Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning New York, the police state.

>> Also due to the violent history of these meetings....
>
>the violence has all been on the police side from what i can tell. It
>looks more like the set up for "1905" see Shostakovich's sym.11 for
>details
>

I'm just so pissed that ANYONE would DARE equate the protesters of global
economic injustice with terrorism and 9/11 (see the attached article.)
The press can be so sick, so sick sometimes. Hey guys? Ever heard of
ENRON? Ever heard of hundreds of innocent hard-working people losing all
of their hard-earned dollars (or never getting them in the first place,
as what happens in the 3rd world)? Well, guess what, you wise-ass media
"pundit" f@#$cks, that's what these NONVIOLENT (excepting a few bad
apples) protests are about.

Even if you disagree with the protesters' point of view, the idea that
their actions have any resemblance to the 9/11 events is simply grotesque
propaganda in the extreme.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAINSTREAM MEDIA WATCH
NY Papers Smear Anti WEF
Protestors
by
FAIR
January 28, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mainstream New York City newspapers have tended to frame discussion of
the demonstrations in terms of
their status as a security problem. A search of the Lexis-Nexis
database (12/1/01 - 1/28/02) found that most
articles in the New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times and
Newsday mentioning the WEF
have focused on police preparations for the protests. As a result, the
political debate over the WEF has been
obscured, as have concerns about police brutality and civil liberties.

Though the New York Times and Newsday didn?t manage to overcome this
skew toward security questions,
it should be noted that both papers provided more substantive coverage
that did the Post and the News.
Commendably, Newsday steered clear of the vitriol that has
characterized some of its competitors. One
recent Newsday article, ?Activists: We Come in Peace? (1/25/02),
focused on the protest organizers?
endorsement of non-violence and concerns about potential police
brutality; another (1/27/02) attempted a
serious overview of recent political controversies over globalization.

Contrast this approach to one particularly vicious editorial from the
New York Daily News (1/13/02), which
referred to anti-WEF activists as ?legions of agitators,? ?crazies,?
?parasites? and ?kooks.? The paper
threatened activists, saying ?You have a right to free speech, but try
to disrupt this town, and you'll get
your anti-globalization butts kicked. Capish??

The Daily News compared critics of the WEF to the terrorists who
attacked the World Trade Center. ?New
York will not be terrorized,? declared the paper. ?We already know
what that's like. Chant your slogans.
Carry your banners. Wear your gas masks. Just don't test our patience.
Because we no longer have any.?

It?s hard to read such rhetoric as anything other than an attempt to
manipulate New Yorkers? legitimate
anger and grief over September 11 in order to whip up a backlash
against dissent. Unfortunately, the Daily
News wasn?t the only New York paper to attack activists in these
terms. Much WEF coverage has been
dominated not by serious reporting, but by unsubstantiated
commentaries that portray activists as violent
thugs.

New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman (1/19/02) described
globalization activists as people ?less known
for their deep thinking than for their willingness to trash cities,?
saying ?some would say that New York
needs this [protest] about as much as it needs another airplane
attack.?

In an account of an extremely friendly interview ?over a light beer at
Lanagan?s? with former New York
City deputy police chief John Timoney, the New York Post?s Steve
Dunleavy (1/18/02) asserted that
planned protests are ?a potentially scary scene, promised by little
nasty twits.? The column was titled ?Econ
Summit Brings Own Terror Threat.?

?There are some very serious bad guys out there,? Timoney told the
Post, ?and I am not talking about
Osama bin Laden. We are talking about pretty sophisticated bad guys.?
Though Timoney seemed to be
making the outlandish suggestion that globalization activists are as
dangerous as international terrorists,
Dunleavy relayed the claim uncritically, following up with a tough-guy
endorsement of Timoney?s prowess:
?Timoney, like most cops, has been beaten and shot at by punks all his
life.?

The ease with which commentators equate activists with terrorists has
its roots in the mainstream media?s
rewriting of the history of U.S. globalization protests. Recent
articles about the WEF have referred to
previous, overwhelmingly peaceful globalization protests in Seattle,
Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and
Philadelphia as ?window-smashing, flame-tossing spectacles? (Daily
News, 1/24/02), ?violent mayhem?
(New York Post, 1/20/02), ?radical protesters rampag[ing] through the
streets? clashing with police? (Daily
News, 1/18/02), ?wild protest melees? (New York Times, 1/25/02), and,
simply, ?violent? (Newsday,
1/18/02).

It?s true that violence has been a problem at globalization protests,
but the majority of it has been initiated
by police, not protesters. The November 1999 WTO protests in Seattle
were characterized by unprovoked
tear-gassing, beating and unlawful arrests of peaceful demonstrators
(and even of bystanders), and a
National Lawyers Guild investigation characterized the Seattle
violence as a ?police riot.? The American Civil
Liberties Union has expressed alarm over police abuses at
globalization protests, and in more than one case
filed suit against law enforcement authorities over the issue. Yet
time and again, media have distorted events
to suggest that police force was a necessary response to ?violent?
activists. (See Extra!, 1-2/00 and
7-8/00.)

When coverage is dominated by news and commentary that presents lawful
political assembly as a terrorist
threat-- a threat that the police ?know what they have to do? to deal
with (New York Post, 1/18/02)-- it
has a chilling effect on dissent, raises tensions between police and
the public, and risks creating a climate
where law enforcement agencies feel able to exercise force against
demonstrators with impunity.

***From: Christopher Bailey******************

http://music.columbia.edu/~chris

**********************************************

New York, the police state.

🔗Christopher Bailey <cb202@...>

🔗X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗peteysan@...

🔗monz <joemonz@...>