All 3 Network Newscasts Recognize Anti-War Protests on War Anniversary

Photo of Matthew Balan.
By Matthew Balan | March 20, 2008 - 18:05 ET

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterThe "Big Three" networks’ evening newscasts, marking the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq on Wednesday evening, all chose to air news briefs on the anti-war protests across the United States. The news briefs all aired within the first ten minutes of each program. CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric, as part of the first report on her program, used the protests as "evidence" of one of their recent poll results, that "more than half of Americans [59%] believe going to war in Iraq was a bad idea." "There are 155,000 troops in Iraq right now, and today, protesters in Washington and other U.S. cities reflected our poll. Nearly half the respondents [46%] said most U.S. troops should be pulled out within a year."

Five minutes into NBC "Nightly News," anchor Brian Williams chose to focus on the protests in Washington, DC. "There were anti-war protests today in several U.S. cities, including the nation's capital, where police arrested more than 30 people when they tried to block the entrance to the IRS, and they also tied up Connecticut Avenue, a major thoroughfare. There were also protests in New York's Times Square, downtown San Francisco, and in smaller towns as well, in places like Ohio and Vermont."

ABC’s "World News" anchor Charles Gibson, as part of his retrospective on the past five years of the Iraq war, mentioned the anti-war protests as well. "For some Americans, this is the fifth anniversary of a war they do not support. There were marches in California, and in the nation's capital, a dozen people were arrested for blocking the entrances of the Internal Revenue Service. The protesters oppose being taxed to help fund the war."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

From the video footage shown in all three of these news briefs, it appeared that the turnout for these anti-war protests was light, with no more than a hundred or two hundred protesters visible in one shot. In comparison, all three networks chose to ignore this year’s March for Life, which drew tens of thousands of pro-life demonstrators to Washington, DC.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

'for "some Americans" this

'for "some Americans" this is the fifth anniversary of a war they do not support'

for "some Americans" this is the fifth anniversary of MSM treason

for "some Americans" this is the fifth anniversary of the end of brutal Iraqi repression

for "some Americans" this is the fifth anniversary of Al Queda on the run

for "some Americans" this is the fifth anniversary of a confirmed end to Iraq's WMD program

for "some Americans" this is the fifth anniversary of US Military Heroics in Iraq

 

but of course "some Americans (DEMOCRATS)" don't support this

  For 'all of us' this is

  For 'all of us' this is the fifth anniversary of Iraq not being a threat to us or the Middle East region.

Truth & MidAmerica

Precisely.

And as for these disgusting news outlets......... barf.

Literally, there were 50 or 100, tops, at these protests.... basically, your friends and a few of their friends, decked out in lots of pink and other "anti-war colors". And all 3 networks reward them with prime coverage. Disgusting

Mainstream Media Bias that thankfully NB continues to expose.

 

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change

 

I live near DC

I've been downtown and seen some of these nerfballs protesting and it's literally a small gaggle of buffoons. When I see it on the MSM nightly newscast or the front page of the Washington ComPost you'd think there were throngs from the angle of the file photo or the clip used.

YOU KNOW...

If you were wondering why we have not been getting any stories about the war FROM Iraq, well...the MSM was working on the 5 year anniversary stories & the profiles in courage of those from Code Pinko & the other 60's hippie anti war types for "speaking truth to power".

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Nearly half the respondents

Nearly half the respondents [46%] said most U.S. troops should be pulled out within a year."

   Excuse me... but did he just say a majority don't think we should pull out 'within a year'?  Do you suppose a majority think we should 'finish the job successfully'?

MidAmerica

No matter how full the glass is, it's half-empty -- or "well, close enough" -- for them.

In any of these 3 anniversary coverages, did they mention the positive successes in the past year? Curious, as I haven't watched them.

 

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change

 

In any of these 3

In any of these 3 anniversary coverages, did they mention the positive successes in the past year? Curious, as I haven't watched them.

   I'm not sure if you were directing that question to me or to the rabble that frequents this place.  But as for me, I hardly ever watch a msm telecast.  Being a boomer I have already watched enough.  I rely on masochists that report here and elsewhere as to what they are up to. 

