portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

Idea: Newspaper Blockade

A suggestion to blockade a newspaper with a human chain
I know I'm not the only one disgusted with the pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-corporation bias of Portland's only daily newspaper. Let's consider this as a form of protest: a human chain /blockade around their offices or production facilities. I believe this would be more effective and send a much clearer message than blocking traffic.

brilliant 27.Mar.2003 09:58

Brice McIntrye

That'll quickly snap the masses around to your point of view. Besides which, if the first amendment applies to you, it applies to them. Otherwise...meet the new boss/same as the old boss.

Cranky Old Brice

Fantastic idea 27.Mar.2003 12:11

Jimmy Jim

This is the type of action we need. Blocking traffic is getting the neutral upset with the cause. It's effective, but we need to seek alternatives and get the population of Portland, and indeed the nationally neutral, on the side of sanity. Make a stand against the media that is controlling opinion and allowing Resident Bush to be insulated from the way Portland IS responding.

Peace in the Middle East, Peace in Portland, Peace on the streets of the US.

this will discredit your movement 27.Mar.2003 12:35

George Smiley

Attempting to suppress the freedom of expression of those that disagree with you will discredit your movement.

Many intelligent people and media organs have studied the issues around the war with Iraq and have come to the conclusion that this is a just war.

Not sure if you understand 27.Mar.2003 14:02

Jimmy Jim

Apparently, this last commenter enjoys skewing the facts to support their point of view. Suppressing the freedom of expression is precisely what is happening across this nation. Preventing protester rights is becoming central. Restricting freedom of expression comes to the forefront when a protester could be tried and convicted, and sentenced to a minimum of 25 years for "terrorist acts"; namely throwing a brick through a window during a demonstration. While I do not condone violent protest I do believe that is an excessive punishment. This, obviously, makes no sense, but it is what the OR legislature is recommending. Blocking entrance to The Oregonian raises issues, it does not prevent the newspaper from running stories, it simply encourages them to remain accountable to the people who read the paper.

Clarification of Intent 27.Mar.2003 14:38

ahimsa

The idea behind the hypothetical action would not be censorship. I'm as pro-freedom-of-the-press as anybody. They would be free to say whatever they want. And in reality the paper would never be shut down. At the best, it would disrupt operations for a while. But it would get news coverage, and it would raise the question of how objective and independent the news is.

Is hindering a newspaper's operations anti-First Amendment? What is at question is how "free" or independent the press actually is. If a paper is owned by the same corporate interests who seem to control our government, it's not really the free press, it's government propaganda. That fact is worth raising public awareness of, because reform will never happen as long as most Americans believe whatever they are told. And that reality is worth protesting.

If the point is to "snap the masses around to your point of view," I fail to see how blocking traffic will help. Most of "the masses" won't be won over by missing their comics for a day either. But a few of them might pause to consider for the first time that their morning news may not be the full absolute truth.

Clarification of Intent 27.Mar.2003 14:44

ahimsa

The idea behind the action would not be censorship. I'm as pro-freedom-of-the-press as anybody. They would be free to say whatever they want. And in reality the paper would never be shut down. At the best, it would disrupt operations for a while. But it would get news coverage, and it would raise the question of how objective and independent the news is.

Is hindering a newspaper's operations anti-First Amendment? What is at question is how "free" or independent the press actually is. If a paper is owned by the same corporate interests who seem to control our government, it's not really the free press, it's government propaganda. That fact is worth raising pubnlic awareness of. And that reality is worth protesting.

If the point is to "snap the masses around to your point of view," I fail to see how blocking traffic will help. Most of "the masses" won't be won over by missing their comics for a day either. But a few of them might pause to consider for the first time that their morning news may not be the full absolute truth.

Sarcasm, dammit 27.Mar.2003 16:28

Brice McIntrye

Cranky Old Brice was utilizing sarcasm. Blockading the Oregonian wouldn't do zip, besides make it easier for reporters to cover it. (They could walk downstairs, for example.)

This whole bitching about the corporate media this, corporate media that...it's infantile. When people are getting killed--Americans and Iraqis--it's really stupid to dilute the message into bad meat, wrong fur, corporate hoo-hah, global diddlebong. Why? Because you can shut down all the bridges you want, rough up all the reporters who might be persuaded to listen if they weren't made the story, break windows, throw red paint, whatever. And it'll fucking make you feel righteous. But change in this country comes from the center, which is, believe it or not, in play. Peaceful persuasion goes a lot farther with swing voters, and swing voters scare politicians. Even assholes like George Bush.

It isn't very sexy, but to scare away the folks who can effect real change is in essence saying stroking your ego is more important than saving lives. And I don't see whole hell of a lot of difference between that and Donald Rumsfeld.

Sorry, but evisceration and third-degree burns make Brice cranky.

Brice

Exactly 27.Mar.2003 17:05

ahimsa

Exactly, Brice, the center is in play. The center also believes what they read in their morning paper and see on the evening news, without question. Pointing out that the mainstream press is not free or independent is not diluting the message about the war. The war and the hamstrung press are symptoms of the same thing--the corrosive effect of money in our society and too much control by corporate big money. The war is happening (partly) because the center thinks it is the right thing, or at least condones it. The reason the center does so is that the get skewed or partial or false information from the mainstream media. The action I'm talking about hopefully would be a wake-up call for some in the center. Hopefully they may investigate other information sources (like this site) or demand more balanced coverage from their current providers, who are after all partially market-driven.

Sorry about the duplicate post.