Friday, September 25, 2009
Tut-tutting about "violence" at protests
Glenn Reynolds makes an excellent point about the highly variable twisting of media hankies over "violence" at demonstrations. A few clowns shout at a "tea party" and the media starts worrying about the resurgent Klan, but the left literally attacks the police at the G20 protests and nobody says anything.
There are two possible explanations for this different approach of the media to edgy demonstrators of the left and right.
First, the mainstream media are completely in the tank for the Democrats, and want to help them push the talking point that the tea-partiers are both extremists and typical Republicans (neither of which is generally true).
Second, the left benefits from the soft bigotry of low expectations: People expect leftists to act like thugs at these gatherings as they have for 40 years, so when they do again it is the same-old same-old. The striving burghers of the right, however, have never done this before, so it is news.
Both explanations are probably true to some degree, but which one dominates?
28 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Sep 25, 04:36:00 AM:
I love this quote: "The peaceful protesters started throwing rocks at police and police cars, and dragging trash containers into the middle of the street to block traffic". What makes them "peaceful"?
I also like the fact that the police fought back. European police forces never confront leftist agitators, they just let them do what they want. The agitators are essentially domestic terrorists in the unofficial employ of the governing leftist parties. The parties in turn make sure that investigations and arrests don't happen.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 06:42:00 AM:
Which one dominates?
A very hard call. As we become more aware of just how much the left wing media has been lying to us all of these decades, it's probably impossible to tell. Thanks Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, you are apparently at the root of much of our current problems. I hope you are proud of yourselves.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 08:26:00 AM:
I vote for "all of the above", but recognize that "A" probably predominates.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 08:48:00 AM:
" First, the mainstream media are completely in the tank for the Democrats "...Just a few years ago this was a much greater, and more difficult to overcome, concern. With the explosion of blogs and the requisite citizen journalists, of a variety of levels of quality and integrity, the msm is less a threat and influence than in years past. Regarding point two, as the truth, or the unvarnished reality, has become more accessable to anyone ;the truth about low expectations and the intermixed bigotry has also become more visable, more apparent to everyone. The collapse of the newspaper industry, the collapse of ratings for network and traditional TV news outlets isn't going to magically reverse course. Gibson, Couric, Scheiffer, Moyers, et al are not the trustworthy commentators they purport to be and the public, at large, know it. The flux in the publics information sources exposes more and more every day the lies and deceptions of the msm.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 08:56:00 AM:
Reynolds links to an article about the protesters in the AP with 14 photos. Is not the AP part of the MSM? And how about The New York Times?
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 09:01:00 AM:
Maybe if the peaceful demonstrators wore Brooks Brother suits and had thrown in some critical comments about big government the MSM would have made more of it.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 09:15:00 AM:
I'll go with
"First, the mainstream media are completely in the tank for the Democrats"
By 
JorgXMcKie, at
Fri Sep 25, 09:51:00 AM:
anon@8:56, as soon as the MSM and talking heads begin describing these crowds with the same worries they had about Teas Parties, I'll admit you have a point.
Isn't it hard to gin up even this weak-*ssed argument?
By submandave, at
Fri Sep 25, 10:06:00 AM:
randian, in all fairness to the writer, the "peaceful protesters" quote, in context, was intended for maximum sarcasm and irony.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 10:14:00 AM:
Perhaps the lack of coverage has something to do with the size of the crowds. The G20 protesters number less than a thousand which is far cry from the TWO MILLION (or is it up to twenty million now?) who marched in DC.
Poor, poor, Republicans. So misunderstood.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 11:29:00 AM:
" Perhaps the lack of coverage has something to do with the size of the crowds. " Like when the acorn loons were visiting AIG executive's homes, 20 acorn nuts and 80 msm shills. Or perhaps Cindy Sheehan's visit to Crawford, TX would be more explanitory, Cindy and 2 or 3 accomplices and 40-50 msm photo manipulators. Yea, you might want to rethink the "crowd size" theory. One further point, the tea party participants came from a variety of political positions, they were not and are not exclusively republican or democrat. Perhaps you should look past the msm swill and delve a bit into reality.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 11:43:00 AM:
Is Micheal Moore's new anti-capitalism movie fomenting this violence? One wonders. Story not at 11.
By Old Grouch, at
Fri Sep 25, 12:25:00 PM:
The mainstream media are completely in the tank for the Democrats..."
Close, but I'd say they're "completely in the tank with the transnational progressives."
