy dressed in drag in USA flag-pattern skirt and tank top marching next to a bicycle contraption blasting out rave music and surrounded by travelleers with pink hair and studded tongues next to a Muslim group is most unusual! There were a lot of different causes represented. The single uniting factor was opposition to the war in Iraq. And there were an awful lot of normal, everyday people who had never demonsrated in tehir lives. Many elederly (some WWII veterans I spoke to) and families. Very friendly march though the anti-Bush rhetoric did get quite strong. Not that I mind. Yet this event has got only a small mention in the press. People march to complain about the ban on fox hunting and it';s everywhere. The burbury, wax-coat (and exclusively white) brigade get the coverage for their minor little worries, yet opposition to war is considered barely worth reporting. Is there any opposition elsewhere? Is it not being talked about? Or is the US as gung-ho for war as it looks on CNN?
According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll, three in five Americans favor using force to remove Saddam Hussein. The poll also found that nearly 70 percent of Americans believe Dubya is doing a good job. No doubt, with numbers such as these, Bush will invade without fear of public recrimination -- not that he particularly cares about public disapproval. The Team Bush agenda moves forward irrespective of public opinion. But, as Americans are continuously fed a steady diet of right-slanted news and opinion -- delivered in sustained fashion by a circulating roster of former government insiders, retired generals, CIA analysts, and various military and security experts -- is it any wonder large numbers of Americans believe dropping bunker-buster and cluster bombs on a nation already wracked by more than a decade of bombing and relentless sanctions is a viable alternative to diplomacy? By all accounts, the G-7 demonstrations in Washington were largely peaceful -- of an estimated 20,000 protesters, only five were arrested for property damage, while 644 were arrested for "disobeying police or parading without a permit," in other words, peaceful civil disobedience. Instead of focusing on the message brought to Washington by the protesters, the media concentrated on demonstrators who danced in the street with mud and leaves smeared on their hair and clothes, or the dozen others who stripped to their underwear. The anti-war movement in the US can expect more of the same. The media did likewise during the Vietnam War, characterizing anti-war activists and supporters as ludicrous hippies. Nonetheless, Americans eventually accepted the anti-war message and Nixon was forced to begin the withdrawal of troops from Southeast Asia. Without political pressure -- hundreds of thousands of people turning out to demonstrate in cities across the nation -- the US government would not have responded and the result for millions of additional Vietnamese and US soldiers would have been vastly different. Dissent makes a difference -- from calling your senator to participating in an anti-war demonstration -- regardless of what the corporate media has to say about it in the corporate press. Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
Captain Canada I'm glad to hear of the amount of anti-war sentiment there. As an expat, I'm totally embarrassed by the idea that North Americans might believe that your ordinary Brit is behind Blair in his sycophantic pandering to US interests. (What's that all about? Old ties are one thing, but surely sucking up is best reserved for when it can't do any harm.) I'm embarrassed because I like to think this isn't the case, and am reassured that the British psyche (and common sense) hasn't gone all soft and brainwashed in my absence. Good to hear that "the people" are still more or less immune to rhetorical nonsense and are speaking their minds.
Nice to see that there is some opposition elsewhere. I do have to say that we probably do get a rather one-sided view of Americans and their apparent desire to go to war with Iraq ASAP due to the somewhat biased media coverage. A friend of mine recently returned from a trip to California and reported that while the TV news coverage was, in his opinion, slanted and superficial, he reported numerous interesting books and publications. Is US dissent most active in print? Or perhaps now the internet? We have had a recent run of debate programmes on Iraq that has been interesting. Not the depth I'd like but I can;t complain that it's too biased. Was just surprised by the lack of coverage for the anti-war march. But then news did break that former PM John Major had a 4-year affair with Edwina Currie (imagine Bush had had an affair with Madelaine Albright and you come close to the horrifying image that conjures up). It's all about priorities. (and you guys thought the Clinton-Lawinsky thing was bad!) Anyway, there has been some coverage so you can read all about it on the BBC: BBC article
It's amazing that a very widespread, vehement opposition to the war is being completely shut out of the mainstream media. As we call our reps, it might also be worthwhile calling the media to demand that they more-fully report this widespread opposition. For an example of the media's agenda that is almost startling in its obviousness you only need to read the article, War Talk Shapes Fall Elections, by Dan Balz, David S. Broder and Helen Rumbelow in the Washington Post. It ostensibly reports on the results of a new "Washington Post-ABC News Poll and interviews with scores of voters in key states." But nowhere, in this or any other article, do we see any acknowledgement of how the media may have shaped the opinions offered by those responding to the poll and the interviews. Baby Doc has already proven that anyone with $200 million dollars can get elected President; now his overweening eagerness to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens for votes in November proves that having a brain, a heart, or a soul is irrelevant to fulfilling one's own American Dream. Maybe. We still have the right to vote. For now. What I am afraid of is the day that troops are fully committed. I have this strong feeling that once Bush does that, any American dissent you are seeing will go straight out the window, or will be suppressed a wave of nationalism and jingoism. The yellow ribbons will be back on the trees, the "support our troops" bumper stickers will be back on the SUVs, and the room for anti-war agitation will be significantly reduced. Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
