I saw some horrendous video on WCCO, one minute a guy is just standing there (no signs, no taunting, just standing) and the next thing I know there 10 policeman pummeling him. All on the 6 o clock news...I wasn't there, but it seemed pretty friggin over the top. Sadly, the anchors didn't even mention anything about the video that was just shown.

LAMBERT: There was plenty of the "bang-bang" covered on TV. My point is how diligent the electronic media was in offering their viewers/listeners an understanding of what these people were protesting. If the RNC was an opportunity for a "dialogue", did our local broadcasters contribute to this dialogue, or did they, for the most part, ignore one significant faction of our big political week? And if they did, why?

Sigh. I'll just say it:

Where is your acknowledgement of the molotov cocktails, diesel/gas brews, the screw-studded shields, the rock and brick caches, bus disabling equipmment and "bio-hazard" heaps that were seized by the vigilant and excellent law enforcement authorities, preventing further asshattery by the rabble?

Whose side are you on here?

Isn't this a fashion and home furnishings site?

Forget those old-timers... The UpTake had protest coverage coming out our firewire ports!

LAMBERT: Well this speaks to a larger point, namely that with broadcasters shying away from the sort of coverage that some might deem "radical" (and would incur the wrath of certain segments of the population) web-casters and other narrow-casters are the only places to go for "the rest of the story", as Paul Harvey likes to say. When you stop serving a significant chunk of your clientele, your business is in trouble.

(side: What kind of blog doesn't allow html comments? (g))

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/08/protest_groups_decry_raids_but.shtml

I can't speak for MPR, but the suggestion there was some sort of blackout of protester voices

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/08/scenes_from_a_raid.shtml

is pretty incorrect.

I mean, c'mon, so your friends didn't hear anything.

http://origin-minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/04/jailed_protesters/

That's the determining factor?

A clear pattern?

http://origin-minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/03/kevin_smith/

Of what?

LAMBERT: Well, I'm wondering, Bob, who does speak for MPR. No one doubts your organization covered the protests, and probably better than any other broadcaster in town. But I'm talking about invited guests -- with the likes of Kerri Miller or Gary Eichten -- offering MPR listeners, a generally bright and discerning crowd, a clear idea of the reasons for the protests. As I say, I'm willing to give MPR the benefit of the doubt that somewhere over the course of the RNC week this sort of interaction/"dialogue" took place. But, as I also say, only MPR refused to respond to specific questions. Are you volunteering to be the go-to guy for any and all MPR inquiries?

I seem to recall a spot on MPR about the stage set up to give people "a voice" towards the Xcel, but since it was on a dead-ended street, the main point of the story veered towards that hardy anyone bothered showing up for their slotted times, and essentially nobody was there to listen to the speakers that did... (including the typical "don't use my name cause I'm taking an extended smoke break" downtown types...)

I do agree with you that not only was there a lack of dialogue, but that the entire focus of the media was on the broken windows and arrests, without seemingly the slightest hint that the well behaved protesters even had a message...

LAMBERT: To reiterate, it is dismaying and disappointing to think that MPR avoided inviting protest leaders in to offer some kind of basic journalistic balance to all the "authority" figures.

Like Bob, I can't speak for MPR. That no one did is, uh...well, I can't speak to that.

But I can speak for our show (The Week from In The Loop) which convened just such a civilized conversation - between a protest organizer and a prominent local Republican) in our Friday episode prior to the RNC week.

(Click my name below or:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/programs/in_the_loop/archive/2008/08/29/index.shtml

Granted, this one segment wouldn't satisfy all that you were hoping for from the local media. But it contributes to a pretty substantial body of work at MPR, helping people understand the passion behind the protests.

LAMBERT: Well, thanks for that, Jeff. obviously I didn't hear that edition of "In the Loop". But I appreciate someone at MPR at least one example of the sort of thing I was looking for. We can agree though that Miller and Eichten would be the "primetime" acts for serious dialogue of highly relevant issues, right?

I believe you are overlooking some excellent coverage of ongoing local police efforts to solve a serious crime associated with the RNC. I speak, of course, of the timely reporting on the continuing investigation into the drugging and rolling of a republican fat-cat in his hotel room after a late night pick-up. A woman still at large relieved the victim of more than $50,000 after inviting him to get undressed while she "fixed a drink." This is the kind of domestic terrorism that could only be directed at a republican delegate. I mean, seriously, who at the DNC would have had that kind of money to begin with?

