LTTEs To Wash. Post On Biased D.C. Rally Coverage: "You're Wrong About The War, And The Rally, Too"

Via E-Mail:

So many people wrote to the Washington Post complaining about their biased coverage of the September 15 Mass March on Washington that they ran a large photo showing the huge size of the demonstration, accompanied by the following letters that criticized their coverage. The coverage can be seen in today’s Washington Post, page A15. It is really worth getting a hard copy of the paper.

Washington Post: Saturday, September 22, 2007; Page A15



You're Wrong About the War, and About the Rally, Too

Why would The Post misrepresent the number of antiwar, anti-administration protesters here in Washington on Sept. 15? The Associated Press said that organizers estimated that more than 100,000 people attended the rally and march, and while that couldn't be confirmed, "there appeared to be tens of thousands of people in attendance." Columnist Marc Fisher, however, put the tally at "the several thousand people who devoted their Saturday to the constitutionally sacred act of sounding off in their nation's capital" ("Online Fervor Over the Iraq War Hits the Streets With a Big Thud," Metro, Sept. 16). A Post story used a law enforcement estimate of "closer to 10,000."

Given that he interviewed participants, Fisher apparently deigned to attend the demonstration, but he didn't seem to have attended the same event I participated in. I talked to many people, friends and strangers alike, and every one of them was surprised and pleased by the large number of participants.

-- J.E. Blackburn
Falls Church

I object to your Sept. 16 headline "Dueling Demonstrations," in the A section. The antiwar rally was organized first; the other was a much smaller rally organized in response to it.

You made no mention of the relative turnout for the two rallies. I was at Lafayette Square, where a dedicated crowd of thousands assembled. On C-SPAN, there appeared to be about a thousand at the other rally. Should you have mentioned that thousands more were at the antiwar rally?

-- Charles Eisenhauer
Rockville

I'm mystified that your editorials continue to support President Bush's policy of staying in Iraq.

In describing the recent testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus to Congress <"A Long View," editorial, Sept. 11>, The Post admitted that the surge has failed to meet a primary objective of fostering political reconciliation, yet only asked rhetorically: "Should the missions of American forces remain unchanged?" This was followed by: "That's a question that the president must answer." You also have called the president's policy "the least bad plan" (editorial, Sept. 14).

I'm bewildered that you continue to support staying in this war when The Post, of all media organizations, has been the source of so much information that causes me to oppose Bush's escalation and "stay the course" policy.

The Post has unveiled a mountain of information on Iraq showing the futility of American military muscle. You have detailed the enormous human and financial cost of the war and repeatedly exposed this president for tampering with the truth. The Post has been the source of blistering war commentaries from Eugene Robinson, Richard Cohen, David Ignatius, E.J. Dionne Jr., Colbert I. King, George F. Will and Jim Hoagland.

As an avid Post reader, I can only wonder whether the editorial board is reading its own newspaper.

-- Holly Stallworth
Silver Spring

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101885.html

Protest Coverage Worth Protesting

By Deborah Howell
Sunday, September 23, 2007; Page B06

Protest coverage routinely draws complaints, but objections to the story, headline and photos on the Sept. 15 rallies for and against the Iraq war were unusually valid.

Tim Jost of Lexington, Va., wrote: "The Post gives equal coverage to both the anti- and pro-war rallies. Were the rallies roughly equal in size? All other news sources I have read on the march note that the antiwar rally was much larger."

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

The Post's story last Sunday on Page A8 by Metro reporters Michelle Boorstein, V. Dion Haynes and Allison Klein was by and large straightforward and accurate, but there was a hole in it you could drive a Mack truck through.

The story did not say that the antiwar protest was exponentially larger than the pro-war demonstration. The headline and photo display exacerbated the problem.

- snip -

Michael Cushman of the District wrote: "The picture selection opens with a large picture of the PRO-war protesters ( Gathering of Eagles) right in the sweet spot at the top center. It was a much larger picture than any showing the antiwar crowd and seemed to inflate the importance of the pro-war support." Cushman was right about the inside photos. Three smaller ones were about the arrests of 189 antiwar activists in a "die-in." Another photo showed an antiwar protester and a war supporter.

MORE