Atelier N°.13, Article 8
 

William Solomon
Monthly Review, May 2000)
 

                              More Form than Substance: Press Coverage of the WTO Protests in Seattle
                                                                                       by William S. Solomon
 

                           The mainstream U.S. news media have been shifting rightward for at least
                           two decades, as their corporate owners enforce tighter ideological
                           conformity. Oliver North and Pat Buchanan, for example, are now regular
                           commentators on television talk shows. And all of the media now refer to
                           people as "consumers," cogs in a capitalist machine. But still, news is less
                           than half as profitable as entertainment, and media firms are intensifying
                           pressures on their "news properties" for higher profits, which means the
                           pursuit of upscale demographics. Owners are removing journalism's
                           much-vaunted separation of newsroom practices and business decisions,
                           blurring the line between news and entertainment, and forming partnerships
                           with one another to offer online news services. As William Glaberson said
                           in the New York Times in July 1995, "It is now common for publishing
                           executives to press journalists to cooperate with their newspapers'
                           `business side,' breaching separations that were said in the past to be
                           essential for journalistic integrity." Thus, in October 1996, the Wall Street
                           Journal reported on a personal feud between Rupert Murdoch and Ted
                           Turner: "The combatants quietly concede that they have become far too
                           interdependent to let the fight escalate into global warfare."

                           The result is increasingly slick, shallow, sensationalist, and upbeat news
                           that lacks any capacity—and avoids any attempt—to engage the public in
                           critical thinking on basic issues. This is especially so with business and
                           economics: Felicity Barringer reported in the New York Times in April
                           1998 that,"[M]ore than 250 Pulitzers in journalism have been awarded
                           since 1978. Business figures prominently in about 10." The news media's
                           role, as exemplified by the New York Times, is that of an "organ of
                           reassurance," to use Doug Henwood's phrase. A case in point is the
                           coverage of the protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in
                           Seattle, which took place concurrent with the WTO ministerial meetings of
                           November 29 through December 4, 1999. The coverage documents the
                           corporate media's worldview, as they impose on the events and
                           participants what Todd Gitlin, writing in the Socialist Review in 1979,
                           called "standardized assumptions."

                           This essay studies the twenty-two reports and editorials in the Los
                           Angeles Timesand the thirty-five in the New York Times, from November
                           21 through December 21, 1999. These two papers are arguably the most
                           influential daily newspapers in the United States, and among the largest.
                           The Wall Street Journal, which has the second largest circulation in the
                           United States, is not a general circulation newspaper; it aims primarily at
                           financial elites, "middle management . . . startups and Internet-based
                           companies," says Anne Stuart in CIO Magazine (December 15,
                           1999-January 1, 2000). And the jingoistic, tabloid-style USA Today's
                           news reports are so brief as not to sustain lengthy scrutiny.

                           The Los Angeles Times is owned by the Times-Mirror Company;
                           theNew York Times, a family-owned business since the late nineteenth
                           century, announced in mid-March that it will be acquired by the Tribune
                           Company in the near future. So probusiness coverage is the norm, not
                           because of secret calculations in a top editor's office but for structural
                           reasons. "Every publication is used to further its own interests from time to
                           time," said a lawyer for media baron Rupert Murdoch, quoted in a piece
                           by Elizabeth Jensen and Eben Shapiro in the Wall Street Journal in
                           October 1996. Murdoch "does it no more often than anyone else." Ben
                           Bagdikian, in the Guild Reporter (April 1982), notes:

                           The new owning corporations of our media generally insist that they do not
                           interfere in the editorial product. All they do is appoint the publisher, the
                           editor, the business manager and determine the budget.

                           If I wanted control of public information, that is all I would want. I would
                           not want to decide on every story every day or say "yes" or "no" to every
                           manuscript that came over the transom.

                           I would rather appoint leaders who understand clearly who hired them and
                           who can fire them, who pays their salaries and decides on their stock
                           options. I would then leave it to them.

                           The coverage of the Seattle protests in the New York Times and theLos
                           Angeles Times shows a common theme: Only zealots hold radical
                           critiques of the WTO, which actually represents the best hope for the
                           world's future. This theme is developed in many ways. First, radical
                           critiques are attributed solely to marginal figures who hold unconventional,
                           impractical, and possibly unwise views. "Who on earth were they," the Los
                           Angeles Times wondered, "and what were they so mad about?"
                           (December 3, p. A1). Such people represent "an array of special-interest
                           groups" (LAT, December 3, p. A1), unlike the WTO delegates, who
                           presumably represent virtually all of the world's peoples. Worse, some of
                           the protesters are anarchists: aNew York Times headline read, "Dark
                           Parallels With Anarchist Outbreaks in Oregon" (December 3, p. A12).

