|
CounterPunch
February
1, 2003
Iraqt-Up!
At
the DC Rallies, a Few Hundred Thousand Go Missing
by MATT TAIBBI
WASHINGTON,
D.C., Saturday, Jan. 17. It is
cold as a bitch out here. Journalism of any kind, in fact, is
practically impossible. Less than ten minutes after arriving
here at this small tree-lined park in the shadow of the Washington
monument, I had to ask BEAST publisher Paul Fallon for an extra
pair of gloves to put on over the thin leather ones I was wearing.
If you've ever tried to take notes on a legal pad in below-freezing
temperatures while wearing two pairs of gloves at the same time,
you can understand the obstacles I've faced. It's been a difficult
morning. We had come out early that morning for the first-- and
most twisted by far-- of the weekend's Iraq-related protests.
The main event, the anti-war protest at the mall sponsored by
International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism),
was due to start at 11 a.m. This pre-event, scheduled for 9 a.m.,
was the day's journalistic appetizer, a freak show too tantalizing
for any responsible press organ to ignore. It was the pro-war
demonstration, run by one of the most amazingly-named organizations
in the history of American activism.
MOVE-OUT stood for Marines and Other
Veterans Engaging Outrageous Un-American Traitors.
The MOVE-OUT protest was like a caricature
of a left-wing paranoid's idea of a staged CIA diversion. It
had all the elements of a low-budget piece of fake political
theater: a suspiciously high level of press participation (according
to our careful count, there were 80 "protesters" and
40 journalists), a pile of carefully-rationed "protest"
placards with high production values (a nicely airbrushed painting
of George Bush in a muscle-bound Uncle Sam pose), a near-total
absence of local protesters, and, last but not least, a single
well-dressed, smiling, traitorous black person representing the
"cause" (Kevin Martin, head of the "African-American
Republican Leadership Council"). This thing was about as
spontaneous as the applause for Comrade Stalin at the Fifth Party
Congress. Offered the chance, I would have bet serious money
that at least half of the protesters were secretaries and janitors
from the NSA offices.
My hands were numb because I had kept
them out of my pockets for long stretches in a frantic attempt
to record for posterity the amazing rhetoric of the MOVE-OUT
speakers. Some of the speeches were of a type not seen since
Bluto rallied the troops in Animal House. Only this slapstick
comedy, this was real. Martin, the corpulent Oreo, gave a typical
speech: "Our troops have always been there for us,"
he said, "from the time of World War I, when our soldiers
beat back the fascists in FranceS" I turned to Paul. "France?"
I said. "Fascists? What the fuck is he talking about?"
Paul shrugged. "Forget it,"
he said. "He's on a roll."
I turned around. Behind me there was
a man in a mesh baseball hat and glasses listening with rapt
attention to Martin and brandishing a lovingly hand-drawn sign
that read, painfully, "GIVE UP SADAM." I moved over
to him. "You're missing a D," I said.
"What?" he said.
"'saddam1 is with two Ds,"
I said. "You're missing a D." He looked down at his
sign.
"Listen," he said. "I
can spell it any ways I want. Faggot."
PAUL AND I had come down here from Buffalo
to take part in the A.N.S.W.E.R. anti-war rally, and I have to
admit that my expectations were low. Like most young Americans,
I've been trained to think of protests and demonstrations as
something shameful and vaguely embarrassing-- something one outgrows,
like Journey albums, or those hour-long showers you took when
you were eleven and twelve.
It's not hard to see why people my age
(in their early thirties and younger) think that way. Our parents
were all part of a scrupulously-documented protest generation
that they subsequently renounced. Oliver Stone aside, the movies
and documentaries the people from our parents' generation made
about the sixties inevitably describe a generation that was maybe
well-meaning in a bluntly stupid kind of way, but on the whole
extremely indulgent, narcissistic, and naive, a bunch of rich
jerks flinging their braless chests and stinky beards in the
direction their parents' grim, sexually-repressed, business-driven
world.
