Comments on: Of Howard Kurtz, Media Narratives, and Historical Myths http://helian.net/blog/2010/01/05/history/of-howard-kurtz-media-narratives-and-historical-myths/ The world as I see it Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:54:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: admin0 http://helian.net/blog/2010/01/05/history/of-howard-kurtz-media-narratives-and-historical-myths/comment-page-1/#comment-569 admin0 Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:59:51 +0000 http://helian.net/blog/?p=1033#comment-569 Mea culpa. Regardless, it's not difficult to find examples of fawning coverage of anti-war demonstrations in the legacy media from the period in question, as my other examples demonstrate. If anyone had reason to complain, it was the guys on the other side. I attended a "Support the Troops" rally in Harrisburg, PA in March 2003. There were easily 10,000 people there, yet I saw no mention of the event on TV, newspapers, or the web, although there was copious coverage of anti-war demonstrations, many of which were much smaller. Interestingly, the Foxnews website also did not mention the Harrisburg rally in a story about demonstrations on its website the day after the event, probably because they often use feed from AP with little alteration of the spin, if any. You can find one of the few articles that eventually did appear about the event at: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-03-30/news/0303300246_1_beck-clear-channel-war Note the snarky attitude of the author and the "zinger" line at the end: "Many of the rallies are paid for by local Clear Channel stations, with contributions from one of Beck's advertisers, clothing manufacturer Bills Khakis of Reading, Pa." You'll find nothing like that about anti-war demos in the legacy media. BTW, I opposed the war from the start, because I considered it then and still consider it now a war of aggression. It doesn't alter the fact that the myth of uncritical legacy media coverage is just that - a myth. Mea culpa. Regardless, it’s not difficult to find examples of fawning coverage of anti-war demonstrations in the legacy media from the period in question, as my other examples demonstrate. If anyone had reason to complain, it was the guys on the other side. I attended a “Support the Troops” rally in Harrisburg, PA in March 2003. There were easily 10,000 people there, yet I saw no mention of the event on TV, newspapers, or the web, although there was copious coverage of anti-war demonstrations, many of which were much smaller. Interestingly, the Foxnews website also did not mention the Harrisburg rally in a story about demonstrations on its website the day after the event, probably because they often use feed from AP with little alteration of the spin, if any. You can find one of the few articles that eventually did appear about the event at:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-03-30/news/0303300246_1_beck-clear-channel-war
Note the snarky attitude of the author and the “zinger” line at the end: “Many of the rallies are paid for by local Clear Channel stations, with contributions from one of Beck’s advertisers, clothing manufacturer Bills Khakis of Reading, Pa.” You’ll find nothing like that about anti-war demos in the legacy media. BTW, I opposed the war from the start, because I considered it then and still consider it now a war of aggression. It doesn’t alter the fact that the myth of uncritical legacy media coverage is just that – a myth.

]]> By: Jim Naureckas http://helian.net/blog/2010/01/05/history/of-howard-kurtz-media-narratives-and-historical-myths/comment-page-1/#comment-568 Jim Naureckas Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:07:52 +0000 http://helian.net/blog/?p=1033#comment-568 I'd just like to point out that the "contemporary comments" you quote from FAIR are from 2007, describing a 2007 protest (as you can see from the date cited). Years after the launch of what had become a deeply unpopular war, coverage of protests had changed somewhat, though the article from our magazine was still noting the Post's coverage as exceptional, not typical. Here's a release from FAIR that talks about the Post's coverage in the period Kurtz is describing: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1644 I’d just like to point out that the “contemporary comments” you quote from FAIR are from 2007, describing a 2007 protest (as you can see from the date cited). Years after the launch of what had become a deeply unpopular war, coverage of protests had changed somewhat, though the article from our magazine was still noting the Post’s coverage as exceptional, not typical. Here’s a release from FAIR that talks about the Post’s coverage in the period Kurtz is describing:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1644

]]>