How should the peace movement deal with the media?

author : Sandy Mayes topic : Iraq occupation

by Sandy Mayes

As any regular WIP reader knows, there are a lot of people in this town working at various levels and through a variety of tactics to bring an end to the war in Iraq. Considering the diversity of perspectives and philosophies among the many local peace and justice groups, there is an amazing degree of goodwill and cooperation between them. But there are differences of opinion about strategy and style which often revolve around the question of managing the movement's public image -- through direct contact with the public and, in particular, through the media.

Misrepresentation in The Olympian

Those differences surfaced recently when, on October 30, The Olympian placed, above the fold, on the "South Sound" section cover, a 5 by 7 inch photo of an angry exchange between two women directly under the headline referencing a peace vigil on the Fourth Avenue bridge. Seven hundred people participated in this event which was titled "2,000 is 2,000 too many: Mourning All the Dead in Iraq." The photo, however, was taken at a separate event at the port, which occurred spontaneously, immediately following the vigil, in response to the arrival of a US Navy cargo ship coming in from Iraq. [We requested permission to reprint the photo here, but the Olympian editors refused.]

The ill-placed photo created an overt misrepresentation of the vigil on the bridge which - according to organizer Glen Anderson - was "100% peaceful." For Anderson and other vigil organizers, this misrepresentation was especially galling since so much care and planning were devoted to assuring an event which would be conflict-free. They had "greeters" on hand to welcome vigilers and even went so far as to place an announcement in The Olympian the preceding day advising potential participants to display only "peaceful" messages: "The event is intended to be a peaceful memorial to the loss of Iraqi, American and other lives in the war. Peaceful signs are welcome, but signs reflecting sarcasm or other issues are not."

The response to The Olympian's coverage was swift; in very short order they were inundated with phone calls and emails protesting the distorted representation of the vigil, resulting in two op-ed commentaries:

On November 2, Olympian Executive Editor Vickie Kilgore defended the layout: "The photo was chosen by editors because it was visually compelling, it included more than one perspective and it captured emotion. The message of the photo was an important one for readers to see." She even goes on to take a swipe at Edward R. Murrow in his "approach to McCarthy" for journalism which "slides into righteous advocacy without apology."

In his op-ed a couple days later, Glen Anderson used his allotted 525 words to argue for "truth and accuracy" in reporting - on behalf of a "democratic society". He also emphasized that the altercation between the women in the photo "was the only negative incident in an otherwise peaceful day." In the upcoming issue of the Fellowship of Reconciliation Newsletter, he takes that point further in a section entitled "Why we need nonviolence training":

Yes, the Olympian is certainly at fault for using an inaccurate photo to perpetuate the stereotype that the peace movement is negative and consists mainly of Evergreen students. However, the young woman who argued with the older woman also was responsible for the bad publicity. Without their argument the Olympian would have had to choose a more accurate and representative photo from among the dozens of photos taken that day. The older woman had arrived precisely to harass the group and provoke a reaction, and she achieved her goal when the younger woman "took the bait." Training in nonviolence, Nonviolent Communication, and peacekeeping give us skills in maintaining our dignity, defusing other people's anger, and de-escalating tense situations. If the younger woman -- and more of the other peace folks around them -- had practiced nonviolence we could have solved the problem quickly and deprived the Olympian of the opportunity to express its bias.

Managing media images

Anderson's commentary raises certain questions, such as: 1) To what degree can the peace and justice movement ever hope to deprive the corporate media of opportunities to express its bias, 2) How necessary or even "truthful and accurate" would it be to wash, from the media, images or expressions of rage against the war? [or against poverty and racism -- see "Saving Rosa" on page 9] and 3) How important is it and how much energy should be spent attempting to manage image?

I asked Glen about these things. Despite his earlier admonition about certain messages being unwelcome, Anderson insists that his primary objective is to create a "welcoming" environment and image -- particularly for members of "the mainstream public who have doubts about the war . . . new people who have been sitting on the fence" and who might be alienated or repelled by certain "inflammatory" or "partisan" messages (ie -- "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.") In order to build the movement we need to "be inclusive, not offending."

