I caught some of the G20 protests on Lateline last night.
The bias in the journalism was fairly predictable, there are some things about it that struck me as worth noticing;
* No exploration of the problems people have with the G20 conference and those involved. Nothing but vague references to there being "a range of groups". Compare this with the unquestioning
relaying of news from within the G20 itself - we get lots of information about the disagreements between G20 members, and the plans these people have come up with - almost nothing at all on any plans or opinions or disagreements from outside the conference.
* Despite the violence of the protests, we only ever get to see a couple of short clips or shots of broken glass. Nothing to indicate widespread violence.
* A lot of the shots of the "violent" nature of the protest look a lot like police officers pushing people around (and getting yelled at in return), but the narration always discusses protestor violence. In stark contrast to the clips already on YouTube showing lines of shield & helmet clad police waving batons and surging forward into masses of unarmed, unprotected people. Clips not used in "official" news reports.
* A report that one protestor was killed, with no follow-up comments, analysis or signs that the journalist tried to figure out what the circumstances were. Leave it to crazy lefties to fill in the witness reports and analysis that the media aren't interested in reporting.
* A predictable bias in favour of the
World Leaders inside the G20 conference, with the reporter making adoring reference to those brave men and women working to solve the worlds problems.
The journalist involved was practically suckling on their toes.
I guess some
of us know our proper place: kneeling before these mighty Giants of the World Stage as they tirelessly work - outside of democratic oversight or public input - to decide what should happen in the world we adoring servants dwell within.
Okay, i'll move on then.
* The interesting suggestion - implicit in everything the reporter said - that the smashing of windows at the Bank of Scotland was somehow innapropriate.
Okay, we can argue about whether or not "destruction of property" is an appropriate form of protest. I argue about that with myself.
But the scale of destruction supported by various G20 attendees should surely get some comparable treatment by a noble, objective journalist - why not be consistent? Or at least recognise the power imbalance in what is being reported.
And the lack of distinction between violence against people
and violence against the Bank of Scotland's windows
is a little terrifying, when you dwell on it. If one were to draw a coherent message out, one would have to be a little concerned that journalists have trouble making such distinctions.
I rambled a bit, all i wanted to do was link to Slackbastard
, who suggests that police are using the protests as a pretense to rummage through the belongings of squatters.