Great analysis Eric! I did a piece about how the majority of the people can respond to the problem of the focus on the small reopen protests. First at Hullabaloo and then at Crooks and Liars.
One idea comes from how the health care professionals pulled focus when they did counter protests at the anti-lock down protests.
.
Another is to show that the anti-lock down protesters are superspreaders. (Which data from Michigan April 15th protest shows)
A third way is to gave a voice/visual to the majority of the people at home.
The media needs to show what the reopening will mean personally in loss of life.
Photos of the dead. Video of the family of the dead. Interviews with the doctors.
Then public health care professionals attacking the reOpen people as killers.
As you know, the "both sides" of the story are given equal coverage when it's really more like 100,000 to one.
I believe the one way to address that is to prepare for the message of the other side -- discredit it scientifically and minimize it's size. Then to note that the people who are behind this 'reopen' have outsize power with the media-- because of they work the refs.
(But you know all this stuff, I'm just talking to the activists who need to develop strategies to cope with the way the press works today.)
The big problem is that the BS has to be called out (presuming the establishment media actually care to, which is doubtful) by headline or lede (print) or the first sentence or two (TV). Like, Not: “Trump says...” but “Trump claims without proof...” or “Trump says contrary to facts...”. But, TBH, it’s been clear since the 80s that when it comes to the nation’s leaders, the establishment media are propaganda outlets and happy to have the GOP’s backs. Actually understandable, in a way, but now that the national leadership is literally murderous, it makes the press complicit in the killing.
Washington Post had a picture today (since taken down) of a head shot of a woman, sick, sweaty in an ICU with oxygen mask. She is a COVID patient. If there were more pictures of that reality (and I understand why that is not possible) there would be far fewer pictures of anti-lockdown protestors.
I had the same thought about images of deaths from gun violence. The media give reasons: too graphic or privacy concerns. Then if they get permission and have a graphic waiver, they are attacked by the right for exploiting the tragedy for political reasons. (Although NOT showing the photo can also be deemed a political reason.
Then if they show photos more than once the editors worry that people will become numb.
During one of our numerous wars I wondered why papers didn't run more photos of the people killed. (Too graphic I was told) My favorite line was, "American media show photos of missiles launching, Al Jazeera shows what happens when they land."
It makes me so angry to see these obnoxious, ignorant and uneducated fools waving flags and
Screaming for their “ freedoms.” They are mostly bought and paid for.
It makes me angrier to see the press leading with this story. They are not newsworthy enough to merit the airtime provided. In a worldwide crisis with so much at stake why wouldn’t news organizations use some sense in covering this? I’m not suggesting not giving it some mention but it doesn’t have to be the lead story. The media sadly helped 45 get elected, now they continue to make decisions that are at odds with our health and security. Thanks for your take on all this. Sometimes it feels hopeless.
I recall attending the anti-war protest in San Francisco in 2002. I was there applying for grad schools with a couple of friends from our university in Utah, and they were blown away by the number of people in the streets (over 100,000) protesting the pending invasion of Iraq. They'd been a steady diet of pro-administration talking points from MSM and cheer leading from Fox News, so after we went to lunch and I calmly explained to them that, yes, there were US citizens opposed to intervention in Iraq, and their concerns were legitimate.
Did they miss the significance or did they deliberately downplay it in the name of patriotism and national honor? Or because, as you describe at the Times, the got pressure from higher ups? The national polls leading up to the war were not showing public support so they clearly weren’t trying to please their readers, they were trying to persuade them.
I had no idea at that time how massive the international protests were? I was aware that the media had downplayed the size of the US protests. Granted those US protests were not as large as the protests against the Vietnam War had been but they were really significant.
The WMD propaganda was the thing that swayed public opinion about the war.If memory serves public opinion polls were not in favor of invading Iraq - hence the need for the lies. At that time I was puzzled by the “everyone believes Saddam has WMD claims” because my newspaper was part of the Knight Ridder chain so I had been reading the articles by Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel describing the doubts that the WMD experts at the CIA had about the so-called evidence. It wasn’t until I watched the Bill Moyers’s documentary “Buying the War” that I realized that they were the rare exceptions among journalists (along with CBS’s Bob Simon) who got their information from sources not tied to the administration. That documentary was an eye opener for me and still well worth watching. In fact one of the people interviewed is Eric Boehlert.
