University of Virginia Library

By Rod MacDonald

Media On
The March

It's hard to imagine 250,000
people in one place, but Saturday
afternoon that many people (at
least) gathered at the Washington
monument to ask for an end of the
Vietnamese War. The crowd was 98
per cent peaceful; it was close and
friendly; it was committed deeply
enough to its cause to ignore biting
cold weather and winds from the
Potomac.

What is easier to see, and
imagine, is the reaction of America
to such a display. Many marchers
have reported that their parents
experienced a sympathy for the
marchers that they had never
before felt. But the most interesting
item to examine is the press and
television coverage, since so much
of the public's reaction will be
formed from it.

Post, Times Applaud

The Washington Post gave the
New Mobe tremendous publicity,
disassociating the violence radicals
from it (as they actually were) in a
way most newspapers would not.
Its editorial stance on Sunday that
"Yes, it was a nice march" amply
summed up the non-violent drift
towards peace, its columnists took
equal positions, such as Joseph
Kraft who wrote "America should
get used to such Plebiscitary democracy."

The New York Times, supposedly
the world's news authority,
likewise wrote well of the march.
Even the Washington Star, usually a
Republican newspaper, ran a
banner headline on Page One that
read "250,000 Rally Against War,"
adding a four-column picture of the
crowd.

Dividing Militants

Newsweek, for which I worked,
had twenty writers at various points
during the weekend, and until the
last minute was planning a large
story on the Moratorium. It too
was differentiating between peaceniks
and militants between professional
radicals and those there
merely to protest against the war. It
was conceding the enormous
amount of sympathy with this
march, and it was seeking to
ascertain the feelings and motivations
of the individual demonstrators.

So much of the willingness to
divide militants from peaceful protests
is a result of the liberal
insurgency in the movement. One
could argue, as the Weathermen did
to many marchers, that such
peaceful tactics could go nowhere;
that a confrontation was needed.
On the other hand, I was at DuPont
Circle Friday night for a confrontation
and absorbed my share of tear
gas, and not once did I get the
impression that those leaders knew
where they were going either.

TV Unfair

While many newspapers gave the
march fair coverage, television certainly
did not. Stunned by the
actions of Vice-President Spiro
Agnew and FCC chairman Dean
Burch, who requested transcripts of
commentators' remarks on the
President's Vietnam speech, the
three networks gave very little play
to the march after Friday. As
Nicholas Van Hoffman said in his
Washington Post column yesterday,
there was more talent there, from
Pete Seeger to Peter, Paul, and
Mary, then any network could
assemble for a special. There were
more people there than at a concert
anywhere except Woodstock. There
was more emotion and drama than
in a year of "As The World Turns."
And yet there were no TV cameras.

The controversial Agnew speech
said mainly that TV networks were
biased in their coverage, that a
small elite decided what they would
portray to the American people,
and should thus be regulated. I am
fascinated by Mr. Agnew's theory
of elitism, and think we should
pursue the matter further. By that
reasoning when the President of the
United States determines policy in
opposition to a quarter of a million
people publicly showing their feelings,
and then claims that because
millions of people have said nothing
they are a "silent majority" supporting
him, this is good policy-making.
When the Vice-President
insults statesmen such as Averill
Harriman and Americans such as
demonstrators who disagree with
him, this is good patriotism. But
when a TV commentator expresses
a view differing with the President,
this should be regulated. The
administration obviously has a
warped sense of values.

Free Media?

Further, if the Vice-President
thinks the networks, which are
individual corporations but affect
millions, should not use their time
for their own opinions, perhaps the
government officials, who affect
the entire nation, should not
manipulate their actions for the
same purpose. Should the Vice-President
be allowed to use his
official position to castigate fellow
Americans? Should the FCC chairman
be allowed to intimidate the
nation's free broadcasting companies?
Should the President be
allowed to present his sob story
before millions but bar the news
analysts from public statements? In
a burst of paranoia because the
nation will not agree with him, the
President has sought to silence the
non-silent and real majority. If the
President desires national unity, he
should recognize the fact that it
will not rally behind war.

War Drags On

But at any rate, the administration
effectively cowed the networks
out of presenting the peace
story to the millions in Lovingstons
and Culpepers who still think
peaceniks are communists dupes
and bottle-throwers. Instead of the
real America, this weekend they saw
"Miss Teenage America with Dick
Clark," "I Love Lucy," and "The
Red Skelton Show." Instead of
presenting the protest live to
Americans and letting them see it
themselves, the networks left the
work of conveying America's youth
to the mouths of the rallies
themselves, the newspapers, or the
feet of Spiro Agnew. The networks
unquestionably failed and bowed to
a President who's aim to see the
protest ignored; They may comply
if they so desire, but one cannot
admire their cowardice.

So the war drags on, and "under
no circumstances" will there be any
change. The "silent majority" will
continue to expect its nation's
youths to give their lives for a
psuedo-nation held up with American
firepower and tear gas. And
there is no greater symbol of the
weekend in which the public was
ignored than that of President
Nixon, to whom the American
people mean so much in these times
that he spent rally day watching a
football game.