{"id":65270,"date":"2002-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/01\/decomptes-democratiques\/"},"modified":"2002-10-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-10-01T00:00:00","slug":"decomptes-democratiques","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/01\/decomptes-democratiques\/","title":{"rendered":"D\u00e9comptes d\u00e9mocratiques<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

D\u00e9comptes d\u00e9mocratiques<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t1er octobre 2002 Nos amis de FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting<\/em>) sont pr\u00e9cieux. Un bon test de l’objectivit\u00e9 de la grande presse US (essentiellement le Washington Post<\/em> et le New York Times<\/em>) \u00e9tait, sans aucun doute, la gigantesque manifestation de Londres du 28 septembre. En ampleur, cette manifestation s’est r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9e \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s \u00e9gale \u00e0 celle de la semaine pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente (21 septembre), \u00e0 Londres \u00e9galement, sur la chasse au renard. Qu’il se soit trouv\u00e9 quasiment autant de Britanniques pour manifester sur le th\u00e8me de l’opposition \u00e0 la guerre contre l’Irak et \u00e0 la politique suiviste de Tony Blair, qu’il s’en \u00e9tait trouv\u00e9, la semaine pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente, pour manifester sur le th\u00e8me de la chasse au renard, cela repr\u00e9sente un \u00e9v\u00e9nement sociologique et politique de grande importance. Cela mesure, on l’a \u00e9crit,<\/a> la crise profonde o\u00f9 la crise irakienne plonge le Royaume Uni.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPar cons\u00e9quent, on attendait avec int\u00e9r\u00eat la couverture que la grande presse US allait faire de cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement par rapport \u00e0 celle qu’elle avait faite de l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement du 21 septembre. FAIR attendait la chose avec un int\u00e9r\u00eat encore plus grand. On a vu, et le r\u00e9sultat est pitoyable et path\u00e9tique, comme la manif’ elle-m\u00eame, il \u00ab speaks volume<\/em> \u00bb sur le degr\u00e9 de libert\u00e9 de cette grande presse US, c\u00e9l\u00e9br\u00e9e in illo tempore<\/em> comme la presse la plus digne et la plus libre, qui montre aujourd’hui son degr\u00e9 de conformisme par rapport aux consignes non-dites mais parfaitement audibles et entendues du pouvoir. Cette presse-l\u00e0 n’a plus rien \u00e0 envier \u00e0 la sovi\u00e9tique, du temps de la Pravda<\/em>. Elle montre, dans sa servilit\u00e9 sophistiqu\u00e9e, sottise et couardise \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s \u00e9galement r\u00e9parties. C’est une honte quotidienne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici le texte publi\u00e9 par FAIR. Nous le faisons suivre d’un texte publi\u00e9 (dans CounterPunch<\/em>) par une personnalit\u00e9 de la gauche activiste britannique, Tariq Ali, qui a bien s\u00fbr suivi la manifestation du 28 septembre et qui en fait rapport, ainsi que diverses appr\u00e9ciations sur la participation. Histoire d’\u00e9quilibrer, sans doute. (Tariq Ali est un vieux dur-\u00e0-cuire de la contestation puisqu’il \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 actif dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, fort troubl\u00e9es comme on sait, mais alors comme jeune \u00e9tudiant. Aujourd’hui, il est un des \u00e9diteur de New Left<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Fox Hunting Trumps Peace Activism at Washington Post & New York Times<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tSeptember 30, 2002<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLast Saturday, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of London to protest military action against Iraq, rallying in what the London Independent called \u00a0\u00bbone of the biggest peace demonstrations seen in a generation\u00a0\u00bb (9\/29\/02). Yet neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times saw fit to run a full article about the protests, instead burying<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpassing mentions of the story in articles about other subjects.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIn contrast, both papers showed real interest in another recent London march of comparable size last week’s protest against a proposed ban on fox-hunting. The Washington Post ran a 1,331-word story about the fox-hunting protest on the front page of its Style section (9\/23\/02), while the New York Times ran a short Reuters piece on page A4 (9\/23\/02), which it followed up with an op-ed exploring the class politics of the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thunt (9\/24\/02). A Times story on Prince Charles’ involvement in politics (9\/26\/02) also made reference to the pro-fox-hunting protest.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEstimates of the crowd size at the peace march vary. The Independent (9\/29\/02) reported both the police estimate of 150,000 protesters and the organizers’ early estimate of 350,000; similarly, the London Times cited the police estimate alongside a later organizers’ estimate of 400,000 (9\/30\/02). A London Observer columnist (9\/29\/02) who attended the march dismissed the police figures as politically motivated, writing: \u00a0\u00bbThe Stop the War coalition last night claimed the total was more than 350,000; the police reluctantly moved up from ‘four men with beards and a small dog’ to 150,000, and the truth was, if anything, even higher than either.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAccording to British press reports, the peace march was notable not just for its size, but for how broad-based it was. Organized by the Stop the War coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain, the demonstration was focused on two main slogans, \u00a0\u00bbDon’t Attack Iraq\u00a0\u00bb and \u00a0\u00bbFreedom for Palestine\u00a0\u00bb (Guardian, 9\/30\/02). The Observer (9\/29\/02) reported solidarity between the causes, describing an \u00a0\u00bban undeniable unity of purpose\u00a0\u00bb in a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdiverse crowd that included everyone from Muslim activists in keffiyah to \u00a0\u00bbHampstead ladies with their granddaughters in prams.\u00a0\u00bb According to the Independent (9\/29\/02), \u00a0\u00bbthe sheer numbers who turned out to express vociferous opposition to military action in Iraq. meant there was no way they could be dismissed as ‘the usual suspects’ of the hard left.