Since the decision whether or not to go to war isn’t going to be made by a head-count of protesters, I don’t see the benefit of me “protesting”.
- Rucksinator
(Besides, protesting in the streets is so 70’s)
Scott I think the simple answer is that, as Blalron more or less stated, you don’t need to protest in favor of the status quo. The only exception to this is protesting if the status quo is in danger (e.g. though abortion is legal, a pro-choice group might protest if there were an anti-Roe justice appointed to the Supreme Court). So nobody’s demonstrating because there’s really nothinng to demonstrate against.
FANG
I understand the point you’re making.
What seems odd to me is that pro-war people are so “pragmatic” about deciding whether or not to make public demonstrations.
It seems a pro-interventionist might see the evening news reports of the protests and say, “Gee, those people aren’t speaking for me…maybe I should get my buds together and hit the streets.”
Sure, it’s not NECESSARY, in that his/her point of view always seemed likely to prevail. But (as in sports events) people usually look for an excuse to throng and yell–or so I thought.
It’s not just a pro-war vs anti-war thing. It’s a left vs right thing. The left has always been big on public protests. The right just doesn’t seem to go in for chanting slogans and holding signs up in large protests.
For example, you see lots of anti-globalization protests, but I can’t remember a bunch of conservatives marching on Washington in a massive free trade rally. There are lots of environmental protests, but I can’t remember a large rally of pro lumber activists.
Here are some photos of a massive pro-war rally in DC.
Well, there are quite a few pro-war rallies going on this month. Here’s an article about a pro-war rally in Atlanta on the weekend that apparently attracted between 10 and 20 thousand people. According to the article:
Now, you might ask, who is behind this “Rallies for America” series? It’s obviously not the tree-hugging peacenik lefties who sponsor the anti-war rallies. Maybe it’s a veterans’ group, or a conservative PAC, or a church group? No on all counts.
According to today’s Chicago Tribune, the “Rallies for America” series is actually a case of the media making news for itself to cover. You see, the rallies have been organized and sponsored by Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., America’s largest owner of radio stations (1,233 at last count). Here’s some more from the Tribune story:
(note: the weblink provided above is to the Common Dreams website, but they have printed the whole Tribune story in full. The actual Tribune link is here, but requires registration)
I was actually going to start a new GD thread on this issue, and if there’s anough interest i still might.
But, to answer the OP, it seems that there are indeed pro-war rallies. And while the sentiments of the demonstrators themselves are no doubt real enough, you have to ask whether the media itself should be the ones organizing these sorts of demonstrations.
MHENDO–
Thanks for the fascinating tidbit, which I have heard absolutely noting about heretofore!
“…And while the sentiments of the demonstrators themselves are no doubt real enough, you have to ask whether the media itself should be the ones organizing these sorts of demonstrations…”
Good point. But on the other hand, I’m not so sure the massive anti-war demonstrations are just a lotta people getting together to express their thoughts. I have the impression that various organizations provide at least the kernel for these things to take place; and if it’s OK on the left, why not the other side?
Still, your point is that the media, specifically, maybe shouldn’t–a troubling issue.
Yes, it’s the last line in your post that i think is of crucial importance.
Sure, left-wing groups, church groups, etc., etc., had a hand in organizing all the anti-war demonstrations. And there were even some left, progressive and liberal media organizations involved. But every one of these groups is up-front about its involvement in the anti-war movement, both in its own literature and at the events themselves.
I don’t listen to any Clear Channel radio stations, but i’d be interested to know whether these stations, when reporting the “Rallies for America” as news, make any mention that these rallies are organized by Clear Channel subsidiary, Premiere Radio Networks Inc., and radio personaltiy Glenn Beck, whose syndicated program is carried on quite a number of Clear Channel/Premiere Radio stations.
Officials at Clear Channel, according to this story, “stress that they don’t organize the rallies.” But, as the story also points out, Clear Channel’s own website carries a press release (note: pdf file) publicising the rallies and outlining the connection between Clear Channel, Premiere Radio, and Glenn Beck. It’s hard to see how Clear Channel can separate itself from this, and if Clear Channel stations fail to mention the connection when reporting on the rallies, then it’s pretty deceptive media practice, IMO.