MidAmerica , yea LMAO ,

Has someone built a timer to shut off the 'top of the hour news ' on the radio? YET! a RADIO TIVO, if you will; my (idea) my share only 10%.

<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !

IranianUranium<sleep>InfrastructureROFLMAO

 

NOT REALLY...

 The big 3, as well as the rest of the MSM have pushed Iraq off the map because THE SURGE HAS WORKED. Despite what idiots like Murtha, Reed, & Pelosi say on Capital Hill, we are winning, & that's bad news for the Dems.

This might sound strange, but every year I go out of my way to watch the WWE (WWF) Christmas Show. Yep, good old (fake) professional wrestling, & it's called "Tribute for the Troops", (I watched it when I was a kid, & once & a while I can still laugh at it) But that particular show also has little pieces where they talk to our soldiers & find out what good we are doing. They talk about the progress they have been making, it's usually very possitive coverage. I will say this, I see more possitives in their Christmas Show then I see in the MSM almost all year, & I don't believe I'm exagerating when I say that.

I don't know what the political leanings are of Vince McMahon, or his wrestlers, I don't really know what they think about the war, but from what I've seen, they really do support our troops. I'm saddened to see that our most of today's entertainers piss on our military instead of treating them the way Bob Hope did back in the day.

As for the future of the MSM, they can go to hell. Most of them have lost my trust, & shall never get it back. I only watch them every so often to see how they are covering something, & I can usually smell the bias.

 

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

It's clear that one of this

It's clear that one of this countries biggest enemies is the MSM. What really gets me pissed is that we can't do anything about it because too many people agree with them.I can't watch it too much anymore because it truly makes me feel physically ill.

I wonder how the counter

I wonder how the counter protests went. I saw some pics at either gathering of eagles or vets for freedom websites but nothing in the news. Kind of surprised that I did not see anything mentioned at hot air about the counter protests.

Imagine WW2 with these MSM idiots...

 I don't know what they would do. I mean in June of 44 we had over 1.5 million troops committed to the ETO and PTO. We have had only a little over 3,000 dead in five years, but over 15,000 died in the first 18 hours for the battle of Iwo Jima. God help us if we ever had to fight a war like that again. We would never be able to do what needed to be done to win. I have seen hundreds of photos of American GI's with German and Japanese prisoners...they weren't scrutinized for it. But man o man if one of our guys today gets a picture taken with a terrorist prisoner...the MSM deems it as major felony. Also in a book I read a GI said they were trying to take Caretan(sp) and he saw two Germans enter a building. He ran over tossed a grenade. When him and his buddy entered the building the two Germans were dead along with three kids and thier parents. He said he felt bad, but it was either him or the Germans. He chose the Germans and said if they didn't hide in there the kids and parents would not have been killed. Fast forward to today and that same soldier would be court martialed because the MSM would label him a baby killer........sad and pathetic.

 

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”  - Thomas Jefferson

What protests?

I live just outside of DC and these "protests" that the MSM reports on are just a small bunch of folks who apparently have no jobs, common sense or education--this is obvious from the interviews shown on local news.  Goodness gracious, their numbers were so meager they barely shut down the sidewalk in front of the IRS.  I wasn't downtown today, but I have been on the Mall and near the White House for these demonstrations that are reported on.  Let me tell you, they're insignificant.

Conversely, as Matthew Balan points out, the March for Life is regularly ignored despite shutting down the entire Mall all the way to the Supreme Court.  This is obviously "journalism" with a purpose.

"There is nothing new under

"There is nothing new under the sun". These anchormen, Chet Huntley/David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, Harry Reasoner/Harry K Smith NBC, CBS, ABC respectively, were doing the very same thing, starting about 1967 if I recall. This is no new phenomenon, it started with that dyed in the wool Commie Walter Winchell and they've been trying to live up to him (or down) since then. The whole bunch needs to be rounded up and re-educated. They do not love America, oh, they love THEIR version of America. Their version of America is to continually push for and report on every little failure no matter how small and blow it up to make sure we either look like dunderheads or evil or both.

