 |
Protesting In Professional Attire Is Effective: A Comparison |
 |
Serious Change is about reclaiming the symbols of power. We do that by protesting in professional attire. We believe that by showing the world we are comfortable wearing the trappings of power, we are worth taking seriously. While our efforts have brought us attention both online and offline, recently some unaffiliated protests with the same idea have caused quite a stir, proving once again that this idea is a powerful one.
Perhaps people have tired of Vietnam era tactics, but whatever the reason, the mainstream media's coverage of typical demonstrations is full of barely concealed disdain for those protesting. A perfect example comes from the New York Times' coverage of the large anti-war march in Washington D.C. on September 15th. For one, their article concentrates on the civil disobedience aspect of this protest with the headline, "Antiwar Protest Ends With Dozens of Arrests." This is misleading. The protest, which I attended, was largely peaceful, with civil disobedience being only a small part of the day's events and coming at the end of a peaceful rally with many speakers (which were barely mentioned in the article) and a peaceful march from the White House to the Capitol (which was also barely mentioned in the article).
If fact, the discussion of the actual march was dominated by quotes and sympathetic descriptions of counter-protesters who attended the event as well. I understand that the Times wants to get both sides of the story and appear "unbiased," but even though there were maybe 200 counter-protesters that day as compared to close to 10,000 anti-war demonstrators, the counter-protesters were given four of the article's fourteen paragraphs. When you eliminate the paragraphs dealing with violence as well, only five paragraphs dealt with the peaceful portions of the march, which were the actual substance of the event in my opinion.
On top of that, the Times presented the counter-protesters in a very positive light, interviewing a family with multiple relatives serving in Iraq and using the quote, "It’s not just Iraq, it’s the whole Middle East. It’s not a red, blue or pink issue. It’s an all-of-us issue." Event though these protesters were cursing at and confronting those demonstrating against the war, they seem reasonable with this quote. In contrast, the Times quotes some of the more extreme anti-war protesters, including one who planned to get arrested and another who wore an orange jumpsuit and a dark hood to the event.
Contrast this biased coverage with the coverage in the same paper of the recent protests by Pakistani lawyers and a sympathy protest by lawyers in Washington D.C., both of whom demonstrated against Pakistani President Musharraf's recent turn toward tyranny. All of these protesters, it should be noted, were dressed in professional attire.
The lawyers from Pakistan were treated with respect by the Times. The articles written about them are dominated by coverage of their cause, their plight, and the resulting crackdown. Only a few paragraphs are devoted to elucidating Musharraf's viewpoint. The Times also ran a lengthy and glowing article on Aitzaz Ahsan, the leader of the Pakistani protest movement, calling him "one of the country's best known lawyers," "a natural raconteur," and at times comparing him to Pakistani movie stars. All of this is a far cry from the bland, vaguely hostile portrayal of anti-war protesters as detailed above.
The lawyers who protested in professional attire in D.C. in solidarity were also treated reverentially. Again, from the Times:
Within 30 minutes, they gathered, spoke words of inspiration and disbanded. No fights. No arrests. Just a very ruly crowd of lawyers, most of whom were not from Pakistan.
Photos of the protest also made the Times' pictures of the day series. The Times concluded the short but positive piece by casting these protesters in a heroic light:
The speakers thanked the crowd for showing up. The crowd applauded and began to disband. Within a few short minutes, the steps had cleared, and the lawyers went back to defending the rights of others.
Clearly, these protesters were treated differently.
So what's the difference between the two groups of demonstrators, the Pakistani lawyers and sympathy marchers on one hand and anti-war protesters on the other? Honestly, very little except for their method of presentation. Both groups are protesting for a cause with broad popular support. (Two thirds of Americans think the war in Iraq "wasn't worth it" and few can stomach Musharraf's widening dictatorship.) Both groups have strong political messages and similar protest tactics comprised mainly of peaceful marches. Yet one group presents themselves in professional attire and the other group does not.
Certainly, media attention isn't everything. Some anti-war protesters would probably say they could care less how the media portrays them. They feel the need to demonstrate their opposition to the war in whatever way they find natural. And of course, they have every right to do so. However, in today's media saturated world, it is unwise to completely disregard media narratives, especially if your goal is to force a major shift in policy that is impossible without broad, vocal support. With the media on the side of the Pakistani protesters, their cause received far greater positive attention than their numbers might have suggested. What more could be accomplished if the media was similarly on the side of anti-war protesters?
Protesting in professional attire clearly communicates the protest's message more effectively. The picture of D.C. lawyers marching in suits in front of the Supreme Court is striking and demands attention. The media picks up on that message and helps spread the ideas to a wider audience. Moreover, I think that the professionally dressed protesters make a stronger impact on the average American. They are simply more likely to be impressed by these images. While it is tempting to believe in a world where the message supersedes the presentation, image still counts. By dressing up before going to protests, one can make their personal demonstration that much more effective.
We encourage you to join us and dress in professional attire whenever you protest. We believe you will be more powerful if you do. If you want to join us in a more formal way, sign up for Serious Change's email list to receive notices about upcoming events.
| Email: |
Let's end this war!
Great comparison.
Several other reasons the media may have cast a benevolent light on the lawyers' protests include the perception that lawyers' action would be a one-time event, not a continual and bothersome presence in public discourse.
Also, ambulance-chaser jokes aside, the legal community is very much a part of the accepted mainstream professional class in any country, so demonstrating lawyers can avoid being cast as a fringe element.
I don't wholly disagree with this analysis, and I agree that it's a good idea for people to protest in professional attire — if for no other reason, than that it's a new media angle. But I think it may be naive to belive that the media will automatically treat professionally-clad protesters more sympathetically because of their dress. The media are very sensitive to their place in the power structure, and treat with disdain anyone who threatens that structure or the corporate media's place in it. It's ultimately the agenda of the protesters that matters, and an agenda that threatens the established power structure or the media's comfortable place in it will be treated with disdain. (Glenn Greenwald's blog posts over at Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald , cover some of these media issues in depth.) The Pakistani lawyers were remote enough to be non-dangerous, and even though they were protesting against a US ally, it still fit fairly comfortably into the established media narratives of Democracy, the War On Terror, and so forth.