• Philadelphia IMC exposes the truth.
• Lindsay’s tired of press coverage, but who cares?
On March 22, the Philadelphia Independent Media Center Web site posted a story about a protest against war profiteers in Washington, D.C. that lends insight into the blatant establishment bias of the national corporate media.
The article, titled “More than 10,000 march on Pentagon, leading war profiteers,” covers a story that big media neglected in the build-up to the Iraq War: the very visible and active anti-war protest movement. When the story was covered, the protestors were often derided or marginalized. This blatant omission from the media’s reflection of the national discourse, committed under the guise of patriotism, may have contributed to the hypnotic wave of credulity and obedience that washed over the nation in late 2002 and early 2003.
While the 10,000 protestors in attendance cited by the Philly IMC pale in comparison with the size of the pre-Iraq War demonstrations, coverage of this event is still vital in accurately depicting the true diversity of American political culture. In the swirl of the economic death-spiral and the lurch of the new administration’s abrupt U-turn in policy, the fact that the U.S. is still occupying two countries can easily get lost in the shuffle. This article brings that bitter truth to the fore, and clearly expresses the protestors’ aim to connect military arms corporations with the death and destruction caused by their products.
The article criticizes the Arlington Police for underestimating the size of the demonstration (2,500-3,000) and chastises the Washington Post for favoring the police’s estimate. The Post actually gave a pretty even-handed explanation, and the article as a whole seemed objective and accurate, so I think the Philly IMC was just looking to pick a fight with big media in this instance. Even with this lapse, a natural hiccup for a left-leaning counterpoint to establishment media, the Philly IMC gets my “Screw the Military Industrial Complex” award for the week.
HOWL! What the Heck is a LiLo?
I know that celebrity gossip sells newspapers, and that the Inquirer and Philly.com are obliged to include it prominently in their pages. But isn’t it time for Lindsay Lohan to go the way of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and retreat forever into the back of the question deck in the Trivial Pursuit: Pop Culture Edition?
This article was only a paragraph long blurb, but it was so trite and obnoxiously written that the few inches of column wasted is a disgrace to all who ever picked up a pen. The gist of the “story” was that Lindsay Lohan is now fed up with people spreading rumors about her. Isn’t that what all tabloid-hounded celebs say every time they stumble out of that night’s VIP room and into a throng of E! News leeches?
After the lead, the article goes on to refer to Lohan as LiLo in all subsequent references. It also refers to Lohan’s girlfriend as her “lovemuffin.” I am obviously nit-picking here and there may be a strong market for this sort of blather, but People magazine already ends up in my mailbox at my wife’s request. I don’t need articles like this drawing me into celebrity “news” booby traps, where the famous are famous for being famous-and your mind rots in the moldy stew of their imaginary problems and undeserved attention.
Surely there was some celebrity today that hit her assistant with a shoe, ended his contrived marriage with another pretty face-on-a-stick, or made grandiose accusations at a DUI checkpoint. Do some research, Inquirer, and stop relying on your LiLo RSS feed for instant articles that give people deeply shameful sensations upon reading.