By most accounts, the participants in Saturday's massive
anti-war march numbered somewhere north of 100,000. So, with such a strong showing, what promises to remain one of the most enduring headlines coming from the large-scale protest? Will it be thousands of Americans once again joining together to urge Congress to end this war? Will it be the overwhelming show of opposition to the president's escalation? Or will it be a rather suspicious spitting "incident" between a protester and a right-wing plant (who happens to be a veteran) that has already served to muddy the coverage of a very clearly defined event? The third option, sadly, seems the early winner, something that should give progressives pause when we consider the efficacy of our means of activism. And should again force us to confront the inconvenient truth that the media, quite simply, most often chooses to pursue its own agenda, an agenda that only sometimes - rarely - flirts with the truth.
The latest in a long line of controversies surrounding veteran Joshua Sparling, who lost part of a leg in Iraq, started with
this New York Times article penned by Ian Urbina, with help from Sarah Abruzzese and Suevon Lee. "There were a few tense moments, however," the story read, "including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." Said Sparling of the incident, "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned." The veracity of this account, to say the least, has come under scrutiny. For instance, per a Media Matters
report, did Urbina or his Times colleagues actually see the incident? Why was his report so uncertain in its account of the alleged spitting? Did Sparling actually spit on his anti-war counterpart? Also, what did the protester look like? Finally, can the Capitol Police, which the Times story said "made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters", confirm the occurrence?
Adding to these important questions is the account of an interesting encounter Saturday between one protester and a woman claiming to be a reporter for the New York Times. The protester, in a letter to Urbina,
wrote, "(Abruzzese) turned to me and told me she had seen a protester spit on a soldier and asked for my comment. I told her I didn't believe that, and she repeated that she had seen this happen. I told her the peace movement is more supportive of the troops than anyone who supports this war, because we want our troops to come home, while those who support the war are advocating sending them into harm's way. So I really could not believe that anyone who opposed the war had spit on a soldier. My comments were not included in your story." She continues, "I was upset when I read your story the next day to see this was an 'alleged' incident and the protester had supposedly spit on the ground in front of the soldier (which is quite different from spitting ON this soldier). In other words, what was related in your story was not at all what that reporter had told me. So she either lied to me or your story is false." In follow-up call with Urbina, the protester reports that he claims to have received 150-plus e-mails about the story. He also maintained that Abruzzese actually saw the incident and that the protester cited in the story spat
on Sparling, not "at the ground near" him, which the Times originally reported.
While so many questions remain, what's clear is this: The right-wing needed a distraction to convince some people - including a
servile Washington press corps - that the anti-war (and anti-Bush) sentiment in this country
isn't at an all-time high. In Sparling, clearly a Republican operative (whether he realizes it or not), they got one. In a remarkably economic trade-off, all it took to nullify the actions of 100,000-plus protesters - and distract the media - was one man, a veteran long at the center of dubious "controversies". What's also clear is that no manner of media self-correction will stop the train now steadily rolling down the right-wing noise machine tracks. The story - "peaceful" protesters spit on and therefore denigrate our troops - is out there. What's not out there and likely won't soon be is Sparling's
history of questionable run-ins or his
ties to some very lofty corners of the Republican Party. Also as yet unseen is the true nature of the right-wing counter-protesters at Saturday's march.
To wit: Take a look at
this picture, which we'll discuss in a moment. My girlfriend happened to take it while we took part in the pre-march CODEPINK rally where Sparling first made
his presence known. There, though his group forced their way to the front and verbally confronted both the speakers and audience alike, Sparling was treated with the utmost respect by the anti-war gathering. In fact, when a fellow veteran and CODEPINK protester spoke about honoring his service, Sparling received a lengthy ovation. A far cry, to be sure, from the unconfirmed account of his being spat at by a protester. While Sparling booed the speakers and generally caused a distraction, across the street were 30 or so right-wing counter-protesters, which the Washington Post
reported represented the Free Republic Web site. There, and in the aforementioned photo, protesters staged a hanging of a stuffed dummy bearing a photo of Jane Fonda, who had joined us at the CODEPINK protest. Around the effigy's neck was a sign that read "JANE FONDA, AMERICAN TRAITOR,
BITCH". Nearby, members of the small crowd held signs that read, among other things, "Anti-American peaceniks think sedition is patriotic" and "We gave peace a chance. We got 9/11".
Nowhere in the New York Times article was a mention of the nature of the counter-protest (or, of course, the nature of Sparling himself). Nor was it mentioned in the Washington Post article, which only detailed the presence of a sign reading "Hanoi Jane, Wrong then, wrong now." A far cry, to be sure, from people hanging an effigy of Fonda. Then again, the media never let the truth get in the way of a good frame. That frame, the one portraying the anti-war movement as a sideshow populated by ex-hippies, dreadlocked potheads and militant communists who also happen to hate our troops, is as useful to some reporters as is their Rolodex. It allows the stories like those reported after Saturday's march to write themselves. Simply pluck a few choice quotes from the prominent speakers -
extra credit if they represent Hollyweird - colorfully describe the marchers in an effort to ridicule their efforts and blindly report the dubious claims of a veteran whose equally dubious past fails to make it into the article. In three short steps, you could very easily fill the available column inches. And, at the same time, you could very easily breathe added life into a Republican fairy tale as old as war itself.
As I wrote when discussing the march, criticizing the media is easy. Reporters in today's climate, more often than not, choose the path of least resistance. They simply parrot what's handed them. They repackage talking points and press releases as original content. They use convenient frames because they're just that - convenient. While holding their feet to the fire is of the utmost importance, we cannot let the importance of our role in stories like these escape without further study. This isn't to blame the progressive movement for the latest incident surrounding Sparling. It's to ponder the pros and cons of the large-scale protest as effective means of activism, something Jeffrey Feldman did so well in
this 2005 story. In it, Feldman suggests, rightly, that religious extremists in America have wrested the mantle of the protest away from progressives. He also points to the need to recast the protest with an eye toward today's media, as well as today's attitudes. By discussing focusing on the singular image and reconsidering the role of the motion of the viewer, Feldman sheds light on how progressives could reinvigorate the large-scale protest in this country.
By examining what went right and what went wrong, we can build a protest for the 21st Century, one less given to the misguided aims of the Sparlings of the world and his out-of-touch fellow provocateurs. That's the important thing to realize here - that the counter-protesters' views
run counter to the overwhelming majority opinion of this war and this administration. With that in mind, we can do better than allowing a fringe minority to hijack the American Zeitgeist. At the same time, we can, as the netroots clearly has in this case, call the media to account for its shoddy journalism. Sparling, contrary to the reporting, isn't simply a veteran who ran into an aggressive anti-war protester Saturday. He's a right-wing pawn with a long history of questionable incidents. By reporting without the proper due diligence an alleged confrontation that even the story's authors themselves couldn't get straight, the Times and, by extension, those picking up on the "controversy" are committing perhaps the most unfortunate transgression to come from Saturday's march. They're spitting on the truth.
ACTION ALERT: To send New York Times reporter Ian Urbina an e-mail about his questionable reporting, please click here and follow the link. I would also suggest getting in touch with Byron Calame, the Times's public editor, who can be reached by by phone at (212) 556-7652 or by e-mail through this Media Matters sidebar, which also includes other pertinent contacts.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(504 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