My own position is that i really have no problem with any organization taking a position on the war, or on other issues. The only problem is when the organization takes such a position and then continues to report events as if it were a completely objective source of information. If Clear Channel stations are disclosing the company’s role in organizing the rallies, i have no problem with this whole thing.
And i don’t mean just a press release on their website that no-one is ever going to see. Half the people listening to Clear Channel stations have probably never even heard of the company. I mean that if/when the “Rallies for America” are reported as news, the news report should include a disclaimer that the station’s parent company and some of its employees and syndicated personalities were heavily involved in the organization of the events in question.
Because it isn’t a very effective way to change government, and most people realize that. People that protest do it to feel good about themselves, or to impress other like minded people. Or they are simply bored and needs something to do. If they really wanted to change things they would A) Vote B) Contribute to a candidate or party that backs their agenda C) Write a letter.
As for the media creating news to report. All of the big media outlets are FOR PROFIT businesses. They are paid to entertain, plain and simple.
Welcome to SDMB, Hammer. I hope you’ll continue to bless the Great Debates forum with such incisive, complex and nuanced analysis of the media and other institutions.
Oh, God, I’m going to be sick.
Clear Channel has started the Rally for America rallies so that they can have something to cover? Are you out of your freaking mind?
CNN has done nothing but cover the Anti-war rallies in order to further it’s liberal agenda of derailing the war. Then people here claim that, because the media isn’t covering any rallies that support the war, there must be no support.
Then, in order to organize those of us who believe that the war is necessary, Glenn Beck not Clear Channel, decides to start holding rallies, to show those arrogant liberals that just because they have the loudest mouths, they do **not[/] constitute the majority opinion.
And then what? You start claiming that it’s a put up job?
You know what? I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because I thought he was paranoid. I thought that there really couldn’t be idiots so mentally damaged that they could convince themselves of such garbage. I guess I was wrong.
So, to answer your question:
Yes, we conservatives do in fact march and rally and such. It’s just that CNN doesn’t want to cover it. We had somewhere around 10,000 people in the rally here in Oklahoma a couple of weeks ago. (no, I didn’t stop and do a head count, but that’s a rough approximation based on how many people I saw vs. at football games, etc.)
Wow, a bit touchy there, aren’t we?
Glenn Beck might have been the main driving force behind the rallies, but if you read the quote i gave from the Chicago Tribune you’ll see that it said “Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people.” And if you would read your own link to Beck’s website, you would see that it states quite clearly that the radio stations themselves were key players and sponsors in organizing the rallies.
For example, on this page it clearly says:
And here it says:
And WGST’s own website claims the Atlanta rally as its own, saying:
Do you really think that these stations didn’t get the OK from their corporate owners before making such an obvious political statement?
Despite my rather flippant comments in my first post about these rallies being “a case of the media making news for itself to cover,” that was not my main arguument. If you’ll go back and read my posts you’ll see that i made no comment about whether pro-war rallies were a good thing or a bad thing. Nor did i ever say that those who attended the “Rallies for America” were duped, or that they weren’t genuine in expressing their sentiments. I’m sure they were, and i respect their right to march and to support the war. If you look really closely, you might even find the sentence where i said that “the sentiments of the demonstrators themselves are no doubt real enough,” but added that i felt that “you have to ask whether the media itself should be the ones organizing these sorts of demonstrations.”
And this last factor was the key one, for me. Whether or not you agree with CNN’s coverage of the issue (and i think you vastly overstate the network’s “opposition” to war), at least CNN hasn’t actually been sponsoring anti-war rallies. It was never the “Rallies for America” themselves that i had a problem with; i fully believe in the right of all people - liberal and conservative, left and right, etc. - to express their opinions openly and freely. If 10 million people wanted to attend a pro-war rally, i’d have no problem with it at all. But i’m still pretty suspicious when the media itself actually sponsors a political event that its news reporters are then expected to cover as news. It’s a bit like the local NBC affiliate airing an interview with one of the stars of Friends (which airs on NBC) and calling it news, rather than advertising.
And at no stage did i descend to calling conservatives “arrogant,” as you did with liberals. Unlike you, apparently, i don’t believe that the simple airing of opinions and attending of protest marches constitutes arrogance.