                           The protesters "warn of a sinister, netherworld economy where children
                           are exploited in Dickensian factories . . . [and] greedy corporations run
                           roughshod over traditional ways of life" (LAT, November 28, p. A1). For
                           them, the WTO is "a handmaiden of corporate interests" (NYT, December
                           1, p. A1), "the tyrannical symbol of a global economy that has shoved
                           social priorities aside in a relentless quest for profits" (LAT, December 3,
                           p. A1). The WTO meeting "has drawn" (LAT, December 1, p. A1) many
                           delegates, but the protesters "descended" on Seattle (NYT, December 1,
                           p. A1), which rather suggests a plague of locusts. Editorials were less
                           subtle: The protesters are "a Noah's ark of flat-earth advocates" (NYT,
                           December 1, p. A23). Their "vitriol no doubt plays well with certain
                           audiences. . . . But many average Americans may instantly realize . . .
                           [that] the idea of increasing corporate profits . . . is a goal you share with
                           management" (LAT, December 5, p. C1).

                           Yet the coverage did not simply denigrate the protesters. Quite the
                           contrary, it granted a degree of legitimacy to the many "peaceful" ones, as
                           distinct from a "small knot" (NYT, December 1, p. A14) of "more militant
                           elements" who used the police's behavior "as a cue to go on a rampage"
                           (NYT, December 2, p. A1). This legitimacy came at a price: It
                           oversimplified the array of views among the protesters. In so doing, it
                           echoed Clinton's stance of siding "with the cause of many of the peaceful
                           demonstrators"—as though they all shared one view—"even as he
                           denounced those who engaged in violence" (NYT, December 2, p. A1).
                           Further, it misrepresented the protesters' views: For many, Seattle was a
                           venue for raising a more basic issue than the WTO or the World Bank—a
                           strong critique of capitalism itself. This was abundantly clear to people in
                           the streets of Seattle. Richard Smith, a participant, noted: "The
                           anti-market, anti-corporate feeling, although strong, was still fairly
                           inchoate. But most people . . . definitely were for . . . democratization of
                           the economy. . . . Such demands are of course ultimately anti-capitalist
                           because they can't be realized under capitalist property relations." For the
                           New York Times, though, "the basic point the demonstrators sought to
                           make" was "the need to reform the WTO's procedures and values"
                           (editorial, December 2, p. A34).

                           Such misrepresentations supported the implication that the protesters'
                           criticisms were not so dissimilar to those of many WTO delegates
                           themselves. From the meeting's start, the WTO's "image . . . was . . . [that]
                           of an institution under siege from within—among warring countries—and
                           from without by unruly protesters" (LAT, December 2, p. A1). This
                           scenario lent itself to a parallel theme: If only the protesters would
                           understand "free trade" properly, then they would support the WTO.
                           Quoting delegates to this effect was common: "These people don't
                           understand the benefits of free trade to developing nations," said a German
                           delegate (NYT, December 1, p. A14). Estonia's trade ambassador told
                           some protesters, "I'm a socialist. You people are nuts" (LAT, December
                           1, p. A1). Swaziland's delegate said of Seattle: "International trade built
                           this city, but people just don't get it" (NYT, December 2, p. A17). And
                           China's chief trade negotiator stated: "Globalization is not a thing that
                           everyone naturally understands" (NYT, December 2, p. A17).

                           Thus, it was the WTO's failure to explain its case well, rather than its
                           policies, that the papers portrayed as a key cause of the demonstrations.
                           "We need to do a better job in explaining to the general public what we
                           do," said Mexico's trade ambassador (LAT, December 18, p. A1). "It's
                           terribly sad to me that we have let people tell so many lies," said a delegate
                           from El Salvador (NYT, December 2, p. A17). "Expansion of trade and
                           investment . . . promotes the general welfare," said a former deputy U.S.
                           trade representative. "Why they [critics] don't see that, I don't understand"
                           (LAT, November 28, p. A1).