The media was all in on selling the war, even after it started and was becoming a clear failure. (Of course, substituting hubris for knowledge was maybe not smart.) What was so awful is that everyone paying attention knew the reason for the invasion was completely bogus — not at all a situation where opinions could legitimately differ.
yep, I recall years later a prominent DC journalist (I think w/ PBS) saying at the time in 2003 people couldn’t imagine Bush would lie the country into war, and that’s why press so wrong. which is bizarre premise bc there were actors in Hollywood who were saying publicly in 2003 that Bush was lying country into war, but sophisticated DC journos couldn’t figure it out?
Thank you for linking to Eric Alterman. He has been documenting media perfidy since the 90's.
Here in Ohio, Real Heartland Americans (Trademark), some of whom are armed (natch) are eloquently articulating their concerns (I crack myself up) in front of Dr. Amy Acton's home in a Columbus suburb. Dr. Acton is Director of Health for the Ohio Department of Health, and she has demonstrated unfailing brilliance, fortitude, empathy, compassion and professionalism in the face of this crisis. But Republicans are unhappy, and nothing tugs media's heartstrings like aggrieved (never mad or violent) white people. (Side note - a Republican state senator compared her statements to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Dr. Acton is Jewish). Here's the kicker. City officials in Bexley (a wealthy suburb) are reluctant to ban the armed protesters because they're afraid "they will become violent". Now that's a story I'd love the media to cover in more depth. I did read an article here in Cincinnati but saw nothing on broadcast news.
Especially if one poses the question "But if these protesters carrying guns were African American..." I think we'd see a totally different reaction. Given what we know happened in Michigan I would like to see national media cover this.
If you watch the national news you would think we all live in New York. Mike DeWine and Gavin Newsome don’t get nearly the attention that Cuomo gets even though both of them responded more quickly. Cuomo is getting the same kind of media coronation that America’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani got after 9-11. Who cared if he insisted against expert advice on putting NYC’s emergency communications system in the World Trade Center and that that decision cost the lives of emergency responders? He was colorful and readily availble to the NY centered national media. This isn’t intended as a criticism of Cuomo, just as evidence of the parochialism of so much of our national media that gives us such a distorted picture of reality.
The focus on Cuomo is that for the most part, he’s a reality check, a counterpart to Trump and the rest of his party. Makes easier to do the opinions differ shtick because for the establishment media there are always two sides.
And BTW, maybe not well, but Cuomo got New York’s curve flattened which is more than you can say about Trump on behalf of the nation.
So why not show some of Newsome’s briefings? He has been really impressive. He reacted more quickly than Cuomo then started organizing a consortium of states so they they could increase their bargaining power for supplies rather than have a price war. He also shared equipment with other states.
And Mike DeWine has also been very effective. He followed the advice of his health experts, both in the government and in Ohio’s major medical regions - Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The hospitals systems in those regions immediately dropped any competition and started coordinating responses for the state.
MSNBC interrupts their regular programs daily to show Cuomo live. That is ridiculous.
Great analysis Eric! I did a piece about how the majority of the people can respond to the problem of the focus on the small reopen protests. First at Hullabaloo and then at Crooks and Liars.
One idea comes from how the health care professionals pulled focus when they did counter protests at the anti-lock down protests.
.
Another is to show that the anti-lock down protesters are superspreaders. (Which data from Michigan April 15th protest shows)
A third way is to gave a voice/visual to the majority of the people at home.
The media needs to show what the reopening will mean personally in loss of life.
Photos of the dead. Video of the family of the dead. Interviews with the doctors.
Then public health care professionals attacking the reOpen people as killers.
As you know, the "both sides" of the story are given equal coverage when it's really more like 100,000 to one.
I believe the one way to address that is to prepare for the message of the other side -- discredit it scientifically and minimize it's size. Then to note that the people who are behind this 'reopen' have outsize power with the media-- because of they work the refs.
