Seventeen people arrested in a crowd of thousands? Why is that so noteworthy? We also learn that two policemen were injured. Policemen are probably injured on the job every day. Were their injuries caused by protester violence? Were any protesters injured? This might or might not be newsworthy, but why is it the lede?
We're so accustomed to reading these kinds of stories, we might not stop to question them. What is the obsession with the possibility of violence at mass protests, and how many arrests were made? Mass protests have been happening all over the world for well over 100 years. In most countries with a semblance of democracy, they occur peacefully. If there are a few arrests, so what? People are arrested all the time.
[I was reminded of something from Taylor Branch's At Canaan's Edge, describing a report on activist and then-candidate Stokely Carmichael.
"A New York Times profile identified the new chairman as a twenty-four-year-old 'organizer of Alabama's all-Negro political party' and characterized his philosophy on a spectrum reserved for civil rights figures: 'Mr. Carmichael does not advocate violence, but neither does he believe in turning the other cheek.'"
No one asked the white candidates if they advocated violence against Black citizens trying to register to vote, although many of them advocated it, ordered it and defended it.]
Also in the lede in the Sydney stories, we learn that the protest was "colorful and mostly peaceful". Not until paragraph five do we learn what the protests were about, and then it's "a hodgepodge of issues, from the Iraq war to gay rights and global warming". I find that wording dismissive and belittling.
By all accounts, the police presence was wildly disproportionate, with the usual body armor and plexi shields augmented by a water cannon.
Organizers estimate the crowd at 10,000, police at 3,000. Guess which figure made the headline? Why do crowd estimates matter? A protester gives some perspective.
Meanwhile, the 21 countries that met in Sydney, which includes Canada, signed a toothless treaty with nothing but "aspirational" targets. What a beautiful bit of political language that is. Cue Orwell quote here.
No comments:
Post a Comment