Friday, March 4, 2011

Just a little rant about the media

In preparing for a trip to D.C. to protest the ongoing war in Iraq with FCNL for their Spring Lobby Weekend, my friend and I were talking about it and he mentioned that he was in NYC in 2003 when the Valentine's Day Weekend protests took place there and all over the world.

"Wasn't that the largest worldwide protest of all time?" he asked, looking it up online as he spoke.

"I have no idea," I responded, remembering that I had still been in England when those protests were taking place, and only 13 years old: there was no way I remembered the news coverage of the protests from that time.

And there's the kicker. The American and British media barely covered the protests. What a surprise.

Here's an eloquent summary of the situation from Wilson's Blogmanac: "Grimly determined to invade Iraq and thus secure fossil fuels to drive Western consumerism, the leaders of the 'Free World' plugged their ears when global protests against war on Iraq occurred in more than 600 cities worldwide. Estimates from 10 million - 15 million made this the largest day of protest in the history of humankind ..."

Why is it that these record-breaking protests, clearly a sign of our discontent, are swept away under the carpet, and the media coverage is filled with weapons technology and military analysts talking tactics and strategy as the build-up went on without pause?

Why is it that we have the right to free speech negated by the fact that our own leaders refuse to listen?

I am angry. But I'll be there on March 19, making my voice heard.

1 comment:

  1. Who owns the media that refuses to cover mass protests? Thanks for helping us be our own media, Jade.