But like that complete idiot Rather, they may be so totally screwed up in the head they may think, or have thought they were doing good.

The one's we need to be chasing with torches and pitchforks are the producers/editors of these newscast, they are the true Stalinist, ask them and they'll tell you how much they admired Uncle Joe. Hell, their hero FDR did, he thought ol' Uncle Joe was a good fella! These lousy cockroaches.

Cherry Picking

Once again, Mr. Balan,  you are cherry picking information.

Do you think protests against the war have no place in a 5 year retrospective?  Of course they do.  If you would care to note, all three news casts highlighted the surge and progress that has been made of late, as well.

But, you choose not to mention those.  You only focus on the fact that all three evening newscasts mentioned protests.  God forbid they report the news.

If you honestly think mentioning war protests has no place in a five-year retrospective segment of an evening newscast, then you have no credibility.

Sitting all of the way over

Sitting all of the way over here in Tokyo, I could tell that the numbers at these "protests" were few.  The fact that it led the evening news is a travisty.

These "protests" weren't newsworthy, but they sure gained national airtime.

I'm sure you'll understand

I'm sure you'll understand if I consider Mr. Balan, with his documentation, backed up by MRC and NB research into the comparative allotment of times given war and protest coverage as more credible than someone mischaracterizing his post and supplying as evidence a line saying the MSM covered the success of the surge.

Balance

Balance -  ******MOVE AMERICA FORWARD NEWS RELEASE******

Pro-troop group Celebrates 5 years of Security

Antiwar groups respond with aggressive protests

(NEWS RELEASE) -- March 19, 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, in which thousands of Americans who volunteered to serve put their lives on the line to liberate millions of Iraqis and protect the national security interests of the United States, which was attacked by radical Islamic terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001.

The nation's largest pro-troop organization, Move America Forward (website: http://www.MoveAmericaForward.org) commends these brave warriors for their service to our country.

"We're proud of every man and woman who has served honorably in this struggle against America's maniacal enemies and we'll never forget how much we owe them," said Melanie Morgan, MAF's chairman.

Debbie Lee, a MAF spokesman whose son was the first Navy SEAL to die in Operation Iraqi Freedom, said, "My son so believed in what he and his buddies were doing over there. I know he's proud of everyone carrying on that fight today. I, too, am so proud of our men and women who continue to stand for our country."

Meanwhile, antiwar radicals are using the occasion to promote their agenda of retreat and defeat in America's battles against terrorism. Many such groups are overtly attempting to disrupt people's business and cause havoc , at a time when antiwar protests have been growing palpably more bitter and violent.

Violence against recruiting centers has become a widespread and dangerous phenomenon, now quickly gaining momentum, as revealed in "The Sedition Report," a document presented by Move America Forward at the National Press Club last week.

"We most sincerely hope that no one is hurt and no property is damaged in today's protests, but we'd be pretty surprised," Morgan said. "I personally saw an anarchist from the 'World Can't Wait' defy a Berkeley police officer while others from the group dumped a load of garbage in the streets."

More than a dozen arrests had been made in the San Francisco Bay Area already as of this writing.

Anti-war organizations are claiming today that support for the war in Iraq is plummeting.

The opposite is true, according to the left-leaning Pew Poll , which reports that 53 percent of Americans believe we are winning in Iraq, due to the change in tactics from the surge, commanded by General David Petraeus.

Move America Forward is hosting no events today, in hopes of minimizing the disruptiveness of the day's demonstrations, but will participate in an event this Saturday in front of Berkeley, CA's Marine office, which has been at the center of a political storm. That event is being organized by Eagles Up, another pro-troop organization. (www.eaglesup.us)

"It hurts my heart so deeply when I see groups like SDS and World Can't Wait fighting against this war when our troops are the ones fighting for our freedom," said Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee.

Distorting History

One of the historic distortions the media likes to throw out is that the Iraq War has "lasted longer than WWII." Not true. WWII started on September 1, 1939 & ended August 15, 1945, lasting nearly 6 years. It can be argued that the war really started in 1937 when Japan invaded parts of China.