It's rather unsettling that politicans can still go into a war and guarantee the public will support them. They can play to everyone's undersatnding of the need to support 'our boys' fighting overseas, and bask in reflected glory. The media painst a one-sided picture (probably more so in the US than in the UK) so that people stop asking questions. This war is no longer about 'why' but 'when'. I don't really recall the 'why' part of the debate. It's inevitable, it's right, it's going to happen. This is what we hear. The other side of the debate is lost. It is sad that the military now appears to be the only voice of reason, and they are drowned out by war-mongering politicans who, with few exceptions, have done all they can to avoid military service. You're quite right Goofyfish, once the shooting starts the country will rally round and there will be absolutely no debate. You'll have to support the troops. I can understand this and accept it. You're asking people to put their lives at risk. But after Vietnam it would be nice to have a real debate beforehand. The military lessons have been learned, but it seems the political lessons amount to 'drown out opposition - control the media'. That's not the lesson I would take. So even after all that has happened in the twentieth century it seems that, if anything, it's even easier for politicans to sleepwalk a nation into a war for, I would say, dubious political reasons. Bush is probably addicted to those approval ratings that go sky-high when you're fighting. I remeber in the days after 11/9 Bush was referred to as 'Churchillian' by the US media. This is sycophancy of the highest order - accepted there were real fears and Americans want to hear they are being well looked after, but this type of press coverage has continued. This is music to Bush's ears and I fear the regime has become desparate for another hit. Perhaps I'm being somewhat unfair. I accept there are legitmiate security concerns and bigger issues. I can't help thinking that much of this is motivated by very poor reasons though. The US economy is tanking, coporate America that Bush represents (and ran as CEO) is being unmasked for its crookedness and self interest and poverty is soaring. But as long as you've got somebody to attack everything's fine, because you can;t criticise you're leader in a time of war. It is a sorry state of affairs. Gore Vidal has said that the US has been in a state of perpetual war since 1941 for the benefit of a particular group of individuals. I'm inclined to agree.
At the moment in America it is too risky a thing for a news station to give large coverage to anti-war or anti-Bush media. Major studies in the U.S. have indicated that anti-war/Bush media being a large part of a station's broadcast (relative to pro-war/Bush) will cause a large amount of viewers to simply change the channel, read another newspaper or turn the radio off. Fortunatly, our leader has yet to buckle under George-W-pressure, so we haven't felt that.
Originally posted by Captain Canada I would refer you to Mirror Trinity Publications tabloid The Sunday Mirror (issue date the sunday of the week-end in question). Or the Mirror for the saturday in question. Either of these will give a completely biased account of both the lead up to and the march itself. The march involved some 250,000 persons. So almost a half of a percent of the population felt strongly enough to attend. Hmm.
You know this how? Were you personally counting? If you ask me that's a significant movement. Half a percent of the apathetic population of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland converged on London to march in protest to a potential war. It was one of the largest anti-war demonstrations Europe has seen. Even if it was the 250,000 you quote, I think that's a substantial movement. it got some coverage - but compare that to the countryside alliance. Protesting what exactly?
From an IRC discussion: I know demonstrating may not be everybody's "thing", but I feel that it serves a unique purpose primarily because it IS emotionally satisfying, in a way that nothing else is. There is a certain ecstasy that you feel being among thousands of like-minded people, and it gives you the feeling that change really IS possible. Protests provide the energy and inspiration to keep fighting day-to-day. They are not the only way to effect change, but they are certainly a vital one. Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
The reason the media coverage is so biased against anti-war protesting is simple: The people who own the government, the military/industrial party--own the media. The military/industrial party, or the corporate/government, however you wish to refer to them, fear peace more than anything. If peace reigns, then they know they will have to reduce the size of the joint military/industrial complex that is the source of their power. Therefore they will continue to fabricate wars and police actions to maintain that power until such time as that power is taken away from them by the intelligent people in society. The people in the corporate/government are nothing more than a legal mafia. This should be obvious to everyone by the way they handled the last U.S. presidential election. The "shadow government" that the current President George Bush talked about is the same shadow government that has controlled the government since the assassination of John Kennedy and which George Bush Sr. disclosed to the world as "The New World Order". If anyone fails to understand that, then you can't ever understand why the military/industrial corporate/govenment acts with such apparent stupidity. They are not really fighting Saddam Hussein, who is not nor could ever be a threat to the U.S., they are fighting obsolescence.
Cpt. In general terms it is mor the case that (certainly in the U. K.), the Ownership of the majority of the media is politically polerized, it is not actually politically based. The approximate figure given for the numbers of those said to have attended the march was obtained from the aforesaid Sunday Mirror. To put it in other terms, the number of people attending the march would be roughly equal to 1/29th of the population of London. Still, you've already pointed out that people attended from all over the country. Incidentally, I have no great sympathy for those involved in the Countryside march. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey Hey Hey... hold on a second. America is far from perfect but there are many countries worse. We dont publicly execute dissidents, conduct a slave trade, of federally endorse drug trafficking. Pick on THOSE countries first.
There is no country that is worse than the U.S. corporate/government. There is no country that does more to wreck democracy than the U.S. corporate/government. The U.S. has destroyed any emerging democracy, which they call the "Left", that has threatened their imperialistic corporate/government interests, by making war in foreign countries, inciting war in foreign countries, assassinating democratic candidates or installing murderous dictators. Read any of the social commentary books by Noam Chomsky, the leading intellectual of the progressive "Left" movement in the U.S., and you will learn what the mainstream corporate/government media are forbidden to print. Noam Chomsky also has a column on; www.commondreams.org and he participates in a forum in the Z magazine site, which can be found on the above referenced website.
There is no country that is worse than the U.S. corporate/government. There is no country that does more to wreck democracy than the U.S. corporate/government. You don't get out much, do you, John ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