Our parents are ashamed that they left
behind all those movies of them burning their bras, eating acid
at Monterey, and giving the finger to returning Vietnam vets.
They're ashamed because they ultimately became everything they
were against back then: cynical, greedy careerists. That's why
they created this atmosphere that celebrates the uncompromising
protest of Mohandas Gandhi on the faraway Asian continent as
brave and principled, but teaches us that protest in our own
country is just something that's nice to try when you're young,
before you get a real job. To be socially conscious today, the
older generation tells us, all we have to do is watch Ali a few
times, and recycle. All the really hard work here, after all,
was already done in the sixties.
I admit to being influenced by all of
this. My previous experiences with protests have all tended to
confirm the worst stereotypes about modern activism. In anti-globalization,
pro-environment, and anti-Kosovo War rallies I saw almost exclusively
well-off people of my age and class dressed down and plainly
living out some revolting Oliver Stone-inspired sixties fantasy
(the most damning evidence of which, incidentally, is the tendency
of these protesters to run to the cameras and start mugging in
John-and-Yoko poses as soon as TV arrived). More than once I've
come across protesters who barely even knew what they were protesting;
the important thing, obviously, was the protest itself, the poetic
act of participating.
But the most glaring problem with all
of these protests I've seen is this sense that no one involved
in them actually hoped to accomplish anything. At so many of
the protests of our generation, you can sense a sort of willingness
to comply with the wishes of our parents-- protest, sure, but
only do it for the "experience," as something to do.
Turn it into a sort of street theater, a way to meet girls. Whatever
you do, don't make it matter. In a glib, permissive age where
dissent, protest, certain forms of civil disobedience, and even
the occasional arrest are superficially acceptable and even encouraged,
the only real taboo when it comes to having political convictions
today is meaning it. And in 32 years I hadn't seen anyone break
that taboo on any real scale.
Washington would be a little different.
Not that it mattered. In order to even hear what happened there,
you had to be there. Our illustrious national press corps saw
to that.
AT THE MOVE-OUT protest in the morning
I had gotten into an argument with some of the mainstream reporters
covering the event. Not that that was surprising. A blatantly
staged media event like the MOVE-OUT demonstration is the kind
of thing that any journalist with even a sliver of a conscience
left is bound to be extremely defensive about having attended.
After all, one would be hard-pressed
to think of any circumstance not involving a pro-government counter-demonstration
in which 40 journalists from major news organizations would attend
a 9 a.m. weekend rally involving 80 illiterate morons. To use
the Russian expression, crayfish will whistle in the mountains
before 80 environmentalists in a park on a Saturday morning draw
so much as a college radio intern, much less 40 of the country's
heaviest press hitters. The mere presence of so much press at
MOVE-OUT was monstrous.
So when I arrived at the scene I thought
it would be amusing to count the total number of journalists,
as opposed to actual protesters. And wouldncha know it, some
members of the working press were offended by the exercise.
"You shouldn't be doing that now,"
a bearded Reuters hack told me, after suffering the indignity
of being counted. "It's too early. The bulk of the crowd
won't show up until later. Like around ten-thirty."
"Well," I said. "The Washington
Post said this thing was supposed to start at nine. It's now
nine-thirty."
"The Post was wrong," the Reuters
man snapped. "If you want to be honest, you'll do this later."
"Let me get this straight,"
I said. "You're actually worried that I1m going to undercount
these yahoos?"
"I1m saying," he said, "that
if you want to be fair, you'll count when the crowd really shows
up."
Next to the Reuters man stood a young
blonde woman in black horn-rimmed glasses who identified herself
as a reporter for the New York Times. She didn't offer her name,
but another reporter there later told me that she was an assistant
to Times reporter Lynette Clemetson. She'd been listening to
my exchange with the Reuters man and decided to chime in.
"And the important thing isn't the
numbers," she said. "This demonstration has more Vietnam
veterans."
I shook my head, stunned. "Are you
kidding?" I said. "The other demonstration will have
a hell of a lot more vets than this one, I1m sure of that."
