Ten years on: Remember the Rally for America?
by digby
I suppose that most of us on the left side of the dial recall the numerous giant protests against the Iraq war. Many of us probably participated. But I wonder how many of us remember this:
In Pennsylvania, a police-estimated crowd of 6,000 attended the "Rally for America," held on a field near Valley Forge National Historical Park, about 2o miles northwest of Philadelphia.
Rick Moody, 57, of Souderton, Pa., said he hopes American troops preparing for war with Iraq will get more support than troops did during the Vietnam War.
"If and when hostilities start, we should be unified," Moody said. "And we're the most anti-war people you can get."
Chicago protesters also hoisted American flags.
"We are concerned with all of God's children. And for all of those who question our patriotism: We love America because America is a place where when things are out of order, people can disagree and protest," said Rev. Calvin Morris of Chicago's Community Renewal Society.
The Chicago and Valley Forge rallies capped a weekend of nation-and worldwide protests, including one in Washington that park officials permitted for 20,000 people and appeared larger than that. Protesters in Portland, Ore., held a rally of similar proportions. Rally-goers sang patriotic songs and helped raise a gigantic American flag before reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
These "rallies for America" were cited all over the news that day ten years ago as a counter point to the anti-war marches. But there was a little difference that nobody mentioned:
They look like spontaneous expressions of pro-war sentiment, "patriotic rallies" drawing crowds of tens of thousands across the American heartland.
In a counterpoint to anti-war demonstrations, supporters of war in Iraq have descended on cities from Fort Wayne to Cleveland, and Atlanta to Philadelphia. They wave flags, messages of support for the troops - and also banners attacking liberals, excoriating the UN, and in one case, advising: "Bomb France Now."
But many of the rallies, it turns out, have been organised and paid for by Clear Channel Inc - the country's largest radio conglomerate, owning 1,200 stations - which is not only reporting on the war at the same time, but whose close links with President Bush stretch back to his earliest, much-criticised financial dealings as governor of Texas. The company has paid advertising costs and for the hire of musicians for the rallies.
Tom Hicks, Clear Channel's vice-chairman, is a past donor to Bush's political campaigning. The two were at the centre of a scandal when Mr Bush was governor and when Mr Hicks chaired a University of Texas investment board that awarded large investment-management contracts to several companies close to the Bush family - including the Carlyle Group, on whose payroll Mr Bush had been until weeks previously, and which still retains his father.
"Should this be happening? No," said Dante Chinni, a senior associate with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Columbia University programme based in Washington. "What kind of company is Clear Channel? What's their mission? Are they a media company, a promotional company? For some people, Clear Channel's reporting, for want of a better word, may be the reporting that they're getting on the war in Iraq."
Amir Forester, a spokeswoman for Premiere Radio Networks, a subsidiary of Clear Channel, said the rallies - which the company calls "patriotic", not "pro-war" - were the idea of Glenn Beck, a syndicated talk radio host.
It was a good model. Fox took it up for the Tea Party.
On March 19, 2003 I wrote:
Now, let me get this straight. Celebrities are stepping out of bounds when they express political views opposing the President. But, large media companies sponsoring phony pro-military "rallies" replete with free flag swag is perfectly a-ok. Just trying to get the rules straight.
"I think this is pretty extraordinary," said former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Virginia. "I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news."
No kidding. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this story is the fact that while rallies were extremely well covered this past week-end, they were presented as spontaneously growing up out of the pro-military grassroots. They were not portrayed as having corporate sponsorship and they certainly were not reported as being a product of a concerted talk radio campaign of right wing nut jobs and their GOP corporate masters.
And I didn't hear one journalist ask the obvious question of where they got all those damned flags! Somebody was handing them out and nobody asked who paid for them. More good work from the DeVry Institute School of spokesmodel journalism
Clear Channel stations are still banning the Dixie Chicks, as well, with the full support of their parent company. Since they own vast numbers of radio stations, and already practice a form of legal payola that is rivaled only by the Mafia, we can consider this a "Luca Brazzi sleeps with the fishes" kind of message to the beleagered recording industry.
Clear Channel plays Mighty Wurlitzer music only. And they are more than happy to pay for the privilege.
.