Unlike WashPost, N.Y. Times Labels Leftist Protesters, Quotes Speakers, Unravels ANSWER

Photo of Tim Graham.

In their report on Saturday’s Pentagon protest, New York Times reporters David D. Kirkpatrick (formerly assigned to cover the conservative movement for the Times) and Sarah Abruzzese offered readers several things the Washington Post did not. Their story used the "liberal" label (twice), explained that the ANSWER Coalition was affiliated with the Workers World Party, noted the ANSWER signs celebrated communist icon Che Guevara, and quoted Cindy Sheehan’s speech (typically) calling out President Bush and Vice President Cheney as "war criminals."

Unlike the Post, the Times story was not featured on Sunday’s front page (and I can’t tell from the website whether it made the print edition at all.) The headline was unremarkable: "In March, Protesters Recall War Anniversaries." The Times duo quickly applied the liberal label to protest groups:

The liberal group MoveOn.org has held many small protest vigils around the country. And in Washington on Friday night a coalition of liberal Christian groups, including Sojourners/Call to Renewal, led several thousand people in a march that began with a service at the National Cathedral. More than 200 participants were arrested praying in front of the White House, the police said.

Saturday’s march was organized by the Answer Coalition — named for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism — an organization that was initially associated with the Workers World Party and now affiliated with a breakaway faction of that party called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

That’s much more descriptive than liberal-media accounts usually are. They could have explained the party was Maoist, or that speaker Ramsey Clark was a defense lawyer for Saddam Hussein, but it’s so much better than other accounts on ANSWER, it’s a little hard to complain. Then came the part about Che and Cindy Sheehan:

Judging by the speeches and placards, the marchers on Saturday set their sights on sweeping goals, including not only ending the war but also impeaching President Bush and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Many carried Answer Coalition signs bearing the image of the Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara.

Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. "It is about radicalizing people," Mr. Becker said in an interview. "You hook into a movement that exists — in this case the antiwar movement — and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism."

In a speech before the march, Cindy Sheehan, who made headlines in 2005 camping outside the Mr. Bush’s Texas ranch after her son was killed in Iraq, called the president and his military advisers "war criminals."

"We want the people in the White House out of our house and arrested for crimes against humanity," Ms. Sheehan said.

Kirkpatrick and Abruzzese added a little more color about how some protesters were puzzled by the socialist signs all around them:

Many in the crowd said they were unfamiliar with the Answer Coalition and puzzled by the many signs about socialism. Several said they had come from across the country for a chance to voice their dismay at the war.

Alan Rainey, an adjunct professor and small publisher from West Lafayette, Ind., said he had not attended a protest since 1973, not long after he had returned from military duty in Vietnam. On Saturday, he carried a sign with green clover and a St. Patrick’s Day theme. "Help drive the snakes out of the White House," it said, depicting snakes with the faces of Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"This war is criminal," Mr. Rainey said. "We impeached Clinton for a little indiscretion with an adult."

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis 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.

This is going to make Joy B

This is going to make Joy Behar very unhappy.

If Behar is unhappy, imagine

If Behar is unhappy, imagine what Rosie is doing with her madness...

Hanging upside down again!

Now if we could get her to stay with that inversion therapy forever...say in another country we would all be better off...one less loony leftist to contend with on our airwaves.

I am very surprised this was in the NYT's...too bad it didn't make the front page...not quite ready yet to share the truth with all in a big way...

Yeah right...when pigs fly!

Kudo's to the writers of the articles...very articulate for the NYT's...let alone I am somewhat shocked, wonder if they are going to have jobs at the end of the month.

All in all, I am very disappointed in the msm with the non-coverage of the GoE's numbers that were gathered there... should of been a lot more coverage when they were reporting on the traitors here in this country, to at least show the difference between the spewing, screaming vile leftists words ...and the rational true patriots that love this country, that gave the right and freedom to the evil side of the aisle as far as I am concernded to spew there idiotic treasonous filthy blather.

Yes, isn't it weird how ang

Yes, isn't it weird how angry libs get when you say the word 'liberal'.

Here is a reverse example of what Tim is talking about. This time you get to go inside a lib mind and see first hand what the word 'liberal' does to them. It's like kryptonite...

http://www.huffingto...

"...Democrats who didn

"...Democrats who didn't have their counter narrative ready to feed to
reporters who clearly cannot be expected to think for themselves, but
only parrot the lines they're given.--
Larry Beinhart (emphasis mine)

So, apparently it's OK for dimwitted reporters to unthinkingly parrot the "narrative", as long as it's the "correct" narrative.

I think we really need to fin

I think we really need to find out if this piece ever made the printed edition?

If not, we have some interesting questions.

--Did they bury it on the Internet where they are hoping that most of their customers won't see it?

--Was it only put on the Internet so that they can claim that they really ARE "balanced" because they have a report that appeals to Conservatives?