LAMBERT: In Republican parlance, I believe this incident is an example of "trickle down economics".

//Are you volunteering to be the go-to guy for any and all MPR inquiries?

Yes, and I'll also be parading nude in front of the world headquarters in an hour. I don't even have enough time to do MY job, let alone theirs.

I am concerned though, as I said, that people just accept the "we never heard about their protests" without significant fact checking.

But, you know, one thing -- and this is just a personal observation -- that has intrigued me is how quickly the protesters themselves gave up their message once some of them started being arrested. Amy Goodman -- and I realize it's suicide to criticize Amy Goodman -- shifted her message from the war in Iraq to the police state in St. Paul . Too bad for her side because she blew an opportunity.

In fact, if some of the people hollering "police state" had stayed on message with the microphones in front of them, their message would've been amplified a thousand-fold.

But they didn't, they, too, shifted the attention to the circumstances of their arrests (and I'm not saying without cause).

Of course, after Monday, there were plenty of protesters who were pretty well upset at the "anarchists" (their word, not mine) who hijacked the day's news coverage by starting a free-for-all downtown.

So all in all, I think a main problem is within "the protest community" there were two factions -- one that wanted to protest the war and the Bush administration in general, and one that wanted to stage a frontal assault on the RNC.

I don't believe the two are one in the same and unfortunately, I think, media had to choose who to chase and didn't always do so wisely.

But, again, that's *my* take on things and I speak only for me.

LAMBERT: I follow you. But since there were well-identified leaders for credible "protest groups" -- Iraq Vets for Peace, etc. -- I don't think it was confusion over who to call and invite that kept those people off the major broadcast signals.

There seem to be two themes to this, Brian.

(1) On the one hand you're asking questions -- appropriately so -- about whether the major media "shied away" from the protesters' point of view because they were afraid of alienating the authorities.

(2) in answering Chuck (and The Uptake DID do a fine job, btw) you say, "with broadcasters shying away from the sort of coverage that some might deem "radical" "

So are we just skipping the work of answering #1 and just going right to #2, then?

LAMBERT: Not in my alleged mind. My "hunch" is that the "radical" tinge of any protest group was enough preclude an invitation on talk shows. And, as I say, since most of what constitutes "talk" is just gas-baggery with no serious interest in informing the public, the burden of providing this "service" pretty much falls to MPR. And so ... if MPR "shys" away from this sort of "dialogue", perhaps out of fear of alienating the authorities (and conservative listeners) people like Chuck Olsen are presented with a golden opportunity to fill a void.

These incidents that biogirl brings up are all lies and distortions by Sheriff Fletcher and other law enforcement. Allowing protesters a voice would certainly go a long way towards discrediting them.

Good piece Lambert! Much better than all these whiny media apologists. It's the fourth fucking estate, start holding some of those others accountable.

"Where is your acknowledgement of the molotov cocktails, diesel/gas brews, the screw-studded shields, the rock and brick caches, bus disabling equipmment and "bio-hazard" heaps that were seized by the vigilant and excellent law enforcement authorities, preventing further asshattery by the rabble?"

LAMBERT: Stunning, isn't it?

Maybe there was something on Mark Heaney's show - but thats kind of a tree falling in the forest exercise, isnt it.

It seemed to me that the coverage of the RNC was toned down a notch after the hurricane scare. From what I saw broadcast it looked like the media as a whole labeled the protesters wing nuts and left it at that. Obviously a bit oversimplified.

On another note on how sad this election has gotten, some real wing nuts have hacked Palin's email account and published her emails, contact list, and family pictures (including kids) on some websites (I just saw all of it). Real mature way to debate the issues and bring young children into the mess. Idiots.

LAMBERT: Personal privacy is one of the first victims of running for office.

The guy I'd like to hear weigh in on the whole over-the-top, group-think, use-em-if-you-got-'em, prison-state theatrics we were witness to in St. Paul discussed and deconstructed by Stanford psychologist, Philip Zimbardo, author of the Lucifer Effect, also famed for his Stanford Prison Experiment.

http://www.lucifereffect.com/about_synopsis.html

LAMBERT: There's a long and pretty provocative list of "dialogue" options related to the RNC and who served whose purposes.