(But you know all this stuff, I'm just talking to the activists who need to develop strategies to cope with the way the press works today.)
LLAP
Spocko
hi! Thanks for the analysis. always helpful for activists
The big problem is that the BS has to be called out (presuming the establishment media actually care to, which is doubtful) by headline or lede (print) or the first sentence or two (TV). Like, Not: “Trump says...” but “Trump claims without proof...” or “Trump says contrary to facts...”. But, TBH, it’s been clear since the 80s that when it comes to the nation’s leaders, the establishment media are propaganda outlets and happy to have the GOP’s backs. Actually understandable, in a way, but now that the national leadership is literally murderous, it makes the press complicit in the killing.
Washington Post had a picture today (since taken down) of a head shot of a woman, sick, sweaty in an ICU with oxygen mask. She is a COVID patient. If there were more pictures of that reality (and I understand why that is not possible) there would be far fewer pictures of anti-lockdown protestors.
It’s a good point. I’ve often wondered how this story would play out is it wasn’t so invisible to most Americans in terms of the human toll
I had the same thought about images of deaths from gun violence. The media give reasons: too graphic or privacy concerns. Then if they get permission and have a graphic waiver, they are attacked by the right for exploiting the tragedy for political reasons. (Although NOT showing the photo can also be deemed a political reason.
Then if they show photos more than once the editors worry that people will become numb.
What to do?
During one of our numerous wars I wondered why papers didn't run more photos of the people killed. (Too graphic I was told) My favorite line was, "American media show photos of missiles launching, Al Jazeera shows what happens when they land."
It makes me so angry to see these obnoxious, ignorant and uneducated fools waving flags and
Screaming for their “ freedoms.” They are mostly bought and paid for.
It makes me angrier to see the press leading with this story. They are not newsworthy enough to merit the airtime provided. In a worldwide crisis with so much at stake why wouldn’t news organizations use some sense in covering this? I’m not suggesting not giving it some mention but it doesn’t have to be the lead story. The media sadly helped 45 get elected, now they continue to make decisions that are at odds with our health and security. Thanks for your take on all this. Sometimes it feels hopeless.
yr welcome!
I recall attending the anti-war protest in San Francisco in 2002. I was there applying for grad schools with a couple of friends from our university in Utah, and they were blown away by the number of people in the streets (over 100,000) protesting the pending invasion of Iraq. They'd been a steady diet of pro-administration talking points from MSM and cheer leading from Fox News, so after we went to lunch and I calmly explained to them that, yes, there were US citizens opposed to intervention in Iraq, and their concerns were legitimate.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that press completely missed the significance of anti-war movement then—tried to cast it as fringe etc
Did they miss the significance or did they deliberately downplay it in the name of patriotism and national honor? Or because, as you describe at the Times, the got pressure from higher ups? The national polls leading up to the war were not showing public support so they clearly weren’t trying to please their readers, they were trying to persuade them.
I don’t think the media needed (or needs) pressure to downplay dissent or, indeed, anything/everything progressive.
I recommend reading this article from Time:
“Viewpoint: Why Was the Biggest Protest in World History Ignored?“
https://world.time.com/2013/02/15/viewpoint-why-was-the-biggest-protest-in-world-history-ignored/
I had no idea at that time how massive the international protests were? I was aware that the media had downplayed the size of the US protests. Granted those US protests were not as large as the protests against the Vietnam War had been but they were really significant.
The WMD propaganda was the thing that swayed public opinion about the war.If memory serves public opinion polls were not in favor of invading Iraq - hence the need for the lies. At that time I was puzzled by the “everyone believes Saddam has WMD claims” because my newspaper was part of the Knight Ridder chain so I had been reading the articles by Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel describing the doubts that the WMD experts at the CIA had about the so-called evidence. It wasn’t until I watched the Bill Moyers’s documentary “Buying the War” that I realized that they were the rare exceptions among journalists (along with CBS’s Bob Simon) who got their information from sources not tied to the administration. That documentary was an eye opener for me and still well worth watching. In fact one of the people interviewed is Eric Boehlert.