He also said, "We need a culture shift in the whole progressive community . . . embracing nonviolence." "Given that The Olympian runs photographs, how do we want to be depicted?" As an example of the strategy he embraces, he referenced the civil rights movement of the early sixties. He believes that media images of southern Blacks on the receiving end of abuse and violence -- not fighting back -- were pivotal in persuading much of White America of the injustices suffered by people in that region. He believes we must likewise decline to "fight back". "If there is to be suffering . . . better us." It gives us "the moral high ground."

We need our own media

But not everyone in the movement believes that images can be managed so precisely -- or that efforts in that regard should take such high priority. I asked Alice Zillah of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace to comment. She said, "Corporate media, including the Olympian, has only one job: to sell papers. I don't think we should let it distract us from the real issues going on. We should use it when we can, but ignore it otherwise. Reality, not representation, desperately needs our attention."

For instance, Anderson stated that the altercation between the two women was the "only negative incident" occurring between the vigil on the bridge and events at the port that day. Others would say that the arrival of a war ship in the Port of Olympia that day was a far more "negative" event -- as the port continues to profit from the war through these visits.

And what does it say about "the public" when we assume that our best hope for persuading them to our point of view is for them to see us receiving abuse -- or if we assume that they can't be trusted to see people in conflict or expressing rage? The degree that this perspective is valid is due to the fact that the media does not provide context for the conflict and rage.

Certainly there is value in being thoughtful and strategic about how we present our selves in any campaign. And the responses to The Olympian's gross distortion were valid; deceptive reporting in the mainstream media has to be challenged. In addition to the calls and emails there was also a protest at The Olympian and a flurry of letters to the editor -- all of which was important and necessary.

But there will always be conflict and expressions of rage about injustice - these things can never be completely erased from view - and it will usually be what the media chooses to zero in on. Since that is the case, managing media images can't be the only, or even the primary, focus of outreach. If we want to define our agenda and its parameters, we must create and support alternatives to the corporate media. As Larry Mosqueda says in the article on the following page, "It is wrong to believe that if 'we' behave ourselves to the standards of the power elite, ruling class, or establishment (take your pick) that they will give us good coverage. We need our own press, which we have to some degree in Olympia."

Yes, and the "degree" to which we have our own press is up to us - you and me -- the citizenry. Independent media needs independent resources -- human and otherwise.

There are a number of independent media projects in our community worthy of support. Here, I will highlight two whose need for additional resources is especially urgent:

1) Keeping Democracy Now! on TCTV

There really is no other broadcast news and analysis project that compares to the national weekly radio and TV program, Democracy Now! And although the program is available on two separate radio stations in Olympia (KAOS 89.3FM and FRO 98.5 FM) it is essential that we also keep it on TCTV which reaches a whole different potential audience. See page X for more information about keeping DN! on local access TV for another year.

2) Works In Progress

This newspaper needs more money and more human energy. Money can come in the form of advertisements, donations or subscriptions. We need people with skills using layout software, proofreading, and website management. We need someone to sell ads. And we need better coverage of local issues. See page 2 for contact info.

Why was Heidi angry?

Heidi Hanson was one of the 70 people who headed for the port to protest the military ship after the vigil on the bridge. She is the young woman whose photo image has been at the center of the controversy discussed in this article.

Heidi was standing with a group of friends in front of the gate at the port holding a peace sign. As the older woman approached the group, she immediately seemed to zero-in on Heidi. "She came up to me and just started screaming. She was pointing her finger and yelling things like, 'I'm ashamed of you!' . . . At first, I just stood there smiling and holding my peace sign. . . . But I got the energy and I responded to it."

Heidi tried repeatedly to interject as the woman yelled at her, saying, "What about Brian Penisten?!" -- the fallen soldier whose name Heidi was wearing around her neck. Finally, she screamed that question at the woman which, she says, is when the camera clicked. When the photographer asked for her name, Heidi says she gave it to him on the condition that he would include in the caption what she was saying in the photo.

That didn't happen.