Offered, without comment

[adderslj]

Here's a link to an alternative view on the big marches last Saturday. I'm offering it without comment mainly because I'm not 100% sure what my reaction to this or the marches is just yet. I'll be interested to hear how other people feel about it.

I will say that I remain annoyed that the Countryside Alliance march only got a fraction of this coverage, despite being over half the size. Media bias? Oh, yes.

Comments

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Barbera Amiel obviously didn't see the large sign we were near to that said "Assassinate Saddam, not thousands of innocents".

I'd respect her argument more if she didn't fall for the usual hyperbole. There's no way she could have seen the whole of the march - it split and snaked through the streets of London like a flood, aided by friendly police trying to keep things moving. We were diverted from the main route a couple of times. So to say "I didn't see one anti-Saddam banner" is pointless. I did. I guess that makes my arguement as valid as hers.

Yes, there were the usual suspects - Socialist Worker out trying to recruit, the multiple iterations of the Peoples Front of Judea (Splitters!) in an acronym soup. To focus on that is to ignore what the strength of the march was - the massive diversity of protesters.

Don't count the professionally produced banners - that's what the usual suspects get up to. Look at the photos and count (and read) the hand made ones - because they're the ones that matter in this instance. They're the ones that were made by people who got up and protested, possibly for the first time ever.

We saw political manifestos, quotations from Martin Luther King and the Bible, historical comment and pop cultural references. It's a shame that Ms. Amiel was only able to see what she thought would best make her point.

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist the noble British journalist.
But then, there's little reason to when seeing what, unbribed, they'll do."

A predictable response from me

[ephraim.livejournal.com]

Ok, well, you did say say you wanted to hear what other people thought. And so, predictably, I figured I'd give you my opinion, as one of those "naive" or "wicked" marchers.

I don't think that there were any of the marchers moving in support of Saddam. No one that I spoke to, and in the 5 hours of marching that was a quite considerable number, was under any illusions that Saddam is anything other than a cruel vicious dictator. However, what Mrs Amiel seems to have missed, or not understood, or wilfully ignored, is that this was an Anti-War march. This was about the marchers standing up in public and telling our government that we do not believe that War on Iraq is justified. That's all. Some of the protestors believed in Regime change, some that the west has no right to dictate policy to other countries. I saw one banner that read "Assasinate Saddam, and save hundreds of thousands of lives".

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment, but my main point for being there was to demonstrate that I do not believe War is the answer. If regime change forced by the west is necessary (and I am prepared to admit that it might be, however worried i am by what may come after), then how does War achieve this? Already the Taliban are starting to get a foothold back in Afghanistan, and Iraq is even more complicated, as there is no alternative power in Iraq to replace Saddam. No Northern Alliance to put into place, so we could end up changing Saddam for an american imposed governor. Just imagine how that would go down in the Arab world! If we are fighting a war against terrorism, I can think of nothing more likely to increase terrorism than America annexing an Arab nation.

But i am digressing. The point of the march was to address one key issue. That we, as people, do not believe that there is justification for war. That's it. Just that. It was not a show of solidarity with Hussein, just a simple statement to the government. To imply otherwise is irresponsible, and misleading. Having read Mrs Amiel's article, her pro-israel anti-muslim bias shines through. This is not a problem, free speech is desirable, but Mrs Amiel-Black (who is married to canadian media magnate Conrad Black) is well known for her right wing views (she described the UN as "a collection of quasi-Marxist and Islamist dictatorships with a few whey-faced Europeans strutting about."), and as such has her own political agenda to follow. Media bias cuts both ways.

Anyway, that's my 2p.

Re: A predictable response from me

[adders.livejournal.com]

> Media bias cuts both ways.

I think this is what troubles me. It looks to me like we're seeing a polarised view in the media of how people political views should be reprsented.

In essence, this article is making exactly the same sort of misrepresentation about the motives of the Anti-War marchers that the papers that support the march made about the Countryside Alliance March. People dismiss and belittle arguments simply because they are being made by the "other" side.

No wonder no-one can be arsed to vote in this benighted country if this is the level of political debate we can aspire to.

Re: A predictable response from me

[ephraim.livejournal.com]

The media is the new global superpower, and boy are they using their power. The best that we can manage is to examine the bias of everything written and apply that consideration when understanding it. Grab as much news as you can, from as many varied sources, and compare and contrast it, somewhere in there is a grain of truth. But we have to battle to find it. Both sides are guilty of manipulation. Which, for me at least, discredits them all. It's a shame that we have to work so hard to get close to the truth of matters, but i guess that's the way the world is these days.

Oh, and for the record, whilst I have reservations about some of the points that the countryside alliance make, on the whole the farming community of this country have consistently been marginalised and ignored by successive governments. Despite what the media would have you believe, most of these issues are not subject to some left/right polarisation.

Re: A predictable response from me

[adders.livejournal.com]

> It's a shame that we have to work so hard to get close to the truth of matters, but i guess
> that's the way the world is these days.

It's the latter half of that comment that bothers me. I'm not so prepared to be accepting of a partisan, biased press. I grew up with some fairly clear ideas about journalistic ethis and I try to hold to them in my day job. I see no reason why highly-paid, influential national press hournalists should not be held to the same standards.

Things like this - http://www.ludicrous.org.uk/mt/archives/000315.html - just make me more determined not to tolerate this.

Perhaps this is why Blogs are growing in popularity. People are enjoying the chance to experience different viewpoints and then form their own opinions, rather than being told what to think by their newspaper of choice.

Re: A predictable response from me

[ephraim.livejournal.com]

The problem, it seems to me, is that there is little to no independence left in the mainstream british media. The newspapers in particular are owned by a very few powerful individuals. Individuals that seem to have no compunction about using their papers as vehicles for their own personal political biases. I'm certain that individual journos have some integrity, but it seems that they are drowned out by the white noise of extremist columnists. As with anything, I suspect that the higher that you rise as a journalist, the more political shit you are forced to eat.

Personally, I'm pretty sick of it. I try to avoid picking up any daily papers, as they tend to induce violent shouting in me. Sure, TV news is little better, but at least I'm shouting invective in the comfort of my own home, rather than on the train/bus/street. The one hope for unbiased news information does seem to be the internet, and even then only because you can examine many many different viewpoints without too much trouble.

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

The main issue here is that I am not in a position to convince Saddam of anything, but I am in a position to convince those who might rely on my vote. Yes, I do think that appealing to Bush is falling on deaf ears (and perhaps to your Blair similarly), but my Congress is starting to listen. I have never heard anyone in my protest circles say that Saddam is a nice man, just that we really should consider war as a last, not a first, resort; and the way it's being carried out is rather suspicious.

I'd like to also note that the last I heard (granted, it was from NPR, our liberal news feed), Saddam was bending over backwards to try to prevent war and said he'd allow further and stricter inspections, and would turn over all papers asked of him. He might be lying, but it behooves us to give him the chance, and it shows his reluctance to get into war.

However, I do wonder if the Iraqi protests were appealing to the USA or to Saddam:





Anyone know?

[point5b.livejournal.com]

After twelve years, it might be time to go to that last resort, if that is war. On the other hand, you've said that Iraq has done nothing justifying going to war over, so why talk about a "last resort"?

As for the protestors, apparently Iraq's military is so busy that they could only spare enough guys to round up a couple of thousand people for their protests.

Barbara Amiel

[thebitterguy]

I thought the country was smelling too nice. I guess she scurried off to England with Lord Black so his hometown boys could get some testicle polishing in.

Christ, my hate of kOnrad blAck know no limit.