• about
• archives
• rss feed

« Some Sunday Links · Oh No He Didn't! »

On Marching

26 September 2005 - gk - reactions

If a Peace March happened and no one covered it, did it happen? Nicholas Beaudrot thinks so, but we aren't so sure.

The problem we've always had (and others) with modern protests, is that they end up protesting a hodge-podge of issues; message discipline down the toilet. This allows others to present fringe actors as endemic of the whole. Which is too bad.

Conversely, it really does seem that the media as a whole are doing a poor job of covering the protests, especially when traffic cams give a better picture of the protest. We don't think it is vindictive or a conspiracy, but the media as a whole seems to take quite a while to actually understand mass popular movements. It is an institutional problem as much as a problem of media consolidation.

As for those favoring the status quo, regardless of rhetorical devices, it is apparent to all who looks at Iraq and realize that the situation is clearly fucked. Big Media Matt is right that what will change the status quo is not change in operational tempo, but a political change, from parties not under the direction of the US. A flawed WaPo editorial has at least one good insight:

The only way for Iraq to avoid catastrophe is a political accord among Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, one that can be based only on the preservation of Iraq as a federal but unified state in which resources and political power are fairly shared and human rights protected.

No amount of staying-of-the-course will affect this, and actually keeping the status quo might be hindering this political accord. But to bring this up in mixed company is akin to admitting defeat. And that is a shame, because not looking for alternatives to the present course, is actively hurting the process.

This kind of thinking is exactly what gave us this photo from the President and the disaster in New Orleans.