The Ghost of Protests Past
Did the press give short shrift to Bush-haters?
BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
By JAMES TARANTO
The popular rebellion against ObamaCare--and the Democrats' counterattack against the voters--has turned out to be the political story of the year. But of course it's far from the first time that America has seen protests against a president's policies. Writing at FoxNews.com, Bill Sammon faults the media for covering today's protests differently than yesterdays--specifically, than a rowdy 2002 gathering outside a Portland, Ore., hotel where then-President Bush was speaking:
<<< Protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.
One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.
"BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE." . . .
A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.
Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!" . . .
angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"
Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire. >>>
Sammon was with the Washington Times at the time; part of his Aug. 25, 2002, report is here.
To some extent the discrepancies in coverage are defensible as a matter of news judgment. A left-wing protest is a dog-bites-man story; screaming, chanting and carrying obnoxious signs is simply what those people do. On the right, by contrast, there is no tradition of such demonstrations--with the notable exception of the antiabortion movement--so that when one (or many) materializes, it represents a genuine phenomenon.
The protests outside the presidential appearance are of more interest in 2009 than in 2002 precisely because the protests of 2009 are so much more meaningful than those of '02. Whereas anti-Bush protesters were an incidental nuisance, the entire purpose of President Obama's "town hall" was to answer the protests that have swept the nation.
Then again, Sammon has a point when he argues that the media are eager to paint anti-ObamaCare protesters as extremists and did whitewash the actual extremism of anti-Bush protesters. The craziest quote in this 2002 Associated Press story, for instance, is the humdrum "Drop Bush, not bombs."
An even better example is the coverage of Cindy Sheehan, who became a media darling four years ago this month. News stories touted her as a normal mother grieving over the loss of her son in Iraq, when in fact she was an America-hating extremist. Imagine if someone who was both a birther and a racist emerged as the chief anti-ObamaCare poster child and the press covered such a person sympathetically while downplaying his crackpot views.
Still, even if the coverage of the anti-ObamaCare effort is unsympathetic or even hostile, all evidence is that it is helping the cause. That Obama felt it necessary to respond is Exhibit A. Which leads one to wonder: If the media had paid more attention to anti-Iraq protests back in the summer and autumn of 2002, would that have turned public opinion against the prospective war and against Bush?
Our guess is that it wouldn't have--that viewers would have discounted the protesters as the usual malcontents, just as journalists, for the most part, did. It's possible that this surmise reflects our own bias, and it is true that public opinion started turning against Iraq somewhere around the time Sheehan enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame. Still, we're inclined to think that Sheehan did not, in the end, have much of an effect.
If you're inclined to disagree, consider this: The U.S. has now been in Iraq more than 2½ times as long as it had been when Sheehan became a celebrity.
online.wsj.com |