                           Language is perhaps the most basic indicator of the corporate media's
                           views. Such terms as "free trade" and "liberalization" were not defined;
                           their meaning was assumed to be so clear as to require no explanation.
                           Thus "globalization" is simply a fact of life, rather like gravity; certainly it is
                           not a continuation of colonialism and imperialism. Quite the contrary, the
                           WTO was depicted simply as a means to render the essentially benign
                           process of "globalization" as rational and equitable as possible. To "its
                           most militant critics, globalization amounts to an assault . . . on
                           deep-seated cultural values" and on the environment (LAT, November 28,
                           p. A1). But "only recently has anyone dreamed of connecting such
                           assorted grievances to trade policy" (LAT, November 28, p. A1). WTO
                           proponents always "said," whereas WTO critics "argued" and
                           "complained." In case this was too subtle, the appropriate perspective was
                           made clear: "Economists regard free trade as just about as controversial as
                           motherhood" (LAT, November 28, 1999, p. A1).

                           The protests themselves elicited the news media's longstanding aversion to
                           social disorder—journalists are, according to Herbert Gans, the author of
                           Deciding What's News, "as much concerned with the restoration of order
                           by public officials as with the occurrence of disorder." Seattle "was
                           engulfed in demonstrations that threw the opening of global trade talks into
                           turmoil" (NYT, December 1, p. A1). A "daylong spasm of protest . . .
                           paralyzed downtown Seattle . . . plunging parts of the city into chaos;" by
                           day's end, "skirmishes continued between weary police and a remaining
                           group of hard-core protesters" (LAT, December 1, p. A1). Thus
                           "violence" was defined solely as social unrest and damage to private
                           property, not as environmental damage and human suffering. Although
                           police and protest groups had discussed the protest plans in advance, the
                           police may have been misled by "extreme dissenters" (LAT, December 2,
                           p. A1). Perhaps, the Los Angeles Times reported, the Seattle police
                           should have been more proactive in learning the demonstrators' true
                           intentions; in Washington, DC, the paper said, police "even use informants
                           and undercover officers."

                           Reports on the protests were followed by reports commending delegates
                           who "struggled . . . to salvage" the meeting (LAT, December 2, p. A1).
                           Clinton's efforts "collapsed . . . after a rebellion by developing countries
                           and deadlock among America's biggest trading partners" (NYT, December
                           5, p. A1). Just as Hanoi "fell" to the National Liberation Front, so the
                           WTO talks were called the "Collapse in Seattle" (NYT, December 6, p.
                           A30). Furthermore, despite the massive demonstrations, the WTO's
                           impasse in Seattle was reported as solely a consequence of internal
                           divisions. Follow-up reports noted the U.S. delegation's contention that
                           "progress" was made, although "other countries reject the U.S.
                           administration's thinking" (LAT, December 18, p. A1).

                           Overall, the Los Angeles Times had more thorough coverage of the
                           demonstrations, including the protesters' use of the Internet and of cellular
                           telephones. The protesters "are astonishingly sophisticated in their
                           understanding of the most important issues facing the world's population"
                           (December 6, p. C6). When police chased demonstrators through streets
                           outside downtown, "onlookers shouted from balconies and rooftops, a
                           chorus of `Let them go!'" (December 2, p. A1). The best quotation in all
                           of the coverage was that of a young man yelling at police who were
                           handcuffing dozens of demonstrators: `"You'll have to arrest the entire
                           population of the world if you want to get us all!"' (December 2, p. A1).

                           The New York Times offered a broader context for viewing the protests.
                           One report noted various international views: "In some countries,
                           commentators could barely contain their glee at what they saw as a
                           humiliating blow to American domination of the world trade agenda. . . .
                           Brazil and other Latin American countries view the demonstrators as
                           supporters of their own position—that the international economic order is
                           unfair to developing countries" (December 2, p. A17). More pointed was
                           a report that WTO officials "ducked significant action" on the "veil of
                           secrecy surrounding its proceedings. . . . `In England, it was called the Star
                           Chamber,'" said a Sierra Club official. Said Ralph Nader: "The first thing a
                           dictator wants is for no one to know what he's doing" (December 4, p.
                           A6). This was as close as either newspaper came to explaining either the
                           WTO's workings or its history. Similarly omitted was the background of
                           WTO Director Mike Moore who, as a member of New Zealand's
                           cabinet, aided in the "massive sell-off of public assets to international big
                           business"—although his administration "had no mandate for privatization"
                           (Guardian/Observer, letter to the editor, November 27).

