ACTION ALERT:
IGNORING REALITY AT THE
INAUGURATION
New York Times Stresses "Legitimacy" Over Democracy
January 22, 2001
The New York Times editorial the day after
George W. Bush's inauguration
("A Vision of Unity," 1/21/01) predicted,
based on the inaugural address, that
Bush could "lift the nation to a new era
of inclusion and social justice,"
and found room to describe how "the gloomy
light of a winter's day was
offset by splashes of color like Laura
Bush's blue coat."
But it didn't find space to mention the
most striking feature of the 2001 inauguration:
that it occurred amidst widespread and
angry protests rejecting the legitimacy of Bush's
claim to office, the likes of which have
not been faced by any modern president.
Along the parade route, he was confronted
by signs with messages like "Shame,"
"Bush Lost" and "Hail to the Thief." The
London Guardian (1/22/01) reported that the
inaugural parade "fell well short of being
triumphant, and on many occasions during
its slow advance through the drizzle, the
sound of jeering drowned out the cheers."
But the front page of the New York Times
showcased stories like "Bush, Taking Office,
Calls for Civility, Compassion and 'Nation
of Character'; Unity Is a Theme" and
"Proud Father and Son Bask in History's
Glow"-- both of which discussed Bush's
teary-eyed father while avoiding any mention
of protesters.
While the Times' news editors could not
totally ignore the estimated 20,000 demonstrators,
they did their best to downplay them, placing
the one story about them ("Protesters in the
Thousands Sound Off in the Capitol") on
page 17, the sixth out of eight pages of inauguration
coverage. This article featured one quote
from Rev. Al Sharpton and one from a demonstrator
who spoke of the "inchoate feeling" that
led her to march. This abbreviated presentation of the
viewpoints of the tens of thousands of
anti-Bush protesters was "balanced" by another quote from
one of the hundred anti-abortion activists
who demonstrated outside Planned Parenthood's offices.
All told, the story measured 15 column
inches out of eight full pages of inauguration coverage.
(It was about three-fourths the length
of "Floridians of the G.O.P. Savor 'Special Victory,' "
on page 18.) The accompanying photo, a
tiny 2"x3" shot of one of the day's anti-Bush marches,
was the only one out of 19 inauguration-related
photos in the paper to show any sign of dissent.
Another inside-pages story, "Echoes of
the Past, Near and Far, Are Heard on the Capital's Streets,"
included a lone protester outside the Supreme
Court building, but presented him as well outnumbered
by Republican counter-demonstrators singing
"God Bless America."
The most telling story of the inauguration
package was a front-page news analysis headlined
"Tradition and Legitimacy: A Nation's Old
Rituals Begin to Dissolve Lingering Clouds of a Bitter
Election Battle." This piece, by R.W. Apple,
did mention the demonstrations-- in order to minimize
their significance:
"Arguments about the legitimacy of the
Texas governor's victory have
persisted even as the country accepted
the fact that he had won. Thousands
of the doubtful and disenchanted took to
the streets of Washington today
in angry protest. But the debate is likely
to grow softer as the nation grows
accustomed to pictures of Mr. Bush speaking
from the Oval Office, boarding
Air Force One, accompanied everywhere he
goes by the strains of 'Ruffles and
Flourishes' and 'Hail to the Chief.' In
the television age, those images, more that
anything else, confer the mantle of authority
and legitimacy on a leader."
The notion that it is media images, not
the votes of citizens accurately counted,
that give legitimacy to a leader is profoundly
anti-democratic. The media's role in
trying to shore up the fragile credibility
of the establishment was a theme in the most
insightful piece in the New York Times'
inauguration coverage, "Reality of Nation's
Divisions Quickly Creeps into the
Commentary, " by TV critic Caryn James.
She notes TV pundits' attempt to "retreat
into a soothing little bubble where every
action they observe is majestic and every
viewer shares their sense of awe"--a bubble
that was punctured by "visible evidence
of furious protesters along the parade route."
Because it was not obliged to present live
video footage of that "visible evidence,"
the New York Times was much more successful
than the television networks in
minimizing the fact that tens of thousands
of citizens from across the country marched
on D.C. to reject Bush's assumption of
power as illegitimate and undemocratic.
The Times left readers with the impression
that the dominant themes of the day were
"Unity," "Tradition" and, above all, "Legitimacy."
ACTION: Please write to the New York
Times if you thought that the protests
against George W. Bush's inauguration
were an important story and deserved
more prominence in the Times' inauguration
coverage.
CONTACT:
New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
mailto:nytnews@nytimes.com
Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS
Privacy Policy
.
.