She frowned. "No," she said.
"That one's going to be mostly college students. Kids."
"Maybe so," I said. "But
just in terms of sheer numbersS I mean, even half a percent of
100,000 is going to be ten times more vets than we're seeing
here. There are about fifty people here, for Christ's sake."
"No," she said, not convinced.
"No, this one will have more."
A third personage, a scrawny redneck
protester in a baseball cap and a Gore-Tex face guard, was listening
in. "That's the slimiest journalism I've ever seen,"
he said, jumping in. "You're in here and you're going to
count us before we're even here. You wait until ten-thirty, then
you'll see how many of us there will be. You're yellow journalism
scum."
"Settle down, Beavis," I said.
"You wait until ten-thirty, you
liberal bastard," he said.
I shrugged and walked away. An hour later,
after suffering through numerous historically confused speeches
about our victories over fascists in France and our spectacular,
as-yet-unrecognized military successes in Vietnam, I counted
all over. The final tally, again, was 80 protesters and 40 journalists
and that included the five-man Guardian Angel security entourage
that followed speaker Curtis Sliwa. I sought out Gore-Tex face
in the crowd.
"Hey, Chester," I said. "Eighty
to forty. Nice turnout."
"Fuck you," he hissed. "We
represent the real America."
"You know," I said, "I
once went to a Suzanne Somers book signing. There were like three
hundred people there. It was a book of poetry."
"Fuck you," he repeated.
A few yards away, a mealy-faced young
man in a blue button-down shirt named Eric DuVall was quietly
taking notes. An intern under Washington-based reporter Jerry
Zremski, he was the representative of the Buffalo News. We would
later spot him in the crowd at the main demonstration. Like me,
he was observing the crowds. Only his conclusions would be a
little different from mine.
RIGHT FROM THE START, there were two
things about the A.N.S.W.E.R. demonstration that were startling.
The first was its staggering size. I'd read about the last demonstration
in November and had tended to believe the conservative estimates
of the crowd size, not believing that more than a very small
number of people like me would be sufficiently motivated to go
anywhere to protest the inevitable. But the crowd at Washington
last weekend was truly gargantuan.
Police admitted to the Washington Post
that it was the largest anti-war rally since the Vietnam era,
and that it was much larger than the October rally. I personally
could not see the end of the crowd. It took a good half-hour
to make my way to the front of the crowd, and from a speaker
platform up on the press podium I was able to get a look at the
gathering as it stretched back along the mall. Even from an elevated
position, I couldn't see the end.
Later on, when the crowd filed out to
march to the Navy Yard, it proved impossible to determine how
far the line of people stretched. The length of the march was
several miles, and, again according to the Washington Post, the
crowd was still entering the beginning of the route at the mall
when the first marchers at the front reached the Navy Yard.
From where I sat, there was no question
that there were at least 200,000 people present, and probably
closer to 300,000. The extraordinary turnout was the chief topic
of conversation along the march: time after time, I spotted marchers
turning to look back, shaking their heads at the trailing crowd,
and saying, "Holy Shit!" Walking in a gathering this
size, you get a sense of its building kinetic energy and potential
destructive power a chain-link fence near the mall that obstructed
a group of short-cut seekers, for instance, simply blew away
like dandelion fuzz once the crowd decided to walk through it.
This was far different than the feeling one gets exiting an NBA
game, for instance.
Back to the size later. The second thing
that was striking about this crowd was that, despite the fact
that it was comprised largely middle- to upper-middle class whites,
there was no name politician from either major party there to
address it. Given that a Pew survey taken this week showed that
a majority of Americans (52%) felt that President Bush had not
yet made a convincing case that war was necessary, one would
have thought that at least some opportunistic politician from
the Democratic party would have decided to attach his name to
the anti-war effort. But the only politician of any stature at
the event was the Reverend Al Sharpton, a doomed candidate for
president with too much political baggage to really be an effective
champion for anything.
