------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Nov. 7, 2002 issue of Workers World newspaper -------------------------
FAIR HITS NPR, NEW YORK TIMES: MEDIA WATCHDOG CRITICIZES ANTI-WAR RALLY COVERAGE [Coverage of the huge Washington, D.C., anti-war demonstration on Oct. 26 was so belittling and biased in the New York Times and on National Public Radio that it evoked a firestorm of protest from a broad section of the movement. The Times coverage was minimal and derogatory. It estimated the crowd at "thousands" and said organizers were disappointed at the turnout.] But after the Times was bombarded with thousands of calls, including from the ANSWER coalition organizers, and its obvious lies became a hot issue with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and programs like Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now, the newspaper finally, on Oct. 30, published a second article on the demonstration. It acknowledged that at least 100,000 people had marched, far exceeding the organizers' original estimates, and reported that the success of the event was spurring on plans for new protests all over the country. Following are excerpts from an advisory sent out by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting on Oct. 28: National Public Radio and the New York Times arrived at the same conclusion about the anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. this weekend [Oct. 26]: The turnout was disappointing. But neither report matched reality. The Times account on Oct. 27 was vague, reporting that "thousands of protesters marched through Washington's streets," adding that "fewer people attended than organizers had said they hoped for." The report, which was under 500 words, appeared on page 8 of the paper. On the Oct. 26 broadcast of Weekend Edition, NPR's Nancy Marshall went even further to disparage the turnout by offering an estimate on the crowd's size: "It was not as large as the organizers of the protest had predicted. They had said there would be 100,000 people here. I'd say there are fewer than 10,000." While a turnout of less than 10,000 might have been a disappointment, NPR's estimate is greatly at odds with those of other observers. The Los Angeles Times (10/27/02) reported that over 100,000 participated in the march, while the Washington Post's page A1 story (10/27/02) was headlined "100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq." The Post added that Saturday's march was "an anti-war demonstration that organizers and police suggested was likely Washington's largest since the Vietnam era." While both the Times and NPR reported the apparent disappointment of the organizers, none were named or quoted directly. Those who spoke to other news outlets expressed just the opposite; organizer Mara Verheyden-Hilliard told the Washington Post the march was "just extremely, extremely successful." Perhaps someone at NPR noticed: The next day Weekend Edition anchor Liane Hansen introduced a report about anti-war demonstrations by saying that "organizers say 100,000 protesters were gathered." The New York Times did not run any follow-up article updating its estimate of the crowd size. [Since this was written, it has.--WW] - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php) ------------------ This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service. To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
