5 Comments

  1. michael horan

    Thanks much for this–while you’re dead-on in decrying the dearth of coverage by the mainstream press, this is a first-rate example of BEING the media. Great links and great quotes to boot. Hope everyone has a look at this.

    We saw the same thing here in Boston–the Teabagger protest at Faneuil Hall got coverage, the demo at Boston Common didn’t. (The Globe DID cover the Natick rally, emphasizing the low turnout).

    I’m still not sure that the antiwar movement really deserves the name. It’s the cause closest to my heart, and I’m more than a little despondent. That you saw a number of folks your age there does my heart good.

  2. daveschwab

    What I’m wondering is, can we shame the corporate media by highlighting their obvious bias here?

    When you’re giving more coverage to an astroturf protest than a grassroots protest 5x the size, no thinking person wouldn’t wonder if you have an agenda of your own.

    Try to think of a headline that would do well on digg or reddit. Something like “Tiny tea party gets more coverage than antiwar rally 5x its size” or “Big antiwar march – little tea party – which got media love?”

    By covering the tea parties ad nauseum, the corporate media has given us an opportunity to earn more press coverage by making the points that 1. we have more people than them and so deserve at least equal coverage, and 2. we are truly grassroots, organized by volunteers instead of astroturfers with vested interests in the current political system.

Leave a Reply