Now might be a good opportunity to show a little love to Andy Driscoll's, "Truth To Tell," produced by CivicMedia/Minnesota (Driscoll's the executive producer and host) heard on KFAI locally.

Andy had folks from an array of perspectives on the RNC protests, including the RNC Welcoming Committee, on his show both before and after the convention.

Sometimes the little guys truly do try harder and use a different Rolodex than big foot public radio. One thing's for sure, Andy would return your call.

http://www.kfai.org/node/682

LAMBERT: My curiosity here is in the "courage" or "bravery" aspect of mainstream journalists, people and institutions who obviously would be risking negative reaction if they bestowed credibility on anyone in opposition to the RNC and authorities surrou8nding it. Andy and KFAI did fine work. But there was very little risk to KFAI in taking that route, was there?

I seem to remember reading somewhere (msm?) that members of the RNC Welcoming Committee were loath to talk to corporate media, feeling that their message would be misconstrued or not welcomed. I did catch some of the 'anarkids' on an independent radio station, with a skit panning the corporate world... really quite amusing. Of course, there were also all kinds of anti-war groups available, too, which apparently were never approached for 'dialogue.'

LAMBERT: Yeah, even if the reason for ignoring the protesters was "we already know what they're going to say", (like we don't every time Norm Coleman or Franken come on the air), there were plenty of ... funny ... characters in town who could have offered a laugh or two for our banana republic.

Posted a comment to this effect yesterday -- never showed up (what gives?)

"LAMBERT: To reiterate, it is dismaying and disappointing to think that MPR avoided inviting protest leaders in to offer some kind of basic journalistic balance to all the "authority" figures."

In The Loop did exactly that on our Aug. 29 show, as the RNC got underway:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/programs/in_the_loop/archive/2008/08/29/index.shtml

In fact, this segment was a repeat visit by both guests, whom we first talked with more than a year in advance when the protest rumblings began.

Don't know about Eichten and Miller, but beyond those usual suspects MPR seems to have done a pretty decent job in this respect.

Why no one here returned your calls, Brian...not sure. Seems to me you were posing a fair question, and folks like Bob and me could have offered some decent answers.

LAMBERT: Sorry. Family business kept me away from the computer since last night. I'd skip the suits and go straight to you two next time. But once in a while you like to hear from the people who have final editorial control.

I would proffer that the brain trusts, even at the most liberal outlets, know there's "no 'there' there" when it comes to capturing anything coherent from the "trust fund anarchists", the likes of which were present in St. P.

Again, kudos to the StPaul PD and others who responded appropriately to the law breakers.

Never thought I'd see pro-anarchist, anti-law and order "editorial" in MSP magazine.

didn't mean to equate kfai and mpr. But given your past posts re mpr's hegemony, just thought I'd give a shout out to a public radio alternative. Your blog aptly illustrated the need for one.

You missed a pretty big medium that's in, but not entirely of, the Twin Cities -- MNN, the newsroom spun off years ago by MPR and sold a half-dozen years ago to Saga Communications. They function as a statewide news network, still quartered in downtown Minneapolis and still covering stories that are sold to nearly 60 radio stations around the state. While they try to avoid covering JUST metro news (since all their customers are out of town since the sale of WMNN), they might have done a story or two on the whole event...but I bet they politely accepted police-spokesperson soundbites, too, and left it at that.

LAMBERT: So noted. But that still doesn't let the big dog(s) off the hook.

"Public" radio? It's nice of Bob Collins to hang out here and answer some questions, but it is a bit absurd. Why does MPR have to act like Pravda? How many hours of talk on the MPR flagship shows (Midday, etc.) were given to covering the flagrant police state that took place in St Paul? How many times have they mentioned that the Republicans indemnified the police to the tune of $10 million, thus basically giving the police free hand to commit $10 million worth of crimes?

LAMBERT: My mistake with MPR's brass was telling them what I wanted to talk about. There was no upside to calling back and admitting you didn't do your job properly.

Perhaps if the public felt that when their surrogates in the MSM and non-MSM (I'd put Mpls/St. Paul Magazine, BTW, squarely in the MSM) are given the middle digit by MPR's management they, the public, are themselves being told to butt out by the very same people who dun them with requests for money, they'd take it out on pledge drives.

I very much doubt that will ever get through to them.

LAMBERT: Very few meet MPR's criteria for credibility. Certainly not anyone who has criticized them.