Protest Media Coverage

An "Unbiased" Report

After the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) protests in Chicago last week, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune gave the demonstrators front-page coverage. The TABD was a meeting between 350 corporate CEOs and government officials from the United States and Europe. Human rights activists, labor union members, anarchists, and many other progressive activists all met to demonstrate in the streets of Chicago. Protestors gathered in Chicago to confront the un-democratic, closed-door meetings of the corporate executives. Many Americans view these meeting as un-democratic in a free society because the meetings are closed to average citizens. In a free society, all citizens should have the right to attend meetings where public policy is determined. The acts in Chicago were those of a population that continually finds itself marginalized and left out of important national policy decisions. Many people feel their only option is to take to the streets and directly confront the corporate and government criminals who carve this country up amongst themselves to the detriment of the American public.

The reporting of the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times is clearly biased towards the police, who often protect and serve the corporations instead of the public. The corporate media always tries to find ways to discredit the protestors and make the police look like they are "keepers of the peace." The front headlines for both the Chicago Tribune - "Police presence overshadows protest" - and the Chicago Sun-Times - "More Police Than Protestors" - claim that there were more police officers than protestors. However, independent reports confirmed the number protestors at around 2,000 when there were about 1,200 policemen. The Chicago Sun-Times reported, "Police estimate the crowd at about 800 people, while protest organizers put the number of marchers at 2,000. The actual number of demonstrators appeared to be somewhere in between. At least 1,200 officers wearing riot gear were posted along the route." So, if they believe the actual number is between 800 and 2,000, why would they put a headline that says that there were more police than protestors? They do this in an attempt to marginalize the protestors, who are directly challenging corporate power.

The language of the writers for the Chicago Tribune proves their bias. When the writers use words like "overshadow," it implies that they take the side of the police over the public. But the Tribune can get away with subtly framing their arguments in favor of the police and corporations because of the supposed "objective" format they write under. What so many Americans do not understand is that just because one supposedly writes under an "objective" format, it does not mean they are in fact objective. In fact, there has never been one "objective" reporter in U.S. history. What makes every writer biased is not so much the format they write under, but rather what they focus on in their article (what they emphasize), and more importantly what they omit from their reporting. The corporate media is well-known in dissident circles for their flagrant bias, not always because of what they print, but more often for the important contexts and relevant background information that they leave out of their reporting. In the TABD reporting, they leave out the fact that the protestors are meeting in Chicago because businessmen are making decisions about national policy without even minimal accountability. This is a direct contradiction to what should be happening in a democratic society. Business should not be able to meet behind closed doors and make up policies without public influence and input. But the Tribune and Sun-Times do not subscribe to democratic principles. This is obvious because the Tribune and Sun-Times leave out the real reason the protestors gathered in Chicago (to protest un-checked corporate dominance of public policy). As a result of this important omission and censorship by the corporate media, most Americans do not have any understanding of the context of the protests. It seems very peculiar that having a large police presence was associated with "keeping the peace," especially since when we look back at the history of public demonstrations: most of the violence has come from the state. When we look at footage from Seattle in 1999, activists using non-violent civil disobedience were sprayed with pepper spray, arrested even in areas that the police designated as protests areas, beaten, shot with rubber bullets, or tear gassed These are just some examples of police violence used against peaceful protestors; but this behavior by police is consistent throughout U.S. history. Violence has more often come from the state, not the people. Unfortunately, the media again omits any historical perspective concerning state violence used against public demonstrators. The Chicago Tribune clearly condoned the anti-democratic statements that Mayor Daley made about the protestors. Mayor Daley commented on the possibility of over-preparing for "violent disruptions" that "plagued" other cities with similar protests. Daley states, "You want some killed, injured, someone beaten up, some police officer seriously injured?" He continues, "They had Seattle, they had Washington, D.C. they had Europe. I'm sorry. This is Chicago. We do prepare." Mayor Daley clearly does not understand that protesting is a fundamental right given to us in the First Amendment. That right should be protected and encouraged. Somehow, all the "violent disruptions" suggests Daley does not really sympathize with citizens of this country who exercise their First Amendment rights against injustice. However, the Tribune did not feel that it was important to comment on Daley's position. Daley makes unconscionable and inaccurate correlations between violence and peaceful protestors. It should be obvious whose side he is really on when he makes such ignorant statements. When Daley equates non-violent protestors with "plagues" and "violent disruptions," he shows that he has no real commitment to democratic, non-violent grassroots movements. He does, however, show his commitment to the corporate police state and his concern for protecting corporate power. Predictably, the Tribune felt it was necessary to report that the CEOs of the TABD were not affected by the protests and did not even know that they were going on, as if they were meaningless. Toby Malichi, founder of a business development company, stated, "Because of the peace of mind and security, it helps our delegation focus on the issues at hand. We aren't even aware that there are protests going on outside." The Tribune reports that Malichi, "praised Chicago police for ensuring the conference proceeded smoothly." How can the media be unbiased when they report without comment that the police are protecting and serving the private from the public? Aren't the police supposed to protect and serve the public? Unfortunately, the media do not challenge this fundamental basis for the police actions. Instead, they side with the police, who serve and protect corporations that are causing political, social, economic and environmental turmoil throughout the world. Most Americans seem to ignore how the corporate media are not "objective" or "unbiased." How is it possible for the corporate media to be objective when they are funded by mega-corporations more interested in serving their own authoritarian agendas rather than the public good? Most public discussions ignore the fact that when media outlets rely totally on corporate funding, they inevitably have to serve corporate interests (rather than public interests) to stay in business. The corporate media serves a vital role in the business community. They are not in the business of reporting "all the news that's fit to print." They are in the business of selling one group of privileged individuals to another group of privileged individuals. The corporate media sell affluent consumers to corporations. It could be no other way in a media system that is run on corporate funding and spends over one-third of its time advertising. Indeed, it would be very strange and inconsistent if the corporate media were not doing everything in their power to support the big business agenda.

If the Chicago Tribune wanted to run stories critiquing corporations and their near-total domination of American politics and popular culture, chances are that the paper would not last for long. Why would corporations funding the Chicago Tribune support a newspaper that directly criticizes the way they do business? And more importantly, why would the Chicago Tribune alienate itself and distance itself from its core supporters? The corporations that own media channels are totally reliant on advertising dollars.

The corporate media does not give "unbiased" reporting like they claim. The corporate media consistently support management over labor, large businesses over small businesses, elected officials and police over non-violent protestors, and conformity to the current political and economic structures over alternative structures. The Indy has always taken a side on issues, and we come right out and say it. We have consistently said that we are for freedom, democracy, equality, justice, and ideals of the like. Any media should be biased, because people writing for any paper have their own set of beliefs and values. If we are to look to newspapers for information, that means we expect our journalists to be well informed on what they are reporting. And if they are well informed, shouldn't they have an opinion on what they are reporting? Why should we listen to a reporter that is supposed to be so educated, but does not have the convictions to share his or her opinion?

Political decisions made by our leaders always have ramifications for citizens. In every policy there will naturally be winners and losers. So in this world of winners and losers, where politicians and business leaders take clear-cut stands on what they believe, why do we not expect our "reporters" to do the same? Shouldn't they have the courage to speak their minds? It is time for reporters in Bloomington-Normal, Chicago, and throughout the U.S. to show some backbone and actually raise journalism and reporting to an intellectual level. Most Americans would probably be happy to support media outlets that have the courage to say what they believe. All local papers have to do is take the first step. After all, wouldn't it be more interesting to read newspapers that make you think, rather than the same old white-washed corporate garbage?