https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
The media was all in on selling the war, even after it started and was becoming a clear failure. (Of course, substituting hubris for knowledge was maybe not smart.) What was so awful is that everyone paying attention knew the reason for the invasion was completely bogus — not at all a situation where opinions could legitimately differ.
yep, I recall years later a prominent DC journalist (I think w/ PBS) saying at the time in 2003 people couldn’t imagine Bush would lie the country into war, and that’s why press so wrong. which is bizarre premise bc there were actors in Hollywood who were saying publicly in 2003 that Bush was lying country into war, but sophisticated DC journos couldn’t figure it out?
Thank you for linking to Eric Alterman. He has been documenting media perfidy since the 90's.
Here in Ohio, Real Heartland Americans (Trademark), some of whom are armed (natch) are eloquently articulating their concerns (I crack myself up) in front of Dr. Amy Acton's home in a Columbus suburb. Dr. Acton is Director of Health for the Ohio Department of Health, and she has demonstrated unfailing brilliance, fortitude, empathy, compassion and professionalism in the face of this crisis. But Republicans are unhappy, and nothing tugs media's heartstrings like aggrieved (never mad or violent) white people. (Side note - a Republican state senator compared her statements to Hitler and Nazi Germany. Dr. Acton is Jewish). Here's the kicker. City officials in Bexley (a wealthy suburb) are reluctant to ban the armed protesters because they're afraid "they will become violent". Now that's a story I'd love the media to cover in more depth. I did read an article here in Cincinnati but saw nothing on broadcast news.
yes, Eric A. is one of the best.....and geez, refusing to ban armed protesters bc you fear them is recipe for disaster
Especially if one poses the question "But if these protesters carrying guns were African American..." I think we'd see a totally different reaction. Given what we know happened in Michigan I would like to see national media cover this.
If you watch the national news you would think we all live in New York. Mike DeWine and Gavin Newsome don’t get nearly the attention that Cuomo gets even though both of them responded more quickly. Cuomo is getting the same kind of media coronation that America’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani got after 9-11. Who cared if he insisted against expert advice on putting NYC’s emergency communications system in the World Trade Center and that that decision cost the lives of emergency responders? He was colorful and readily availble to the NY centered national media. This isn’t intended as a criticism of Cuomo, just as evidence of the parochialism of so much of our national media that gives us such a distorted picture of reality.
The focus on Cuomo is that for the most part, he’s a reality check, a counterpart to Trump and the rest of his party. Makes easier to do the opinions differ shtick because for the establishment media there are always two sides.
And BTW, maybe not well, but Cuomo got New York’s curve flattened which is more than you can say about Trump on behalf of the nation.
So why not show some of Newsome’s briefings? He has been really impressive. He reacted more quickly than Cuomo then started organizing a consortium of states so they they could increase their bargaining power for supplies rather than have a price war. He also shared equipment with other states.
And Mike DeWine has also been very effective. He followed the advice of his health experts, both in the government and in Ohio’s major medical regions - Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The hospitals systems in those regions immediately dropped any competition and started coordinating responses for the state.
MSNBC interrupts their regular programs daily to show Cuomo live. That is ridiculous.
I suggest the answer lies in the firepower. I saw one picture of a group (invading) a diner and one “protester” had a .50 cal. machine gun!
The story is how quickly such “liberate” protests can turn extremely bloody.
Under reported is what a clear and present danger these armed mobs are to us all.
Completely off topic Mr. Boehlert, but your books are extremely expensive on Amazon. Much as I’d like to read it $500 is too much for me to afford.
I totally agree. guys w/ long rifles is kind of treated as "oh gee, that's weird." when in fact, it's insurectionism
It was a Subway and the ".50 cal" was a crudely carved wooden replica. Did you catch his buddy walking around carrying a pipe wrench?
Oh, like Trump he was “being sarcastic”?
I don’t know which is sicker, carrying a .50 cal. on your back, or wanting people to think you’re carrying a .50 cal. on your back.
Didn’t see, or look for, a pipe wrench. Another weapon of intimidation in an eating establishment.