Put two and two together and what you
get is the amazing realization that this crowd, perhaps the largest
to gather in Washington in the last thirty years, has no political
representation whatsoever in today's America. Almost certainly
representing a vastly larger number of people in the general
population, the anti-war crowd has simply been excluded from
the process.
The 80 nitwits at the MOVE-OUT event
could reasonably claim one sympathetic U.S. Senator per demonstrator:
the 200,000+ at the A.N.S.W.E.R. event couldn't claim even one
between them. The only real clout it could claim was its own
physical presence at that particular moment.
All of which makes sense, because from
the very beginning, the character of this war has been that of
a giant end run an end run around common sense, around international
law, around political reality, even around basic human logic.
When you've spent half a year getting your head around the idea
that a terrorist attack by Islamic fundamentalists somehow necessitates
the immediate invasion of an unrelated secular dictatorship,
or that opposing an offensive war is somehow evidence that one
"hates America " and is a traitor, it isn't hard to
see how 250,000 people in this country these days can actually,
in real terms, be numerically fewer than 80.
Nonetheless, it seemed like everyone
in the march, myself included, was shocked to find themselves
in the middle of so many other like-minded people. It was clearly
a group that was not used to being in the majority and was intoxicated
by the experience.
"No way did we expect this many
people," said Nick Salter, 18, who was with a large group
from Cherry Creek high school in Colorado. "But we felt
like we had to come out here. It's now or never for our generation."
"It was a sense of obligation,"
said Chris Kezzara, 23, a bartender from Detroit. "But I
came by myself. I wasn't expecting so many people."
"Shit, of course not," said
Lee Turner, a social worker from Brooklyn, when asked if he expected
so many people. "But it doesn't matter. We'll wake up tomorrow
and find out from the newspapers that there were only 15,000
of us or something."
That didn't seem likely. During the march
I was convinced that the only possible angle the media could
take on this protest was one that met the sheer size of it head
on. There were all sorts of peripheral stories about the protest
to cover the uncertain future of the protest leadership (the
reported affiliation of A.N.S.W.E.R. with the Workers' World
Party was an uncomfortable undercurrent that ran through the
entire event), the Martin Luther King day angle, the protests
in the light of waning international support for the war (the
line the Washington Post in fact ended up taking). But the only
story any observant journalist could really take out of this
event was the fact that it was a) massive and b) extremely diverse,
an exponentially larger and broader crowd than had attended even
the last A.N.S.W.E.R. rally a few months ago. If the snapshot
the media got from Seattle was a gang of hippies standing in
front of a row of broken store windows, the picture from this
one should rightly have been seven lonely college Republicans
cringing behind a "Hippies Go Home" banner high up
on a balcony as tens of thousands of obvious non-hippies screamed
for them to come down to the street level for an ass-whipping.
"Get down here, you cocksuckers!"
shouted a huge black kid with rows. The Republicans said nothing
and just grinned.
"Hang on," I said. "It's
a trap. No one really dresses like that."
Indeed, one of the "protesting"
Republicans was wearing a circa-1977 Argyle V-Neck sweater.
"Yeah," he said. "Whatever.
Let's get them down here anyway."
About a half-mile down the road, the
remnants of the MOVE-OUT crowd about seven people were huddled
behind a row of policemen, shouting through a megaphone at the
waves of bemused protesters.
"We are the majority!" one
of them was saying. "We are the majority! We are America!"
At the time, that sounded like a joke.
Then I got up the next morning and checked the newspapers.
According to the vast majority of American
newspapers and news services, 30,000 was a solid estimate for
the size of the Saturday crowd. Each of the news outlets used
a different rhetorical means to avoid a true description of the
crowd size that day.
Fox News was among the most disingenuous.
On Saturday evening, the news crawl was telling viewers that
"at least 30,000 gather in DC to protest military action
in Iraq: a smaller group demonstrated in support of action."
Well, "at least 30,000" is
not technically incorrect, of course. There were "at least
5" there as well. But we all know what Fox was saying.
