positive coverage?

Steven McGraw stmcgraw at vt.edu
Sun Jan 26 16:40:11 MST 2003

At 04:55 PM 1/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Steve McGraw:
>>In the spirit of fun, someone posted a David Horowitz article that
>>described the antiwar movement as part of an imminent communist takeover.
>>The subject line was "great news from david horowitz."  The article turned
>>out to be his usual hysterical nonsense, but it made the obvious point that
>>media coverage of the antiwar movement has been unusually positive given
>>the easy, slow-moving target that is ANSWER.
>This assumes that the mainstream press has laid off red-baiting. In fact it
>has been present for the longest time.
>Since I have access to Lexis-Nexis
>as a Columbia University employee, it is easy for me to verify this. A
>search on "Ramsey Clark" & "WWP" uncovered the following from the
>Washington Post. There are other pieces of sludge, but this should suffice:

This opinion piece from the Dec 15 Style section notwithstanding, the
coverage of J18 was surprisingly positive.  The first thing I did after
coming home from the mini-protest we had here in blacksburg was to look up
the latest mainstream antiwar coverage.  My biggest complaint?  Newspapers
consistently understating the numbers as "thousands" rather than as tens or
hundreds of thousands.  On the whole, though, what i found gratified me
immensely.  Could I still nitpick?  Absolutely.  But I think we have a lot
more to be happy about than some are willing to admit.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list