Sheehan breakthroughs, unbridgeable divides, and taboos unbroken

[dweller]

by David Swanson
August 22, 2005

The Washington Post today wondered out loud whether Cindy Sheehan might be a
"catalyst for a muscular antiwar movement." In translation, this is an assertion that
Cindy Sheehan has already become an accepted reason for the corporate media to
finally acknowledge the existence of, and consequently help to build, the antiwar
movement. There has, of course, been a major anti-war movement longer than
there has been a war. And Cindy Sheehan has been speaking eloquently at anti-war
events for many months. What has changed is primarily the media.

A website called Blue Oregon noticed this yesterday and wrote: "the Oregonian
appears to be using Cindy Sheehan as cover to mention the lies upon which the war
was justified." Yes, the Oregonian used the L word:

"The misty scrim that obscured our view of the war -- wishful thinking, distortions,
outright lies -- is rapidly dissolving. Americans increasingly see the war as it is, and
know it's going badly. Little wonder that when a gold-star mother parks herself
inconsolably in Crawford, Texas, asking hard questions and spurning glib answers,
she strikes a nerve."

But it's not been two months since the media, still refusing to call lies lies, was
pretending that evidence of lies (like the Downing Street Memos) was "old news."
Now, it's new news, thanks to Cindy. And thanks, also, to the polls, which show
public opinion of the war sinking very low. But, most of the thanks goes to the Cindy
Sheehan media phenomenon. The media should not base its coverage of
presidential lies on public opinion that has managed to form despite the media's
silence. And, in fact, comparison with other issues suggests it really doesn't; in many
cases strong public opinion is not enough to generate coverage.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/13/2005/1414

dp