The Associated Press reported "tens
of thousands" of protesters, but also quoted police spokesman
as saying that a "permit had been issued for 30,000 protesters."
That 30,000 figure would be roundly circulated in the headlines
of AP-subscribing papers around the country.
The New York Times, which caught flak
for under-counting the last A.N.S.W.E.R. protest as well as an
anti-war protest in London, did not even speculate on the crowd
size, remaining content with the designation "thousands"
in the headline ("Thousands in D.C. Protest Iraq Plans").
Reuters, whose reporter had worried so
much that I might undercount the MOVE-OUT demonstrators, contented
itself with the wording "thousands marched on Washington
and San Francisco," and noted that while organizers claimed
500,000 protesters, there were no official figures.
Crowd-counting is a tricky business.
It used to be the province of the National Park Service, but
it has stopped counting crowds since Louis Farrakhan sued them
for allegedly undercounting the Million Man March. It is therefore
somewhat understandable that officials might be reluctant to
release an estimate. But there is caution in reporting, and then
there's common sense. If there were just 30,000 people at that
rally, I1m a Chinese jet pilot. Any reporter with two eyes could
have seen that this was a matter of hundreds of thousands of
people, not tens of thousands. And yet all of this careful language
was used to leave the impression of a smallish rally, half the
size of a good college football crowd, balanced out by an only
somewhat smaller rally in support of the war. If ever there was
a case of the media simply lying outright to the public, this
was it.
On the day after the protests, I tried
to track down representatives of the offending news agencies
and demand an explanation. In each case the best answer I could
get was "no comment." DC Fox News reporter Molly Hennenberg
laughed in my face when I cornered her on the street and asked
how her station could possibly have counted 30,000 people at
the previous day's rally.
"Gosh, I1m sorry," she said,
flicking a piece of lint off her glowing white winter coat. "I
wasn't on yesterday. I just can't comment."
"Well," I said. "Doesn't
that bother you that they got it so wrong? I mean, you saw the
crowds yesterday."
She smiled again, almost as if to say,
"Oh, this is so cute!" Then she said. "Look, I
have to go on the air. I really have nothing to say. I1m sorry."
And Buffalonians, the worst of the worst
was your own Buffalo News. Its headline presented the unequivocal
pronouncement: "30,000 in DC Protest War Plans." The
spill headline read: "Protests: Polls indicate mixed feelings
on Iraq war; veterans rally for Bush."
That wasn't the worst part. The actual
article claimed:
"Protests stretched from San Francisco
to Hong Kong to Moscow, but the Washington march was by far the
largest, though it was much smaller than a similar event in October.
That protest drew 100,000; police said Saturday's rally drew
30,000."
The BN was the only news organ in the
country that concluded that the Saturday rally was smaller than
the October rally. Even the Washington Post quoted Metropolitan
Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey as saying that the rally was not
only "bigger than October's," but that it was "one
of the biggest ones we've had, certainly in recent times."
Not even Fox News sunk as low as our hometown paper. When I caught
up with A.N.S.W.E.R. chief Brian Becker the next day, and told
him what the Buffalo News had reported, he was flabbergasted.
"They said what?" he asked.
"They said it was smaller than October,"
I said.
"And it wasn't a wire story? It
was their own reporters?"
"Yup," I said.
"Jesus Christ," he said, kneading
his forehead.
The Buffalo News report was doubly irritating
for me because I'd actually seen one of their reporters, DuVall,
twice during the day, and even met him. Even after I told him
I was with the BEAST, he was polite and even seemed friendly.
A cursory examination seemed to show that this was a human being
in full control of his faculties. How he could possibly have
gone home after a day of watching these events and filed that
bullshit story was beyond me. The fact that he'd shaken my hand
left me feeling raped. After I returned to Buffalo, I decided
to call him.
"Eric," I said. "Matt
Taibbi from the BEAST. We met this weekend."
"Oh," he said. "Hi."
"I was wondering how you guys came
up with that 30,000 figure. It seemed like there were a lot more
people than that there."