                           The New York Times' and the Los Angeles Times' coverage was in sharp
                           contrast to that in Britain's daily Guardian and SundayObserver, which
                           ran sixty-seven stories and editorials on the Seattle protests between
                           November 21 and December 21, 1999. Its self-styled radical voice, made
                           possible by the Guardian's Scott Trust, is the "single exception" to
                           Britain's concentration of media ownership and the consequence that
                           "proprietors and their resources set clear parameters within which the
                           creative activity of journalism must be conducted" (as Bob Franklin
                           pointed out in Newszak and News Media in 1997). The parameters of
                           the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times become clearer when
                           their coverage is contrasted to that in the Guardian/Observer. Only the
                           latter noted the international nature of the protests. First, the Seattle
                           demonstrators came from various parts of the globe. Second,
                           "simultaneously [with the Seattle talks] . . . nearly 1,200 non-governmental
                           organizations in 87 countries will be calling for wholesale reform of the
                           WTO" (November 25). A regular reader of theGuardian/Observer
                           would not have been surprised by the WTO's impasse in Seattle, as there
                           were a number of advance reports to the effect that "divisions between the
                           world's main trading blocs . . . scuppered attempts to determine an agenda
                           for a new round ahead of next week's meeting" (November 24).

                           In Seattle, the Guardian/Observer's staff filed a number of reports on the
                           demonstrators' preparations: "There is a heady whiff in the air of
                           anti-Vietnam protests" (November 30). Both U.S. newspapers estimated
                           the protesters' numbers at thirty thousand; the Guardian/Observer said
                           one hundred thousand. Similarly, the latter newspaper was far more willing
                           to criticize the U.S. delegation's behavior: In the hotels, "`the U.S. is doing
                           a bit of heavy arm-twisting to get some of the developing countries to sign
                           up to their position, but it seems to have backfired,'" said a European
                           Union official (December 1). U.S. officials "left it far too late to invite
                           prime ministers and presidents who—once it was clear that the
                           negotiations could become a PR disaster—found that their diaries were
                           too busy to spend a couple of days in Seattle" (December 2). Most
                           amusing was the report of a Guardian/Observer correspondent who was
                           mistakenly given a delegate's credentials and thus was able to attend
                           closed-door meetings: Many delegates seemed to doze, and "the only sign
                           of life is a Latin American delegation where the minister could well be in
                           love with his adviser. . . . In the far distance, one delegate is blowing
                           bubblegum. One by one the developing countries say their bit, but it looks
                           as if the gap is far too wide to be bridged" (December 3).

                           Only the Guardian/Observer reported that "African, Caribbean and Latin
                           American nations" were "furious at heavy-handed attempts by the U.S." to
                           pressure them to agree to a deal. The Organization for African Unity said
                           "that it was prepared to block agreement in protest at the way it was
                           excluded from behind-the-scenes discussions" (December 4). An Indian
                           ecologist said that the WTO "is being rejected around the world as people
                           recognize the face of unacceptable governance and undemocratic
                           law-making" (December 4). The social unrest in Seattle was summed up
                           by New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: "`It indicates the remaining
                           damage that Marxism has done to the thinking of people'" (December 4).

                           When an issue is important to the state and the corporate sector, they
                           shape its coverage in the mainstream U.S. news media. (This point is made
                           more extensively by Bagdikian in The Media Monopoly and W. Lance
                           Bennett in his essay on press-state relations in the United States in the
                           Journal of Communication, Spring 1990.) For these media, a basic
                           critique—much less a total rejection—of the WTO is simply unthinkable.
                           As exemplified by the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times,
                           these media tended to trivialize and misrepresent the demonstrators'
                           perspectives, thus devaluing them and rendering them more compatible
                           with corporate values. This coverage is not explicable in terms of the
                           media's use of new technologies (e.g., laptop computers, cellular
                           telephones, and computerized databases). Nor is it explained by
                           journalists' claims to "objectivity," or by scholars' assertions that the news
                           is an idiosyncratic assortment of symbols and tropes. Rather, the
                           mainstream U.S. news media's political economy is a far more reliable
                           guide to their content.
 

(*)WILLIAM S. SOLOMON teaches journalism and media studies at Rutgers University. He wishes to thank Richard Smith for his insightful critique of an earlier version of this essay.