From: "Louis Head" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Ussf-mjc] mainstream press coverage Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:35:45 -0600
Why no mainstream media coverage of the USSF?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I was part of the media team for the People's Freedom Caravan and spent a lot of time working with key people involved in the USSF media group. Ill leave it to others to speak to the level of outreach done to mainstream media though I know that this was extensive. Let's look at this from a different angle. Why wasn't Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! there full time, on the ground, covering the Forum from beginning to end? I think that if we can answer this question then we will have gone a long ways towards answering the mainstream media question. DN ran basically one story on the Forum - on Friday, June 29 - but given what Democracy Now! is supposed to be about one would think that DN would have given much more play to the USSF. DN producers were in Atlanta for at least a couple days if not the duration of the Forum. They certainly had a lot to choose from. One reason for this may be that Pacifica provided extensive coverage to the USSF, carried on Pacifica affiliates and others, and by extension the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC). But within the realm of radio alone (not to mention TV outlets) DN has a significantly broader reach within the US than does Pacifica per se. For example, KUNM in Albuquerque - whose radius is large, from central New Mexico to southern Colorado - does not carry Pacifica but does carry DN. In fact, Santa Fe a getaway, summer home locale for the jet set and loaded to the gills with liberal $$$ - has become a cash cow for both DN and KUNM due to the fact that the station carries DN. (Would such Santa Fe listeners be turned off by the hard hitting analyses of our movements organizers and leaders? This is a question thats quite an afterthought to me in this context but now I am starting to wonder.) National Public Radio News mentioned that the Forum was taking place at their top of the hour, but ran no stories from what I understand. Obviously NPR was knowledgeable of the USSF. Global south coverage meanwhile was in depth. Telesur ran at least 6 stories on the USSF, and had the equivalent of two crews there. Telesur coverage of the USSF at one point was airing every 45 minutes throughout Latin America. La Jornada (Mexico) ran several articles. InterPress Service ran a couple of good pieces (one of which was repeated by Common Dreams, which otherwise was noticeably MIA in its coverage.) World Data Services, from Havana, ran a bunch of pieces, sometimes two per day, both on the Forum and the People's Freedom Caravan. Radio Rebelde (Havana) ran three pieces, and Telesur's Mesa Redonda Semanal ran a piece on the Forum and I believe on the Caravan. Cubavision ran a story on the Cuban nightly news. Havana's Mesa Redonda evening roundtable program also had coverage, including an interview with a Miami-based organizer. These sources were then repeated in Rebelion, in the Chilean press, and in the Brazilian press. Additionally, Radio Bemba - out of Mexico and connected to community radio all throughout the Americas - did nine or more hours per day daily coverage throughout the Forum. The Radio Bemba connection was a result of the relationship developed with them prior to last Octobers Border Social Forum in Juarez, itself a result of relationships developed by Mexican organizations who were part of the planning committee for the BSF. Global south coverage broadcast to the world, and particularly to the rest of the Americas, the existence, the faces and the work of some of our best people. This coverage was received because, yes, there was outreach to such news sources. But in the final analysis we obtained such coverage because such sources saw the USSF as something worthy of coverage. Makes sense, because within the context of the struggle against imperialism these are our natural allies, and they supported us in a very concrete way. Getting back to Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! - which markets itself as alternative media - but which serves as a litmus test here: my bet is that if Medea Benjamin would have been a keynote speaker then Amy Goodman would have busted down the doors to get there. Or even moreso, perhaps, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon, or Ralph Nader, or Noam Chomsky. These individuals have all been showcased by DN over many years now, while at the same time DN has provided relatively little coverage of our social justice organizing work - efforts led by third world people and more often than not by third world women. One of DN's main stories today - Tuesday, July 10 - is about the Jena Six in Louisiana. Perhaps this is a reflection of exposure to southern (SE US) organizing efforts at the Forum. But at the USSF there was discussion about virtually hundreds of racial and social justice struggles thoughout the South, and these received scant coverage from DN. In the Jena 6 reportage, there is no mention at all of the USSF, but