"Well," he said. "That
wasn't me. That was [lead reporter Jerry Zremski]. I think he
got it from a wire report."
"Okay," I said. "Why would
he need a wire report, if you were there?"
"I don't know," he said. "But
if Jerry got it from a reliable source, then I1m cool with that."
Jesus, I thought. This kid is barely
out of college, and he's already completely full of shit.
"Wait a minute," I said. "You
were there. Do you think there were 30,000 people there?"
He paused. "I couldn't give you
a figure," he said.
"Why not?" I said. "You
can't say if there were more or less than 30,000 people there?
You don't have your own opinion?"
"IS didn't have a good view,"
he said.
Jesus Christ. A good view?
"How can you call yourself a journalist,"
I said, "if you can't even make a determination, by yourself,
as to how many hundreds of thousands of people there were at
a public event?"
"It wasn't my story," he said.
"It was Jerry's story."
"But your name went on it,"
I said. "And it's a fucking lie. I wouldn't be comfortable
having my name on something like that."
After a brief pause, during which time
Jerry Zremski himself obviously advised DuVall to hang up the
phone, he came back on.
"I1m sorry," he said. "If
you have any further questions, the best you can do is send an
e-mail to Jerry." He then rattled off Zremski's e-address.
"You realize," I said, "that once you start giving
OEno comments' to other journalists, it's all over. Your career
is over. I know you haven't been in this business long, but once
you take that step, you're fucked. You understand that, don't
you?"
He again advised me to write to Zremski,
then hung up. I wrote to Zremski. There was no answer, of course.
Sunday, the second day of the protests,
was a disaster. The main crowd was all gone and only a group
of student protesters remained. Their goal was to march to the
White House and engage in "Civil Disobedience." And
that's exactly what happened. After a brief standoff when the
police abruptly canceled the permit to march in front of the
White House, the group ran around a corner, outflanking the police,
and parked itself in front of the White House gates. Once there,
a small group of teenage camera-mugging assholes jumped the fence
and then kneeled on the ground with ear-to-ear grins as they
waited to be subdued by the cops. When the police sighed and
cuffed them, the crowd chanted, "This is what a police state
looks like."
Minutes later, the worst of the worst
happened. A group of ebullient and clearly overweight teen granola
types parked in front of a gang of mounted cops and, bursting
with self-satisfied smiles, sang out the dreaded "Give Peace
a Chance." When the TV cameras showed up, they started the
song over and flashed peace signs at the cameras. They looked
like they'd just gotten through to the next round of American
Idol. You'd never guess, from looking at them, that a war was
about to start. They didn't even looked like they were worried
about midterms, much less war.
The 16 smiling dickwads arrested that
day were given major air play all around the country. Thanks
to the wires, the TV networks, and even small-time flunkies like
Eric DuVall, they were made the official face of the anti-war
movement. It's that easy to hide a few hundred thousand people
in this country.
Matt Taibbi
is editor of the Buffalo
Beast. He can be reached at: matt@buffalobeast.com
Yesterday's
Features
Muqtedar Khan
Heavy
Rhetoric, Wistful Thinking and Hydrogen Cars: a response to Bush's
State of the Union
William Hughes
An
Open Letter to France:
Justice is On Your Side
David Wilson
Meet
the Gloucester Weapons Inspectors: the Protest at the Fairford
Stealth Bomber Base
Anthony Gancarski
Free
Press? "There's No Damn Thing"
Josh Frank
Who Would Jesus Bomb?: 10 Reasons to Oppose War on Iraq
Abu Spinoza
Iraq: Web Resources
Dr. Gerry Lower
Class Warfare Against the Poor
Natalie Johnson Lee
Green
Party Response to Bush's State of the Union
Russell Mokhiber and
Robert Weissman
Stealing Money from Kids
Maria Tomchick
Bush's Smallpox Boondoggle
Paul di Rooij
War: It's Already Started
Website of the Day
Tie
Yourself to the Mast Brave Odysseus: Ashcroft Sings!
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|