It was much harder for TV than for newspapers to downplay the reality that George W. Bush was greeted in 2001 by massive protests.
Discussing the security challenges posed by the inauguration of Donald Trump, the New York Times (1/18/17) reported:
Those numbers are quite likely to be larger than any seen at an inauguration since at least the Vietnam War era. Mr. Bush’s 2001 inauguration attracted modest protest action, the largest in more recent memory, but it was largely disorganized and caused no significant disruptions.
The link in that passage goes back to the Times‘ 2001 coverage of the inauguration—coverage that was critiqued by FAIR at the time under the headline “Ignoring Reality at the Inauguration” (Extra!, 3–4/01):
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 Capital”) 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 100 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 GOP Savor ‘Special Victory,” on page 18.) The accompanying photo, a tiny 2″ x 3″ 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.
Given the paper of record’s strenuous downplaying of the 2001 inaugural protests in the name of “Tradition and Legitimacy,” it’s not surprising that 16 years later, the paper’s reporters remember those protests as being “modest.”
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @JNaureckas.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or write to public editor Liz Spayd at public@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes or @SpaydL). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
The NYT’s 2001 lack of coverage is no surprise. Do you really think the so called “free press” is really going to cover any protest against the ruling oligarchy? The MSM is owned by 6 corporations that control 90% of what we see, read, hear or watch in the media or the so called “news.” Sponsors and ratings control the show or “entertainment.” If the MSM really did it’s job, Trump would not be President. But we all know about the “Golden Rule: them that has the gold write the rules.” “Money talks, B.S, walks and we are all running a close third.” Welcome to the “brave new world- 1984 of TRUMP the newly merging Trump Russia United Mega-ego Putin” Inc.) What is good for Trump and Putin Inc is good for the US is good for Trump Industries and vice-versa.” Trump and Putin will both get richer at our expense. “It s going to be GREAT!”
Paul:
You had point and then you brought up “Putin”.
Too many anti Putin signs at the anti-Trump protest tonight (Jan 19th) at One CPW.
Drop the neoMcCarthyte garbage, and protest Trump’s policies and cabinet picks.
Yes. The neoMcCarthyte nonsense really has to stop.
The NYT not only “Ignore[s] (actual) Reality,” they also purposely and ceaselessly seek to create alternative ones — in order that their premeditated and colluded Narratives may keep as many audiences as possible in “Ignorance,” thus serving their masters’ ideological, political, societal, and militaristic goals of controlling “History.”
“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Hey Jim Naureckas:
Look at the NY Times “reporter” for this 2017 article, it’s some no name, one can’t even click his name and draw up other Times reporting he’s done. I’m sure this is by design on the part of the Times.
But the 2001 guy, linked, seems to have been a real Times reporter. One of the last NY Times articles he wrote was the 2012 obituary of George McGovern. Irony.
Two Things:
1. I was surprised to hear a note on BBC just in the last week that GW Bush recalled his fear while being driven through hoards of protesters during the 2001 Inauguration. That should be documented somewhere. I was there and remember that his car actually stopped for a bit and reportedly for the first time in history the President-elect did not walk the last few yards to the White House, staying in the safety of the car the entire time. I don’t believe things were as dangerous as he reported (I was there), but understand that he didn’t really know what the situation was on the ground and that his people had commited an egregious crime against Americans through the Supreme Court by stopping the vote count, so were consequently concerned for their own safety.
2. Dr. Madison of the History Dept of Southern Connecticut State university reportedly documented the 2001 Inauguration protests extensively. Being an historian, his research should be pretty extensive and corraborated.
3. (okay, 3 things!) The fact that there were extensive protests at the 2001 Inauguration is documented here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_George_W._Bush
Please consider adding to that wikipedia article and others like it since it is important to keep the facts historically accurate.
Thanks for saying all this, George. I was at that the anti- inaugural demonstration, too, with my wife and a friend. It was amazing how hard the police tried to keep the demonstrators out, stopping them at the checkpoints, and forbidding them entry on the basis of all sorts of false pretexts. We only managed to get in because we met a reporter from a small independent outlet that let us tail along with him. He helped us go through the press entry checkpoint. . Many thousands or protesters did not get through at all.
As far as “being afraid” goes, Bush’s Security rightly had deep concerns about his safety, since protesters on Pennysylvannia Ave unexpectedly jumped out several times, and tried to accost the Presidential Limosine, only to be wrestled down to the ground by Secret Service. This was caught on tape. C-Span recorded the whole processsion, which showed HUGE numbers of demonstrators, seemingly more protesters than supporters. Rewriting history is something that even C-Span apparently does. I have checked, and it seems that the recording has been erased or taken down from the C-Span archives. Luckily I have a copy I taped which I review periodically. We have to keep our own history now, since there are so few reliable outlets that faithfully do keep good records, when facts run counter to an establishment narrative.
This is far from the only protest the New York Times has downplayed, very intentionally. For example, they barely took notice of the 2003 anti-Iraq War protest, because apparently 100,000 people standing outside the UN chanting either isn’t newsworthy or not worth sending a reporter just down the street to cover. And it took them weeks to take notice of Occupy Wall Street, and months to really begin covering the NoDAPL protest.
Dave K:
It was far more than 100,000 at the NYC rally that Sunday in Feb. 2003.
How many were directly in front of the UN at 42nd and 1st, I won’t say.
But the rally on the east side of Manhattan drew more like a minimum of half a million people–that’s a really low figure.
Right, the next day the Times pretended it was only say 120,000 people who’d attended.
NYT = LOL
The New York Times…my god “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”-Mark Twain.
And …
. . . A. J. Liebling’s immortal aphorism: “Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one” . . .