there is a lot of play given to filmmaker Jackie Soohen, who - given all the coverage about her work in the past - is a favorite subject of Amy Goodman along with Chomsky, Nader and many other progressive whites. My guess is that this coverage has as much to do with the fact that there is a white person covering the story as with the story itself, ie that the best pathway to Democracy Now! is through a white mediary. Don't get me wrong, Soohen does great work - certainly worthy of exposure - but that has nothing to do with my point. Others can speak more to outreach that was done to the "mainstream" press. I would suggest that it's not about outreach, but rather about fundamental choices made in terms of what the USSF was about. And it was not about being a love fest between the white left (morphing into) progressive democrats, it was not dominated by major NGOs as has been the case with the World Social Forum. Our people are not "stars" but rather the people doing the work, organizing and leading efforts throughout the US and the territories which the US occupies. If Democracy Now! gave short shrift to the USSF, then how in the world will we expect the "mainstream" media to provide coverage? At the same time, we all have a long ways to go towards developing our links with the sphere of mass popular culture - progressive celebrities, performing artists, etc. There are certainly potential allies there. In order to get to them you must sidestep the entertainment industry and the social sphere that insulates such folks from us. But suppose that in fact more of them become our allies in practice. Will this mean that the corporate media - let's call it what it is, even what Democracy Now! calls it (and let's come up with a better name, too) - will follow? Doubt it. I believe rather that the question of corporate media coverage and even some "progressive" or "independent" media coverage must be viewed through the lens of the struggle against white supremacy (and patriarchy, and class chauvanism) and how this plays out in the media in general. As soon as any "stars" are with us they are attacked, especially, as in the case of Danny Glover, when they are third world people. In response, sure we need to develop better strategies to force the corporate media to cover us. I appreciate what others assigned with such tasks are saying and want to hear more about their experiences. But more importantly to the struggle we must further our own efforts to develop our own media capacity because it is ultimately the ONLY way that our people can speak for themselves and for the rest of us, without filters no matter how well-intentioned these may be. The media work that took place before, during and following the USSF has been a qualitative step forward in this regard. And - lets stop marginalizing ourselves with bullshit about mainstream media and well all be a lot better. We are the mainstream. Louis Head Albuquerque From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Lenchner Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Ussf-mjc] mainstream press coverage Hi! Im really enjoying the articles on the forum and other resources posted on this list. It got me thinking though about stuff I never heard an answer to . So Im posting a few questions which may have no answers . But if you have an answer, Id find it illuminating! Thanks in advance! Has the near absence of mainstream press coverage matched the expectations of our communications folks? Was any substantial effort expended into getting MSM attention that failed to bear fruit, or did the media folks just avoid investing in that from the beginning? In retrospect, with the absence of MSM attention, are there folks who might have done things differently? For example, if certain things didnt happen because of a lack of time/something was more important, what are those things? As an organizer thinking about other events Ill be helping with in the future, would you recommend that I follow the USSF2007 lead when it comes to media strategy? In other words, whereas the WSF I attended in Brazil devoted significant efforts to securing main stream press (in Brazil), and this one didnt, can I intuit discreet perspectives on why one would want/not want media coverage? Thanks! My motive is just this: Im curious about whats implicit in the story of the MJC, as opposed to what comes out in the coverage of the USSF. Some of this might have been discussed to death in some closed circle, but Ive not seen anything articulated that would explain the why for how things turned out. As an activist seeking to learn from my own involvement, asking questions seems like the best strategy. I dont mean to waste bandwidth on this list, so please consider emailing me privately if you think that would be best. Thanks once again to all who worked for the success of the USSF, Charles _______________________________________________ Ussf-mjc mailing list Post: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ussf-mjc To Unsubscribe Send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ussf-mjc/antiracistaction_la%40yahoo.com You are subscribed as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
