At the Peace March: Does Issue Conflation Help or Hurt Us?

[Stinky The Clown]

The **anti war** Mall march today is starting with a series of speeches. Some relate to the war. Others don't.

Please do NOT take this as in any way diminishing the causes represented there. That is simply NOT my point.

What concerns me is that the country thinks of this march as Cindy Sheehan's, and by extension, the larger anti-war movement.

My concern is that those who would try to minimize the impact of the march can say that it was about a 'bunch of looney fringe organizations'. I am ON THEIR SIDE, but even I see a few of the groups who spoke as being a bit looney. It doesn't matter who, and that is a side issue. The point is that this conflation of issues may work against us.

Am I wrong to think this way? Am I alone in seeing it this way?

What are your thoughts?

(edited to change thread title by adding 'At the Peace March:')

[stillcool]

1. I find absolutely Nothing wrong...

with people speaking about different spokes from the same wheel. ...just because it doesn't strike some single heart, that in no way lessens the importance of the message by those affected. Americans truly are arrogant, self-absorbed, and belligerent people... because someone doesn't get exactly what they want...or are worried about 'how it looks'...they want to diss the whole thing...petty

[Contrary1]

4. Self delete.

[FloridaPat]

2. Lots of people talk at these things. Always did probably always will.

We need people on the streets often and everywhere. Doesn't matter who. Our government is against us all. Nice to see some unity.

[Johnny Noshoes]

3. The conflation of issues

does work against us - these marches and rallies start out about one thing and then everybody has to have their issue included. In the end the march becomes about so many different things that focus is lost. A simple, straightforward message that is easy to understand gets the attention of people who would not ordinarily attend a peace rally. I also feel that ANSWER turns off a lot of people we might actually be able to persuade to join us. I had to work this weekend and really need the money so I couldn't go to DC.

[blondeatlast]

11. I was going to add my opinion, but that's it in a nutshell.

If the only coverage Americans see is C-span's--a likely scenario--we've lost a big bunch of them today.

[FrenchieCat]

5. It hurts....

anytime a message is diluted, it hurts the message.

We needed one laserbeam like focus here....and that's not what really happening, and its really is too bad.

[Poor Richard Lex]

7. every group wants to "take a minute" to grind an axe

the cuban 5? Palestine?

this is about getting the fuck out of IRAQ. Stop whoring the anti-war effort to advance your cause. These other matters are important but this day is about IRAQ!

singing pink floyd? who the hell thinks this is going to help?

[salin]

16. I want my issue heard - why can't I speak about the grave danger

this administration poses to .... fire ants! I can sing a song. REally! And I hate the administration.



Seriously - I dont think much of the public watches and will be aware of the content of the various speeches - sadly only those of us who follow politics closely watch CSpan on the weekend.

What will be left with the public - is that a whole lot of people showed up to protest in DC. The content of the speakers will not be known, nor will matter.

And for those who have been growing uncomfortable with the war and/or with bushco in general - but live in areas that are so red that they feel they can't speak out (that they would be condemned) - hearing/reading of the march will make them feel less alone. Maybe even embolden them to mention aloud to someone else that they are growing scared or angry about Bushco - and perhaps that someone will respond with "I know what you mean"... ripple effect.

But back to the poor fire ants... ;-)

[Zodiak]

6. Everyone is right on this thread

These people have a right to speak and be heard in this one venue. Nothing wrong with that.

However, the appearance of conflation of issues is not the fault of ANSWER or this rally. This comes from the fact that CSPAN and whomever is covering this rally insists on making it appear that these smaller, more fringe speeches represent the greater anti-war rally. We have to be discredited at all costs...protests scare the shit out the powers-that-be, inclusing the media.

I would like to see multiple cameras placed all over the rally rather than just one stage that has a smaller and smaller audience.

The conflation of issues hurt us, but make no mistake, the coverage is designed to make it look that way. There are hundreds of thousands of others that are there to be against the war and against Bush....and THAT message is not getting out in favor of this one-camera CSPAN coverage.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. One camera coverage has always been the C-Span way

And it works for or against us ...... or is good or eveil, depening on the axe being ground or the ox being gored.

I don't blame C-Span. I blame those who have coopted the rally. They're not stupid. They know how to play the game.

Yes, free speech is a right. yes, I stand in favor of it - always and unabridged. I am opposed to all forms of censorship .... save one ......

Self-censorship is a virtue. I'm watching some less than virtuous people today.

[Zodiak]

17. I disagree

I distinctly remember of the pre-Iraq war rally having two simultaneous cameras....one main one with the speeches and an insert at the rally showing the many people passing by. It was great!!

The coverage is painful, and C-SPAN knows it is not good TV at this point. IT takes very little effort to move a camera across the street where the actual people are. If I were running the coverage, I wuld at least do that.

I like the fact that C-SPAN gives voice to this, but I am dismayed by the fact that the only coverage we get is crap. I'm just sick and tired of this quixotic reliance on the media to do their jobs.

BTW....I wrote C-SPAN and let them know how I feel.

[WCGreen]

10. I don't think that is it at all....

It is the organizers trying bump up the numbers by including as many groups as sponsors as they can...

That is where the Dilution comes from....

[blondeatlast]

12. I absolutely agree that the fault is in the coverage.

It's biting me--I can't even watch it anymore.

[dogman]

9. I think it distracts from the message overall.

Some things seem connected, such as the failed response to Katrina. When there is a crowd and a soapbox, I think it is an american tradition that people be heard. The attendees seem to vote on the relevance by their presence. It is also traditional for foes to concentrate on the fringes. It is like that here at DU. Some posts are great but dribble off into irrelevance also.

[Zero Division]

13. Is there anyway to prevent it?

I'm starting to wonder if marching protests are effective at all given issues like this and the fact that media coverage has such a huge effect on the public's perceptions of these protests.

[salin]

14. Frankly most people aren't watching

and they will only see a few pictures and read or hear passing references in the news. THat is they will know a big event happened - and have a general sense of the size of the thing - and the general gyst of the cause (anti war), but not much else. And that is what is important in terms of a general public impression/psyche that is shifting further away from the war - having a sense that they are not alone in their concerns re the war.

So freeps will watch - and will try to discount to all who listen but chances are they quote folks like RUsh so much that those who listen already discount what their nearby freeps say anyway.

This was the case (not the public psyche shift - but the public syche recognition of the event(s)) of the past several big peace marches that were ANSWER related and had the same kind of convolution of issues from speakers.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

15. It is a problem. I saw a bit on C-SPAN and had to turn it

off and felt disappointed.

It is analagous to people trying to take over Sierra club and take a position on immigration. It dilutes the "cause" and the support.

Especially when it is a controversial issue that is bound to turn off some generally anti-W or anti war folks. (or for Sierra club some environmentalists).

[WCGreen]

18. Great Point.....

And good analogy to the sierra club

[grasswire]

19. I've been yapping about this for years....

...and usually get slapped down for it.

The dilution of the anti-war (or anti-Bushco) message by all manner of other lefty niche issues makes it easier for mainstream America to dismiss any importance the protests may have.

That's the truth and the reality. And until enough Democrats and Progressives are willing to do the work of organizing without letting ANSWER do it, the message will be largely ignored.

(One may fairly ask me why I'm not doing that work. I support a disabled daughter and have already put in my time as an activist. I would do it if I could.)