Now it is true that US involvement in WWII was shorter than the current Iraq War, but when does the Iraq War actually end for liberals? I suspect they would say once all US troops leave, thus ending the "occupation." Of course, by that standard WWII is still ongoing as US troops continue to "occupy" Germany and Japan. For liberals, US troops only "occupy" never liberate.

LET'S BE HONEST...

The US military could have end the battle of Iraq anytime. I like the fact that WW2 has been mentioned, because we ENDED that war. We finished the job, both in Germany & Japan. We could do this in Iraq, but nobody has the nerve to go with nukes, which is what ended WW2. Like it or not, that is the truth.

The only reasons we have had any real trouble is that our military has had 1 arm tried behind it's back, & 1 major political party & the MSM have done their level best to throw a wrench in the gears whenever possible.

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Uh, bro

While I agree with you about nukes preventing an invasion of Japan & the death of millions, today nukes are only useful as a deterrent. As someone once said, "Use a nuke, go to hell."

 

Given Pakistan's experience

The other half of that saying should be, "but make a nuke, and get billion$ in tax-money from the USA, even if you're a thuggish dictator."
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

So We Should Vaporize Them?

Is that your answer?

It's better to buy them off than nuke them.

Nope.

As usual, my answer is "none of the above." "Subsidize various evil dictators" doesn't do much for America's image of allegedly "promoting democracy" in the Islamic world, because they see us as hypocrites whether or not NewsBusters conservatives do, and IMO they've got a point.

This short-sighted borrow-&-spend policy also vaporizes our currency's very future, as we're now seeing. It's just as I warned when I said "inflation's coming." Other NB readers can confirm the fact that I've said those 2 words quite a lot from my early days here.

Shockingly-enough, I was right...And that was before Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and various others got to the trough. The corporate-welfare bailout is likely to dwarf our dictator-subsidy habit. It's probably all those goddamn libertarians' fault, since they've had so much political power over my lifetime.
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

Buying Them Off

I also share your concerns about inflation. But giving a few millions (or even hundreds of millions) to a dictator in order to buy him off for peace is preferable to sending our best and bravest to fight & die there.

Most dictators sell out to the highest bidder & in my opinion that is a more cost effective way of dealing with people than going to war.

We can continue to borrow against our children's future, right?

Over the past 5 years

Pakistan has cost taxpayers more than $10 Billion-with-a-B dollars.  And for what? Is it "stable" now? Does anyone not on the payroll there even like us? Crap, spending that much money over there should have started a "love America" religion by now, but instead they all seem to hate us.

We once revolted against a brutal dictator (ok, "king") named George over issues like a relatively-small tax on tea. I only wish I could harness the energy generated by our Founders currently spinning in their graves over the dictators (but we never want to call them that) the USA now supports with obligations on our future. It's disgusting, especially when the Demopublicans & Republicrats to blame bitch about libertarians having the temerity to suggest different, Founders-inspired ideas amid their abject failure. Hence my sarcasm regarding libertarian political power.
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

Bush's Remarkable Foreign Policy

I agree but Pakistan is much better now for us than it was 8 years ago. Remember that as recently as 2000, Pak was a nuclear armed beligerent fighting with one of our die-hard allies (India, over Kashmir, among other things).

After the 911 attack, the US basically told Pak either join us or die in our attack against Al Quada & the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mushariff took the bribe & another beligerent nation came into the fold.

One of the things the Bush administration is never given credit for in the MSM is the number of beligerent nations it has effectively neutralized: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, even Libya.

Look where those countries were in 1999 or 2000 & look where they are now. It's really quite remarkable, from a historical perspective.

I'm not impressed.

If anything, I feel even LESS safe about Pakistan's nukes these days. I don't think these dictatorships are all that stable, with or without US taxpayer support while we bleat about "democratic reform" and the dictator remains in power despite ever-shrinking popularity. I'd be more impressed if we did less spending getting such a crappy result.
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

Understood

But remember what was going on with Pak & India in the late 1990s. They were sporadically shelling each other's bases & often threatening each other with war.

