Back on March 15, Noel Sheppard noted that the San Francisco Chronicle completely ignored the thousands of average Americans that came together in Cincinnati, Ohio to protest Obama's unprecedented take over of the US economy. The Cincinnati Tea Party truly was massive but is just one of the many dozens of Tea Party protests that have occurred -- and are continuing to occur -- all across the country in the last two months. Still, the SF Chronicle didn't see any reason to cover the rally.
But never fear for the Chronicle does enjoy a good protest, nonetheless. As long as it's of a leftist, anti-war flavor, of course. Witness the Chron's coverage of the "Massive anti-war, anti-Wall Street protest in San Francisco" from this weekend, March 21.
This rally was no bigger (and arguably smaller) than the anti-Obama protests in Cincinnati, yet the Chronicle reserves the word "massive" for the anti-war/anti-Wall Street protest while offering no coverage at all for the one in Cincy. If size was the key here, as the Chronicle's headline seems to note, then why ignore the likely bigger protest in Ohio only a week ago?
I'll bet you can figure that one out, eh?
It seems that not all protests are created equal in the eyes of the SFChron.
The Chronicle also made another shifty move in its coverage of the Frisco weirdo's little march. It made the violence that happened there seem to be the fault of supporters of Israel when it clearly was not. In the third paragraph of the SF Chronicle story we are informed about when violence occurred.
The protest remained peaceful until the main group arrived at Civic Center Plaza. There, a couple hundred pro-Israel protesters waving Israeli flags were waiting for the larger contingent, which included many pro-Palestine protesters.
Yes, apparently everything was great until those darned Joooows showed up. The truth is, though, that it was the pro-Muslim protesters from the lefty’s side that accosted the pro-Israel group, not the other way around. The Chronicle would have been more proper to say something like the following: "The protest remained peaceful until pro-Palestinian protesters broke from the group to confront several hundred pro-Israel protesters that had gathered at the Civic Center."
The Chron did go on to say that the pro-Palestinian protesters broke off "to confront" the pro-Israel group, but that first paragraph does make it seem as if everything was fine until Jewish supporters showed up placing the onus on the Jews and not the Palestinians. Subtle, but just so.
In any case, what we have here is clear. The Chronicle had no desire to cover the massive protest in Cincinnati against Barack Obama's socialist intervention in the U.S. economy, a protest that is noteworthy for the fact that those thousands all came together for one goal. On the other hand, the protest in San Francisco represented dozens of different causes -- from Planned Parenthood and Code Pink feminazi groups to the common anti-war, and anti-Jew folks -- and was an effort organized by several of those professional protest organizations so ubiquitous on the American extreme left.
Whereas the Cincinnati protest was organized almost spontaneously and with singular purpose, the Frisco protest was a melange of nutty causes and fringe characters brought together in a kaleidoscope of ideas that did not reveal a united message. In light of this, the Cincinnati protest was far more consequential since everyone was there for that one purpose while the Frisco gathering was a bunch of smaller groups coinciding for all sorts of reasons.
It would seem to any disinterested reporter that the protest in Cincinnati deserved at least as much coverage as the San Francisco anti-whatever protest received. Sadly, the Chronicle doesn't seem to agree with that more balanced journalistic viewpoint.
On a side note, it was amusing to read an eyewitness account of the lefties trying to organize a protest in front of several AIG executive’s house this weekend. Apparently, there was only two small buses of protesters and about 20 vanloads of media folks to cover it.
For a Business Insider blog, Rhys Southan wrote:
At this point, we're waiting outside of AIGFP HQ, and still waiting for another bus to arrive. But we've heard that that bus is being followed by 20 vans of media. Once again, it seems the media is much more interested than anyone who's actually protesting.
One amusing anecdote: The protesters stopped at one point in an organic grocery store and were suprised to learn that many AIG execs were shoppers there, and that according to the store's proprietor, they were actually very nice people.
The flummoxed protesters spent several minutes outside trying to figure out how such "evil" people could be nice to an organic grocer.
But, as with the SF Chronicle covering the “massive” anti-war protest (for a war that is essentially over and won, by the way) the AIG protests got all sorts of Old Media coverage. Meanwhile, Tea Party after Tea Party goes unremarked upon by the Old Media.
Any bias there do ya think?