I think that any activist or person in struggle is somewhat interested in their public image, because you want to reach people and hopefully get them to join you or at least support what you are doing. The problem with how this conundrum has been framed in activist circles is that it leads to the simplistic equation: militant tactics = bad publicity = no public support. There are quite a few problems with this. First of all, it's unfair to diss activists because the corporate media doesn't present them in the best light. The corporate media exists to create profits and to protect the class interest of its owners. It has found that conflict and "if it bleeds, it leads" are the best way to draw consumers to their product. This is why the corporate media is incapable of exploring what the activists are saying in depth, despite the best efforts of the activists. The suggestion that "public image" is the most important thing activists should consider leads to tactics that are always watered down in the simplistic notion that militant tactics alienate popular support. Nobody ever stops to ask which popular support we are trying to win. Middle and upper class journalists? Policy makers? Middle class suburbanites? Working class people? People who live in the Global South? I suspect that the last two are the groups that middle and working class activists in North America want to maintain good relations with. I suspect that the liberal naysayers who shriek loudly about property destruction are worried about losing some mythical middle class TV audience. What has generated support from the working class and the Global South for the North American anti-globalization movement? Certainly not permitted demos and endless rallies. Not leftist attempts to build mass Leninist parties. No, what they support is the militant tactics, direct action, and creative passion that has been a hallmark of our movement
