Oct. 1, 2002 
Deconstructing protest coverage 

The Diamondback's Sept. 30 coverage of the International
Monetary Fund/World Bank protests was inconsistent and
ridiculous. While the first-person narrative provided by
reporters Jason Flanagan and Debra Kahn at least credibly
expressed their personal outrage, the events described in
their anything-but-impartial "journalistic" piece on the
same pages contradicted their impassioned claims that
they were arrested without reason. Even taken on its own,
the first-person account of their night in jail at best
explained that jail is not fun, without providing
evidence that their rights were in anyway violated in the
time after their arrest.

On page one, in their personal account, Flanagan and Kahn
claim that "[The protesters in Pershing Park] were
arrested for singing, dancing and having let the police
force them into a trap," ("Trapped, cuffed & bussed,"
Sept. 30).  Yet their "news" article claims, also on page
one, that they were arrested after "throwing 'dance
parties' in the street and disrupting the District's
daily flow," ("University students cornered, arrested,"
Sept. 30). It also said later that they blocked one
street near Farragut North Metro station, and that one
protester kicked the side of a passing car as the driver,
apparently having nothing to do with the IMF or World
Bank, was trying to go to his own job. Is the intent of
all of this an expression of free speech? Although one
might argue that this is violence rather than civilized
expression, I'll instead refer to Flanagan and Kahn's
article once again. According even to their own article,
the answer is no, the intention was not free speech. Said
one of the protesters: "We just want to screw up business
in certain parts of the city."

Surely some people in the group, Flanagan and Kahn for
example, did not have such intentions, and I have no
doubt that some of those people were arrested along with
everyone else. On the other hand, everyone marching with
this group, including Flanagan and Kahn, put themselves
in the middle of a violent protest. What sense does it
make to expect the police to be able to distinguish a
handful of individuals out of 600 people? The police were
stationed downtown to prevent protesters from disrupting
the District's daily flow and to protect the thousands of
motorists, whether or not they work for IMF, from having
unruly kids kick their cars.  Having placed themselves in
the midst of a large group of people who were engaging in
those prohibited activities, and a group with a culture
that does not shun violent offenders because it
represents "buying into the system" (quoting from
Flanagan and Kahn's personal narrative), "innocent"
protesters were either stupid or naive to believe that
the police should just sort out the offenders and leave
the rest to protest in "peace." The arrested protesters
will have a day in court to contest their charges when
order is restored, and that will be the time when the
police need to prove that the protesters violated the
law.

Although the "news" does not include any details about
what happened after the arrests, the personal narrative
does provide an interesting glimpse into life behind
bars. Flanagan and Kahn express outrage that their
shoelaces were taken, that they were fed crappy meals,
that their hands were bound and that they were held for
an unreasonably long time. But I have to ask: "What did
they expect?"  Jail is not supposed to be a nice place.
That's the point. As a taxpayer, I would hope that the
meals in jail are not too good, and I suspect that most
of those arrested on Friday would have agreed had they
not been the people in jail. They complain that their
shoelaces were taken from them, but fail to recognize
that everyone has their shoelaces taken away. Why?
Because people actually do try to kill themselves with
their shoelaces and the jailers are responsible for the
lives of the people in custody.  Their hands were bound,
but they acknowledge that "technically we were required
to have our handcuffs on except when going to the
bathroom," and, while the police department's claim that
delays were due to computer troubles is admittedly
suspect, even "experienced protesters were telling
[Flanagan and Kahn] that we could be held legally for up
to 72 hours," as reported in the personal narrative. I
can understand that the experience was unpleasant and
upsetting, but there is nothing in the account that
supports their claim that they were treated unfairly by
the jail staff.

The editorial page of the Diamondback, the only writing
about Friday's protests that appears in the issue and
makes sense, seems to have a partial answer to the woes
of next year's would-be protesters and a lesson for this
year's arrested students: "Protesters who respect the
peace need to distance themselves as far from their
reckless brethren as possible," ("Both sides must wise
up," Sept. 30). Although we often speak of rights in this
country, as we should since they are extremely important,
we cannot forget that these rights carry responsibilities
as well. Those protesters who were violent, or harbored
the violence of their fellow protesters, failed to uphold
their burden of responsibility, and that, it would seem
from the firsthand accounts of our Diamondback reporters,
is what forced mass arrests in the District this weekend.
While the outrage expressed by Flanagan and Kahn is
understandable and justified, it is misdirected. Those
protesters who were violent and irresponsible, minority
or not, are to blame for the arrests, and the police
should be commended for keeping order in the city, while
allowing the vast majority of the peaceful protesters to
express themselves responsibly throughout the weekend.

David Fiske is a graduate student studying physics. He
can be reached at drfiske@physics.umd.edu.