Remember the last BushCo inaugural? It drew the most prostesters since Nixon's in '73. Coverage of them (here, here and here) was limited to the point that none of the natalists I hang out with at my kid's school knows that protests occurred at all. This FAIR article explains what the NYT thought was appropriate coverage:
The London Guardian (1/22/01) reported that the inaugural parade "fell well short of being triumphant, and on many occasions during its slow advance through the drizzle, the sound of jeering drowned out the cheers."
But the front page of the New York Times showcased stories like "Bush, Taking Office, Calls for Civility, Compassion and 'Nation of Character'; Unity Is a Theme" and "Proud Father and Son Bask in History's Glow"-- both of which discussed Bush's teary-eyed father while avoiding any mention of protesters.
While the Times' news editors could not totally ignore the estimated 20,000 demonstrators, they did their best to downplay them, placing the one story about them ("Protesters in the Thousands Sound Off in the Capitol") on page 17, the sixth out of eight pages of inauguration coverage. This article featured one quote from Rev. Al Sharpton and one from a demonstrator who spoke of the "inchoate feeling" that led her to march. This abbreviated presentation of the viewpoints of the tens of thousands of anti-Bush protesters was "balanced" by another quote from one of the hundred anti-abortion activists who demonstrated outside Planned Parenthood's offices.
[snip]
The most telling story of the inauguration package was a front-page news analysis headlined "Tradition and Legitimacy: A Nation's Old Rituals Begin to Dissolve Lingering Clouds of a Bitter Election Battle." This piece, by R.W. Apple, did mention the demonstrations-- in order to minimize their significance:
"Arguments about the legitimacy of the Texas governor's victory have persisted even as the country accepted the fact that he had won. Thousands of the doubtful and disenchanted took to the streets of Washington today in angry protest. But the debate is likely to grow softer as the nation grows accustomed to pictures of Mr. Bush speaking from the Oval Office, boarding Air Force One, accompanied everywhere he goes by the strains of 'Ruffles and Flourishes' and 'Hail to the Chief.' In the television age, those images, more that anything else, confer the mantle of authority and legitimacy on a leader."
The notion that it is media images, not the votes of citizens accurately counted, that give legitimacy to a leader is profoundly anti-democratic.
It was left to entertainment reporter Caryn James to report the failings of her own paper and other corporate media outlets that were happy to:
"retreat into a soothing little bubble where every action they observe is majestic and every viewer shares their sense of awe"--a bubble that was punctured by "visible evidence of furious protesters along the parade route."
But hey, it works. Which is why it appears that the NYT is gearing up for more reporting from deep inside the awed inaugural bubble. Today they kicked off their coverage of the upcoming events with an Elisabeth Bumiller rehash of her own November 29th WH Letter.
It was less than two weeks ago that we read all about the maverick millionaire who's selling access to the Inaugural and Dear Leader. Today Ms. Bumiller expands her reporting to include descriptions of the events planned (one ball will honor soldiers), their costs and a progress report from another access peddler:
Mercer Reynolds, one of the three national co-chairmen of the inaugural committee, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that fund-raising was going "very, very well," although Mr. Reynolds had no official numbers after one day of seeking donations.
"I have tentative results; I have my exit polls," he said. "The results I'm personally getting on the phone are quite encouraging."
It looks like it's going to go just as smoothly as the last celebration of the American electoral process was alleged to have gone. With all those reports of the inspiring and peaceful pro-Democracy rallies in Ukraine, I was starting to wonder if any of our voting reform activists had any plans to make their voices heard. It turns out that they are, but since nobody is selling $250,000 tickets to see them, it didn't make this story.
But maybe next time! It's clear that the NYT thinks that inauguration stories are worthy of A1 coverage. I know that they'll want to make space to discuss what the Bush women will be wearing and do at least one front-pager about some of the regular folk who travel from red states to be part of history. I'm sure they'll be able to cram something in about the elaborate procedures that are certainly already in place to shunt off any protesters as far as possible to America's periphery.
Not that the planners need to go through the trouble. As we learned four years ago, at least the NYT is willing to do that unpleasant work for them.
Comments