Typing in the words "tea party" into a Nexis search of The Washington Post finds nothing about protesters against Obama economic policies in the last six weeks – no coverage of the February 27 rally across from the White House, and no coverage of any other Tea Party across America.
But Tuesday’s Washington Post showed you didn’t need large numbers of protesters to get a prominent feature story. The front of the Style section carried a story (complete with three photos) of a protest of "about 50 people" in front of the White House against....male circumcision. Reporter Dan Zak found some strange people there:
Spend some time with intactivists and you will hear how circumcision is responsible for, among other things, the oppression of women, sexual disharmony, deforestation, militarization, the rise and fall of empires and the invasion of foreign lands for oil.
So why are these protesters more newsworthy than conservatives and libertarians against paying the mortgages of the overextended?
Post editors would say these protests are funnier, or more ribald. Zak began:
In the shadow of the nation's most recognizable phallic symbol, they gather and march. There are about 50 of them, all ages, both sexes, nearly all white, smiling, quiet, enjoying the sun as they make a slow loop in front of the White House with their signs of protest. Their mounted photos of pink squealing babies make the event look, at first glance, like an anti-abortion rally.
But look closer at the squealing baby photos and see why they're squealing.
On second thought, don't. Just read the big black sign with bold white letters:
WHOSE PENIS?
WHOSE BODY?
WHOSE RIGHTS?
These people are intactivists. As in, activists who want male genitalia kept intact. As in, people who want a federal ban on male circumcision for newborns.
These people were so extremely committed that two young men said they would go on a hunger strike and die to end the "giant monstrosity" of male circumcision. "If we have to die, then that's what's necessary," said Zachary Balakoff.
But the Post was more interested just in the saucy appeal of the story. A text box appearing with two photos inside on page C-5 read: "The arguments touch on human rights, bodily integrity, and public health. Strong emotions are just the tip of the issue."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"In the shadow of the
April 1, 2009 - 08:27 ET by SickofLibs"In the shadow of the nation's most recognizable phallic symbol..."
Does Olbermann have to be mentioned in EVERY story?
What a silly thing to
April 1, 2009 - 08:27 ET by ThatDudeWhat a silly thing to protest. Unless things have changed, you can decide whether or not your son will have one. You can decide to get one later in life if you so choose. I don't really understand the premise of their outrage here. Is it because the babies have no choice in the matter and instead the mother makes this choice for them(the abortionists should love such an idea?) Anyhow, I'm curious how many men truly regret that they were circumcized without their consent.
I think that most protestors are just addicted to protesting rather than having passion or even understanding what they are protesting.
Body Sculpting
April 1, 2009 - 08:29 ET by P.J. GladnickPerhaps they would feel better about it if they thought of it as "body sculpting."
hmm
April 1, 2009 - 08:29 ET by jazzact13--These people are intactivists. As in, activists who want male genitalia kept intact. As in, people who want a federal ban on male circumcision for newborns.--
Interesting. Is it possible that this could also be seen as anti-semitic? Does their rhetoric all exceptiong for religious reasons, or would Jewish parents not be allowed to circumcise their own children in accordance with the dictates of their religious beliefs and practices?
"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."
Chesterton, Orthodoxy
A Ban would Violate Freedom of Religion, Duh.
April 1, 2009 - 08:40 ET by freecitizenCircumcision is a sign of man's covenant with God. While they're at it, why don't they just protest against baptisms. Oh wait, I'm sure they probably do that to. Idiots.
"But who speaks for the clitoris?"
April 1, 2009 - 08:48 ET by SickofLibsI guess female circumcision is OK with this group?
Or maybe that's next week's 'action.'
the lorax?
April 1, 2009 - 08:53 ET by ckbennetttnObama: 'I screwed up'--We're going to be seeing this a lot.
Who else?! If only GM could
April 1, 2009 - 09:07 ET by SickofLibsWho else?! If only GM could make cars out of Truffula trees, they'd be saved.
Here's a circ joke
April 1, 2009 - 08:51 ET by ckbennetttnOne of my dad's jokes: 2 men are in a doctor's office, one of which appears really nervous. The calm one asks the other why he's there.
"I'm here to get circumsized."
The calm one replies, "I had that done when I was a baby, and couldn't walk for a year afterwards."
Obama: 'I screwed up'--We're going to be seeing this a lot.
Why should we be surprised?
April 1, 2009 - 09:28 ET by aericrulesWhy should we be surprised? The media is already so blatantly anti semetic that one more little "innocent" story like this is just icing on the cake. Believe you me, it's a planned, pre meditated strategy by the statists to put the blame of all our ills on the Jews and other religions, just like the Nazis did.
I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but all one has to do is read a little history to find the next logic step their going to take! It's like going to a play and being handed the script before hand...
Promise?
April 1, 2009 - 09:34 ET by UpNorth"If we have to die, then that's what's necessary," said Zachary Balakoff.
Really? Somehow, I doubt that Zach will follow through on this promise!!! Although I hope he really means what he says.
And Dan Zak, if indeed that is his real name, mis-spoke, he meant to say, "these people need to be committed."
I wonder how
April 1, 2009 - 11:43 ET by general companyMany of the protesters are circumcisised?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
tip of the day
April 1, 2009 - 12:18 ET by trickle_downWhat's the big deal? I thought journalists were always supposed to follow "tips."
AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!
April 1, 2009 - 12:59 ET by sherylsimsROFL!
Odd that the resident
April 2, 2009 - 01:43 ET by hydrodynDMOdd that the resident dissidents on NB who deny there's a liberal bias (hello, Ragamuffin) don't seem to say anything in cases like this.
But really. Not like the Washington Post is a big paper or anything.
terrible article
April 7, 2009 - 10:26 ET by ml66ukI think that got publicity because of the "saucy appeal", and to make fun of them. Let's face it, whether you think it's important or not, talking about foreskins is going to get people's attention more than talking about economic policy
The hunger strike came as a complete surprise to most of the intactivist movement. Doesn’t every movement have its extremists though? We remember Emily Wilding Davison (who ran in front of the King’s horse at Ascot in 1913) and we now all agree that women should have the vote, but was it really a cause worth dying for? We forget the many suffragists (the “-ette” came later to distinguish the activists) who worked tirelessly but conventionally - and probably more effectively.
The young men on the hunger strike were eventually talked out of it after four days by fellow intactivists who didn't think it was a good idea in the first place.