First, a little background. I have history with the Strib and coverage of
demonstrations. In particular, I recall that there were a series of
demonstrations all over the country after the Reagan Administration sent
troops to Honduras. Many people believed at the time that this move was a
prelude to an invasion of Nicaragua. In fact, I still believe that was part
of the plan.
I recall hearing a report on KFAI in which they read a list of those
demonstrations and bemoaned the fact that the Star Tribune wasn't covering
them. They encouraged people to call and complain. I called Lou Gelfand
and told him what I thought of this and he replied "I know and it's an
outrage." I asked if he was going to report it himself. His response? "If
they don't, I will".
During Gulf War I there was again numerous demonstrations in small towns,
colleges, and big cities. I myself took reports off of Usenet (a precursor
to the Internet) and read some of them on the air at KFAI. I couldn't read
them all because there were far too many to do that. Again, there was no
mention in the Star Tribune. I didn't bother calling - I'd learned that
lesson before (perhaps I should've anyway).
Yesterday, there were large demonstrations in DC and San Francisco. Initial
reports I was reading put the turnout at 500,000 in DC and about 350,000 in
San Francisco. Given that I was reading from biased reports on
www.indymedia.org I assumed those numbers were high. Nonetheless, I did see
some things that gave me a truer sense of the turnout. An unnamed police
official in DC who declined to give a number was quoted as saying the demo
was "bigger than October" where I knew even mainstream press accounts put
the turnout as high as 100,000 (though 75,000 was probably the consensus in
the mainstream press) and that it was "one of the largest in recent years."
It seemed that a safe number then would be 150,000-200,000. I later read
organizers' estimates of 250,000, though some are still using the 500,000.
Organizers are biased, of course, but you get the idea.
Imagine my surprise when I read the Star Tribune this morning. "30,000
demonstrators" was their report of the march in DC. The byline on the
report was "Associated Press" and I can only conclude that this is lazy
reporting by our local paper.
In perusing the internet I do see now that the official count from the DC
police was 30,000, but that belies their own unoffical statment that it was
"larger than October". Certainly, editors at the StarTribune have access to
more tools then I do and knew that the 30,000 number was disputed. This was
not reported in today's paper.
Numbers are not the be-all and end-all of demonstrations and I don't want to
start a discussion here on anti-war demos in DC (they're not a local issue).
However, the Star Tribune's coverage of national issues IS absolutely a
local issue and I'm outraged that they can so glibly report turnout that's
roughly 1/10th of organizer's estimates.
But, as I said, this is nothing new. If you're so inclined, I encourage you
to call the Strib to complain about lazy and biased reporting. There's no
excuse for this.
Jim McGuire
Como
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