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDespite all that, the entirety of the New York Times’ coverage of th peace march was nestled at the end of one sentence in an article titled \u00a0\u00bbBlair Is Confident of Tough U.N. Line on Iraqi Weapons\u00a0\u00bb (9\/30\/02). Many Labour Party MPs, said the Times, \u00a0\u00bbwere encouraged by the turnout of 150,000 protesters who staged an antiwar march in London on Saturday\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Washington Post managed one reference more, but seemed to have seriously under-counted the crowd. The Post article \u00a0\u00bbIraq Rejects Inspection Revisions\u00a0\u00bb (9\/29\/02) mentioned \u00a0\u00bbthousands\u00a0\u00bb of protesters in London, and an article the next day about European opposition to U.S. unilateralism referred to \u00a0\u00bbtens of thousands\u00a0\u00bb of demonstrators.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBritain is the only European country backing the Bush administration’s war plans, so the size and composition of the London peace march not to mention the arguments articulated there have particular relevance to the international debate over Iraq. The pro-fox-hunting march, which also addressed broader issues of urban\/rural tension in England, was newsworthy enough, but much more local in focus. Given the looming prospect of a war that could kill thousands of people and throw an entire region into<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tturmoil, it’s disturbing that the New York Times and the Washington Post gave the two events such disparate treatment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Taking It To London’s Streets The New Anti-War Movement<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tSeptember 30, 2002 by Tariq Ali (Tariq Ali is an editor of New Left) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLondon: Saturday 28th September. It was a beautiful clear blue sky. No mists but a great deal of mellow fruitfulness. The Stop the War Coalition— a united front that includes socialists of most stripes, liberals and radicals, pacifists and the moderate Muslim groups—-had expected 200,000 people, but the mood in Britain was uneasy and large numbers of people, many of them conservative or even apolitical, had decided to swell the march.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe week before the march, New Labour issued the so-called Blair dossier, a farrago of half-truths and stale facts was a very crude attempt at war propaganda. It backfired miserably. Blair was at his worst. The grinning disk-jockey in clerical mode. Everything reduced to a pseudo-morality tale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWar-talk and piety is such an ugly combination. It may have convinced his ghastly cabinet, a bunch of mediocrities, most of whom would find it difficult to gain employment elsewhere.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBlair prefers it like this: in the land of the blind, the one-eyed beggar is king.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Daily Mirror, a leading London tabloid devoted 8 pages to denouncing the dossier and Blair. This newspaper has turned decisively after 9\/11, in sharp contrast to its rivals and ‘betters’.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe only pro-war piece in the paper, hallucinatory on every level and published to give the White House a voice, appeared under the byline of the former NATION columnist, Christopher Hitchens. The man with the Orwell-complex has fallen really low. He will fall further.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNo war in Iraq; Justice for Palestine were the themes that united everyone present on Saturday 28th September. .Murdoch’s Sky TV reported 400,000 . Irish radio insisted there were half-a-million. Channel Five News said ‘over a quarter of a million’. Only BBC TV reported the ‘police figure’ of 150,000.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLet’s be modest. Let’s accept that there were over 350,000 people who came from all parts of the country to show their contempt for Tony Blair and his backing for Bush’s planned war against Iraq.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tI met people, old and young, who had never been on a demonstration before. Rites of passage. And the mood was one of defiance and anger.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe new wave of trade-union leaders who have been elected to defy the New Labour Thatcherites were solidly against the war. Bob Crow, the 40–something leader of the railway workers denounced Blair in vitriolic language. So did Mark Serotka from the Civil Servants Union and others.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThen there was Tony Benn and George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn (the last two still Members of Parliament) spoke for the Labour Party members opposed to Blair.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt was the Jewish sabbath. So the contingent of Hassidic Jews could not speak, but their moving plea for Palestinian rights was read by a young Muslim from Leicester.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was also there strongly denouncing the Prime Minister. Many Londoners heaved a sigh of relief when Blair refused to let Livingstone back in the Labour Party. No longer needing to suck up to the New Labour leadership, Livingstone shifted his position once again. Sometimes opportunism can lead in the left direction.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNobody on the demonstration was taken in by the talk of a UN-led war being somehow more acceptable than a Bush-Blair attack. The British peace movement, for one, will not be taken in if the permanent members of the UNSC allow their arms to be twisted and their purses filled by the Bushmen.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHere the movement will continue. And when the bombs begin to drop there will be acts of non-violent civil disobedience all over the country.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWe need the same in the United States.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

D\u00e9comptes d\u00e9mocratiques 1er octobre 2002 Nos amis de FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) sont pr\u00e9cieux. Un bon test de l’objectivit\u00e9 de la grande presse US (essentiellement le Washington Post et le New York Times) \u00e9tait, sans aucun doute, la gigantesque manifestation de Londres du 28 septembre. En ampleur, cette manifestation s’est r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9e \u00e0 peu… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3623,625,857,2680,3256,3430,3622,2852,3248,3257],"class_list":["post-65270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-ali","tag-fair","tag-irak","tag-londres","tag-new","tag-post","tag-tariq","tag-times","tag-washington","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65270","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65270"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65270\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}