Hook, line and sinker

Even though their analysis, as usual, is a little more thoughtful than most media sources, Salon buys the good protesters vs. bad protesters storyline hook, line and sinker in today's story. Good protesters of course are the non-violent kind who know how to play to the camera. Bad protesters are the ones who show up intending to riot and inadvertently provide footage for the Republicans to use in commercials showing how dangerous freedom of speech really is. They used violent footage to swing the 1968 election and they'll do it this time. The problem with the storyline is that it's pretty much impossible to find someone who is going to the Republican Convention to start violence. And that's because if there is violence, just like in 1968, it will be the police who started it.

The violence that erupted, leading to days of running street battles, was by most accounts the fault of the police. Phalanxes of cops charged into crowds, beating protesters bloody, spraying mace, and chanting "kill, kill, kill." A report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence called the debacle a "police riot."

I hope everyone sees the problem here with attacking "radical" protesters, which are the ones who are engaged in nit-picky fights over whether or not breaking a window is "violence". The problem is that the cops are whipped into a frenzy over the "anarchists" and whatnot they expect to show up, and pretty much regardless of the behavior of the protesters, the cops will be happy to oblige the Republicans in providing footage for "law and order" type commercials that show the police arresting people and beating people. To those inclined to get excited over these commercials, it hardly matters if the protesters started it or not. To a good number on the right, dissent itself is the problem and they will enjoy watching people get busted for it. Anyway, with the proper editing the Republicans will be able to take a video of peaceful protesters getting beat down and make them look like snarling monsters.

Trying to control how the protesters are portrayed is probably pissing in the wind. The only really effective thing that the protesters could do is make sure everyone is dressed like church-goers and frustrate Rovian efforts to get film clips of cops beating down hippies for Freepers to jerk off to. The left's best bet, as should be clear by now, is to make counter-propaganda. That's why this is the best idea I've heard in a long time:

To counteract such provocation, Passacantando suggests having monitors patrol the protests with handheld video cameras, which they'd use to record the faces of demonstrators who get violent, hopefully intimidating them into line.

Not only will this remind the actual leftists in the crowd to mind their P's and Q's, this will be a great tool for outing the undercover cops who are trying to start a riot and pin it on the protesters. It would be best to assume they are there. After all, this administration is made up of people who think the only problem with Nixon was that he got caught. They aren't going to hesistate to use his tactics, and it's foolish to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Plus, there's a great chance of getting footage for counter-propaganda. Footage of cops beating down peaceful protesters, footage of wild-eyed Freepers starting fights. Hell, someone should just make a commercial of the anti-protester protesters showing how young they are and intoning gravely over the footage, "If they support the war so much, why are they making your children fight it?" Alot of things have changed since 1968. The biggest change is that ordinary people have the same tools and talents that the big bucks media people have. Instead of weakly trying to control how the big bucks media portrays the protests, it would be a wiser move to turn the cameras on them and give them a taste of their own medicine.