Should the Democrats ever regain their sanity, the MSM will drop 'em like a hot potato. (Ex: late Johnson administration)
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 01:05:00 PM:
"Perhaps the lack of coverage has something to do with the size of the crowds. The G20 protesters number less than a thousand which is far cry from the TWO MILLION (or is it up to twenty million now?) who marched in DC."
Who's talking about the lack of coverage? It's the nature of the coverage. The bloggers in question are asking why a few shouters at tea parties are indicative of right-wing violence, but groups whose directives include violence and destruction of property are somehow not indicative of anything negative about left-wing groups. If anything, you're making a point for us poor misunderstood Republicans. There can be tens of thousands of us gathered in one place with only a couple of minor incidents. But bring one small group of left-wingers together and you get mayhem.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 01:40:00 PM:
What dominates? The people in the media have to know what lying message they are attempting to portray, so I would say that dishonesty dominates.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 02:13:00 PM:
I'm sure this video report will be decried by Reid/Pelosi/Carter/Mondale/Clinton and all the other race-baiters who lead the Democrat party these days.
By contrast, the civil people of the 9/12 march on Washington, excepting the Lyndon LaRouche set with their pro-Nazi signs were positively wonderful.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 02:52:00 PM:
Huh? Buy today's New York Times and then tell me again that the MSM isn't covering it. It's the lead photo above the fold, and right next to the article on the terror suspect charged with planning mass transit bombings.
You really ought not rely on other bloggers for your news. It makes you seem as if , well, as if you're "in the tank" with conservative bloggers.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 04:47:00 PM:
You missed the point of the posts. As a previous post put it so aptly,
"Who's talking about the lack of coverage? It's the nature of the coverage."
Beyond that reading issue though, I would ask you, where is the outrage? Where are the cries of "racist!" Where is Pelosi and Carter, so quick to ascribe political opposition to simple-minded racism? It was offensive beyond belief, and no one from the left, including the NYT, has called those despicable people on their race-baiting.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 06:22:00 PM:
I have no idea who made the comment that you referenced nor do I care. I'm responding to Tigerhawk's post (the blogger who actually wrote the post) that "the left literally attacks the police at the G20 protests and nobody says anything."
As to your comment: "It was offensive beyond belief, and no one from the left, including the NYT, has called those despicable people on their race-baiting. "
WTF are you talking about? A bunch of anachists and vandals were arrested for breaking windows and Pelosi or the NYT is suppose to apologize? Did Boehner or the WSJ apologize for the Tea Baggers who carried signs such as "American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's Ovens" or "Our Tax $ Given To Hamas To Kill Christians, Jews and Americans, Thanks Mr. O" or "Obama Loves baby Killings" or "Barack Hussein Obama The New face Of Hitler"
Ferchristsakes, why must anyone apologize for a bunch of obnoxious bullys acting out on camera in the hopes they'll make it to YouTube? Chill out and grow a pair.
By Escort81, at
Fri Sep 25, 06:54:00 PM:
I have always viewed these kinds of events (starting with the anti-WTO riots in Seattle in 1999, progressing to the present day) as a matter of the Luddite far Left against the center-Left internationalists.
The core belief of the protesters is that international trade is bad, or more precisely, that it is almost always unfair, because one trading partner (in the developed world) is typically in a relatively stronger trading position, and will impose its will to the detriment of less developed countries. Their solution is to greatly limit trade, and to be violent about it until that solution is agreed to.
I guess there's some irony in there somewhere.
By , at
Fri Sep 25, 07:11:00 PM:
It is a lot easier to be afraid of the side that wants a personal right to semi- to fully-automatic assault weapons, and has a remarkable militia presence, than of the side that clamors for gun control.
Also, to make the argument that the Tea Partiers are some special sort of atypical Republicans while the left is a monolithic bloc is disingenuous; observe my finesse of same above.
By JPMcT, at
Sat Sep 26, 08:09:00 AM:
@ Anon 07:11
Nice link to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you adjust the antenna on your tin foil hat, you can hear the theme to "Twilight Zone" as you read the leftist drivel. Boy,...convincing.
Back to reality:
The G8 and G20 protestors are an expected part of the meetings. It's almost like a Phish concert or an old Grateful Dead Tour. Sales of plywood go up prior to the meetings in a similar manner as they do in the week before a hurricane. I seriously doubt that the majority of the "protestors" take themselves seriously. It's a party with a touch of mayhen thrown in.
The surprising thing this time arond was that they didn't get a free ride. They got tear gas and acoustic impuse weaponry from the authorities.
That IS news and it is GOOD NEWS!