I may be wrong, but in the late 1990s the US had ZERO military advisers in Pak. Our military estimates about their nuclear weapons were only guesses. Now, we have people on the ground and know where the nukes are & who controls them. Also, there is a real chance right now that democracy will take hold. That's got to be worth something.

I also share your concerns about inflation & money spent. However, we are the capital of capitalism: money is one of our greatest our strengths.

Remember that one of the reasons why we defeated the Soviet Union is because the US could borrow a trillion dollars & the Soviets could not.

I am amazed how some

I am amazed how some believe this war for oil is justified!

 

 Nice to be Back!

welcome back, randy, say why don't you stop USING oil first?

On this first day of spring? pinchy green and all.

Question did we land on the moon in 1969-72?

<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !

IranianUranium<sleep>InfrastructureROFLMAO

 

rhayes,

I'm just amazed that a semi-literate like you could post the load of BS you just did after I just paid $70.00 to fill up my car.

War for oil my ass. 

Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!

H 2 O...

If hayes thinks "war for oil" sucks, wait untill the wars are over water. Better be willing to fight then, because you will get thirsty. 

 

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Not me!

I won't be getting thirsty any time soon. I live in the Land of 10,000 Lakes so I have plenty of relatively fresh water available. I guess I'll be on the front lines when the war for H2O begins, in which case I say: Bring It On!

It is not about oil. If it

It is not about oil. If it were about oil, we would have chosen a target with more oil and less people, like Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia.  If it were about oil, we would have already toppled Hugo Chavez.   If it were about oil, we would have drilled ANWR and the Green River oil shales. 

It was about choosing the best killing field for the Islamic militants while at the same time erecting a secular, pluralist government in the midst of the medieval middle east.  The presence of such a successful state in the region will act as a check on all the militants there and a destabilizing influence on Bashar Assad and his ilk, who are our enemies.

Someone else who...

 looks at the overall big picture. I try and try to explain these same points to others and they just look dumbfounded. OH, how fast most Americans forget that there are dangers in the world.

 

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter”  - Thomas Jefferson

Neoconservatives will

Neoconservatives will always be in a state of denial in regards to this silly war. The rest of the world knows its about oil...Let me know when this site comes to terms with reality and gets out of the middle east quagmire!

 

 Nice to be Back!

I WON'T DENY IT...

 The war is about a couple of things...

Oil is one, & I have no problem with that. Oil = economic security for America, whether you like it or not...

It was also about enforcing UN resolutions, 17 of 'em I think...

It was about regime change, that was official US policy about Iraq under Saddam, & it became our policy in 98 under Clinton...

WMDs, maybe. This should not have been the big selling point, but that's how it worked out...

Finally, it was about finishing off a fight we should have finished off the 1st time. Since WW2, we quit finishing off our enemies, so today, some of those places remain problem spots that cause more longterm harm to so many more people because of diplomatic shortsidedness...

hayes, the only quagmire we really have is in Washington, caused by those hippie era types still ebedded like ticks who undermine anything our military does. Congress & the State Dept. need to be cleaned out, the sooner, the better.

 

 

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

dany... Bulls-Eye...that

dany...

Bulls-Eye...that is right to the point, raze won't see it that way of course...he'll dance all around the great examples you laid out, he has to, it's what he loves to do...something like a job for him...lol.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

randy & dany

Randy, meet my new best friend, Dany.

Thanks Dany. You really summed everything up about this war, in a nice, tidy set of words.

Your point about WMD's, and the admission that it was a selling point -- because it WAS (as well as being based on intelligence everyone had) -- probably didn't need to be used as much as it was. But then, in hidsight, in the modern anti-war climate, maybe the administration realized it had it's hands tied in getting approval on the war without using every argument. But they are paying now, because they emphasized it too much, perhaps.

Again, like you're pointing out, there are so many reasons -- and benifits -- behind going into Iraq. But because it turned out to be less of a picnic in the park than lefties and the MSM would have liked, they just started kicking dirt on Republicans relentlessly starting back in 2003. It's been a pitiful sight over the years.

 

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change