--Did they put it only on the Internet because they assume that Conservatives would only SEE it there, assuming that Conservatives never waste their money on the print edition?

I find the motive question quite interesting. I do like the report, of course, but it clearly falls far outside their leftist editorial agenda.

So, what gives with this report? Only on the Internet or also in the print edition? Can anyone answer that question?

This inquiring mind would ser

This inquiring mind would seriously like to know too WTH.

Like a true American, I was t

Like a true American, I was there chanting, "I won't go until the Bush girls go".

joe c,What a man.

joe c,

What a man.

Busch Girls

Joe, I suppose you meant the "Busch Girls", who must be similar to the Bud Girls. In the spirit of humor, I chuckle if this is so. Otherwise... I am supposing you are imposing a qualification of your defense of this nation to the service of the President's children. This logic, by extension, would include all citizens excepting you. Are you placing yourself last in line? You should instead blind yourself to the individual sacrifice required to serve your country, and project your patriotism toward the ultimate defense of our great nation. But hopefully I have interpreted your comments incorrectly and if so I directly apologize.

Pragmatic,You interpreted j

Pragmatic,

You interpreted joe's comments correctly. He is a coward. Thank God there is not a draft. Our brave soldiers don't have to serve next to cowards like joe. Joe is the type that would get you killed because he cares about only one thing ... his own cowardly ass.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Oh, yeah, between this stor

delete

I was there, in DC, with the

I was there, in DC, with the Anti Anti-War demonstrators....GaterhingofEagles dot ORG.   The Eagles had TWICE as many protestor's than attended the anti war protest.   It was a wonderful thing to see......thousand of Vets taking the high ground on the Lincoln memorial, looking down at the "yellow" protest signs of the anti war group, and separated by a street/barracides, but not separated by sounds coming from the Vets and company. 

The Eagles had MORE people at their rally, than the Anti-war group....it was obvious to the most casual observer, that something was wrong with the protest turnout, vs. the "American" turnout.   Go to the GatheringofEagles Website to get the Pics....and the numbers....and the More Obvious Media Bias reporting.

I heard on CBS radio...the words...."Massive Protest"....massive it was not....except on the Eagles side.   Constitution Ave. flowed with traffic all day, I don't think they had enough anti-war people to fill their staging area.

Anyhow, 10,000 flags from across American given to the Eagles as they spent a week driving from San Fran. to DC, and making stops on the way...10,000 flags at the Eagles rally, was an impressive showing...awesome...and Un-reported by the media.....except for Fox network saying an "Equal" number of Vets demonstrating agains the Anti War march on the Pentagon.     

At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.

JayTee - thanks for that re

JayTee - thanks for that report. I was wondering if it was a real big turnout because the press mentioned them without showing them or giving a number. Usually if they do mention pro troop (anti-anti war)protesters they state the number and/or show a picture of how small it was.

Dee Bunk...I'm not an expert

Dee Bunk...I'm not an expert on Crowd estimates....but ...The National Park service hosted the Event, and THEY had estimates. ... That were NOT even mentioned in the old media...but the numbers from the Park Service on the Eagles Web site...30,000 vs. 10,000....3 to one in favor of the Eagles.

And it was a COLD windy day, lots of gloves and hats...it was not EASY to be there.

At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.

The Park Service does not 'give' crowd estimates anymore.

The Park Service does not 'give' crowd estimates anymore.

They stopped doing that years ago.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

National Park Service still gives estimates

It's my understanding, ACA, that the Nat Park Service stopped giving official crowd estimates.  They still give estimates, though, and I also heard the "up to 30,000" figure for Eagles and 5-10,000 for the anti-war group. 

An event security guy also said the following:

-Wheelchair vets were slapped by anti-war protesters

-Foul mouthed protesters tried throughout the day to break through the memorial protectors

-SDS (the resurrected violent Students for a Democratic Society) tried to attack the Viet Nam Memorial at 5PM (when they expected there would be fewer memorial protectors) with spray paint.  They brought homemade "shields" to batter through the protectors.  Unknown to them, the Eagles had spies in the SDS group who gave advance warning.

-He observed NO major media cameras at the Eagles gathering...not one....but he could see many at the anti-war area.

Acaiaguano...There is always

Acaiaguano...There is always the person to person relationship between host, and Event people....Nothing like a little courtesy, and asking an experienced park Service person doing their job..."What's it look like ? How many people are here":   and you have your estimate...Un-oficial and all that, but nevertheless, a fair figure from those who know (NPS), and those who have experience at these sites, and who have counted people before.

Truth in Journalism is hard to find, but just because it's not published in five News Media  outlets, doesn't make it a false set of numbers....it fact, it sorta lends it some integrity, the fact that the numbers were SO LOPSIDED, the Media didn't want to mention them, for fear of the NEW MEDIA nailing them once again.

At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.