Comparing them to Tea Parties is disingenuous sicne there is essentially no violence at Tea Parties and the overwhelming number of protestors are personally concerned about why they are there. It isn't a social event. They even pick up after themselves.
...and they all VOTE!!!
There is no reason to debate the MSM treatment of the two extremes. The MSM is irrelevant unless you own a parakeet.
By , at
Sat Sep 26, 08:32:00 AM:
The MSM is irrelevant unless you own a parakeet.
Heh. Which makes you wonder why so many people spend so much time "outaged" by it. Of course, the fact that 60% of the newspapers are more conservative leaning (and carry more conservative columnists) than lberal ones is rarely mentioned, if ever. Besides, where's the blistering coverage from the WSJ coverage or the National Review? How about the Washington Times? NY Post? Are they not part of the MSM?
Oh, I get it. Only the NYT is the MSM. Convenient.
By , at
Sat Sep 26, 08:37:00 AM:
Ignorant twit, speaking thusly:
"I have no idea who made the comment that you referenced nor do I care."
Obviously you do care. Otherwise you wouldn't have read my comment (the one you whine about). So that little piece of misdirection can be dispensed with.
Reading comprehension is an issue for you, though, that much is clear. Your strawman complaints about criticisms of Pelosi, Jimmuh Carter et al also ring false. The lefty loonies, including most probably you, who so freely called half the country racist are the problem. Condescending twits, every one.
By , at
Sat Sep 26, 01:45:00 PM:
Ignorant twit, speaking thusly...
Anon. I come here for Tigerhawk's analysis of topical issues, and not the dozens of inane comments that follow. Your comment was the last of many in that effort so I responded thusly, and without any compunction to read the many that preceded yours. Glad to hear you have enough time to linger over the noise.
As for reading comprehension, I suggest you reread your comment again, strawman. Who complained about Pelosi and Carter?
Just as I thought. *sigh*
By , at
Sat Sep 26, 10:22:00 PM:
It's not an excellent comment, it's a load of rubbish.
For starters, the rowdiness didn't start until after the police began with the tear gas and the forced dispersals, as is obvious from the AP story. How many teabaggers were forcibly dispersed by police? And how would they have reacted? How would you have *advocated* that they act?
You people cheering for people with signs like "we came unarmed.. this time". You'd be routing for your peaceful protestors to "stand up and resist!".
Secondly, the G20 protests got no coverage. Of any kind. There weren't pages of media reports airbrushing the confrontations. There was nothing. Your protests, without media coverage, wouldn't be worth a fart in a windstorm. So, actually, the media bent over to kiss your asses with endless media coverage, and essentially killed these protests stone-cold dead by failing to cover them at all.
And you're still bitching. I understand that it befits your endless need to see yourself as victims, but the MSM licks your feet. They've been doing it for at least two decades. It's not in your best interests as a movement to admit that, but you don't really fool anyone at this point.
By , at
Sat Sep 26, 11:21:00 PM:
I'm with you Anon at 4:47! Where was Speaker Pelosi and Former President Carter's outrage when the protesters stormed London at the G20 last May? No apology from that loser fishwrap called the New York Times either. And the 2008 G20 in Sao Paulo> pppfftt. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Niente.
How dare they not apologize for the anarchists and IMF haters around the world? Have they no shame? “Qué se vayan todos!
Thank God there are conservative commenters with time on their hands who are willing to stoke the cauldron of outrage for the unfortunate who have fishwrap but no voice.
LOL. It ain't easy being you, is it?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Sep 27, 02:52:00 PM:
So, the G-20 protests got no coverage of any kind.
But that was the lead photo above the fold in the NYT.
Someone's wrong.
"actually, the media bent over to kiss your asses with endless media coverage"
Ah, an admission that coverage of protest events is a political favor, rather than simply doing their f'ing jobs of reporting facts and events.
This is progress. Whereas this:
"And you're still bitching. I understand that it befits your endless need to see yourself as victims, but the MSM licks your feet. They've been doing it for at least two decades. It's not in your best interests as a movement to admit that, but you don't really fool anyone at this point."
Is a ridiculous fantasy.
If the media had been so good to conservatism, Fox News would not have then been established and turned into a runaway success because there wouldn't have been a pent-up demand for conservative perspectives.
Don't trust market economic explanations? Fine.
There's a Harvard study proving that US media is liberally biased. It made kind of a splash when it came out and millions of American liberals gave a collective, "Huh?! But we're the victims!" Just like you're doing now.
I guess the effect has worn off.
