The G20 summit that passed through London last week, aside from trying to save the world from environental and economic self-destruction, also played host to an ideological clash that was played out in its entirety within a bottle's throw of a camera or microphone. The protest, designed to show that "capitalism was dead" or that we should "burn the bankers", hoped to bring about a seismic shift in the consensus of public opinion and lead to the current mood of resigned tolerance to the Establishment mutuate into unbridled anger. Conversely, it was the role of the Metroplitan Police to quell, usher and steer the protest toward their own optimal outcome through denying the media the riotous images for which they yearned, having trailed the conference excessively. What transpired achieved neither objective, yet still generated yards of column space discussing the respective failures of the protagonists.
As far as the geo-political campaigners were concerned, the summit represented a huge opportunity. Increased unemployment, growing reposessions and a public mood that was as at very best apathetic to banking, offered all the ammunition the protestors could have dreamed of, yet the actions of the few meant that the collective artillery backfired. Whilst an entirely peaceful, politically symobolic demonstration was always unlikely due to how these events are often hijacked by an anarchic minority, the subsequent images evoked modern memories of Los Angeles, Brimingham & Paris. The images of dummies on nooses and the hurling of fencing is likely to lead to a regression in the public perception of those who protest. Whilst, the salivating media were always likely to move toward a skewed representation of the scene, especially in terms of the role of the protestors, the manner in which the reservation of the masses was obscured by the extremity of the idiotic, has done considerable damage. After the collective voice of the Anti-Iraq War movement was remotely extinguished by the Bush administration, G20 almost represented a final opporturtunity for successful, responsible protest in the UK. Whilst the million person march's coherent argument was irresponsibly out-shouted in the House, the G20 candidates' never made it to the dispatch box. As a result, political protest in the UK will be perceived as perpetually futile, as the race to secure numbers that demonstrate sufficient electoral opinion will continually be tempered by the necessity of recruiting those whose intentions are honourable.
Similarly, the past week has hardly exemplified a progressive representation of UK policing in 2009. With the Metropolitan Police's image still reeling from the fall-out of Jean Charles de Menezes' killing, the successful control of 2009's highest profile protest would have been a welcome feather in their cap. After the calming of the initial storm, the post-lunch lull introduced a more serene atmosphere in the afternoon, more conducive to the environment that would have lead to the mutual achievement of respective objectives. Yet,as the increasing smell of success would have been as prominent as the relaxant that filled the air throughout the day, the Met still had to be aware of the sporadic pockets of disruption that still protruded. However, it wasn't until almost a week after the protest that the shocking footage of the treatment of Ian Tomlinson surfaced. Seeing an innocent man pushed to the ground by the same police that he had his back to, saw images of Rodney King and De Menezes brought back to the fore, a remedy to the previous pejorative scenes of civil disobedience. Whilst last week's mass mediated image was RBS's broken windows, this week will see mobile phone footage and the rising spectre of citizen journalism act as an indictment of the behaviour of the force. Whilst the anarchic images were swallowed amongst the banquet of coverage devoted to G20 last week, the timing of the footage's emergence will lead to it attracting a greater proportion of the news agenda this week. Similarly, the respective public expectation of police and protestors means that the acts of the police will be judged in a colder, harsher way.
Ultimately, the past 10 days has seen two sectors of society give the media exactly what they wanted and throw in their credibility in the process. As lawless protestors were doing the seemingly impossible in elliciting green shoots of compassion for bankers, the Met Police were sleepwalking into another extremely damaging story that will last as long as a criminal trial, civic trial and inquest. Whilst the current economic crisis, and its subsequent debate, has been oversimplified into an ideological battle between capitalism and socialism, the argument does have some contrasting factors. The battle has a lot further to run and the participants have to win the hearts and minds of society . As in Iraq, the key to this is the presentation of image. If the current downturn escalates into depression, this battle may turn into an outright media war, which, as we all know, has no winners.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ryan.....
I think you make a lot of very valid points about the protests, especially regarding the media's role in its representation. As well as the aims of the police and the repercussions they will have to face in light of the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson. However, I do feel you have misrepresented and minimilised the goals of the protesters (although I could be very wrong as mine is just an opinion).
You state that the goal of the protesters was that they 'hoped to bring a seismic shift in the consensus of public opinion...' in an attempt to challenge the ideological consensus of Neo-liberal Capitalism. I would disagree. For the majority of peaceful protesters (I was one of them), the goal was two-fold. Firstly, it was to increase the growing awareness, with the public, of the pitfalls of our current economic system. Not to bring a seismic shift, but to increase awareness and debate of a discourse which is very rarely challenged, and this was undoubtedly achieved. No small feat when you consider the ideological positions of the national press.
Secondly, and more importantly, the goal was to march to the epicentre of the web of hedge funding, derivative trading, profit hunting greed that has led to our current problem and let those responsible know that the majority of people on this earth have a consciounce and are fed up with them putting profit before people. I personally wanted all the big wig b'w'ankers to think about how their jobs actually effect people and not just see life in terms of profit margins. I wanted them to feel really uncomfortable in their own manor if you like.
On this note I believe the protest was a massive success. I am not naive enough to believe that the bankers all had epiphany's, quit their jobs and are now volunteering with the homeless. I do however believe that the protest made a lot of them nervy and uncomfortable, and showed the public that they don't have to accept the status quo which benefits a tiny minority at the expense of the majority.
I am starting to rant now ; ).... but just a couple of points about the violence. This violence was inevitable for two reasons. If these two reasons had been detailed and explored in mainstream media,(they were touched upon) then the negative connotations of the protesters, which I don't believe were as wholesale as you claim, would have been smaller. Firstly, the police stopped people leaving the protest (what they call 'kettling'). With no toilets, food or water and being 'mass arrested' for up to seven hours without explanation some pushing and shoving was inevitable. This is increased when a lot of protesters had been drinking and the police were more than happy to baton charge, in their words, they were 'up for it.' I would suggest this accounted for 50% of the small amount of violence which occurred. Therefore 50% was avoidable but this was never argued in the media.
The other 50% of the violence came from Anarchist groups which is inevitable at any protest they attend. There are many reasons for this which I shall not go into, except to say that if you truly, passionately believe the system is your enemy, and you need liberation from it, then you will fight that system, and the soldiers of that system are police officers. In the eyes of the Anarchist that is a legitimate struggle and you don't care about the media's portrayal of you because they are the legitimisers of said system.
Finally, I will address your point regarding the decline of British protest.
All protests in the UK will appear marginal until the middle class masses get involved, as with the Iraq war. It is a lot easier for the middle classes to protest against a moral issue such as war. It is much harder for the masses to justify taking action, in our already apathetic society, against the socio-economic system which has sustained and framed their entire lives. Such perceptions will be incredibly difficult to change, especially when Labour (the supposed left) are in power. If the crisis was more directly linked to the Conservatives (although it does have its roots with Thatcher) more people would have protested. And you never know, if the crisis worsens dramatically, then we may yet see a massive escalation of dissent.
Current police tactics, already discussed, are aimed at discouraging people from protesting (by 'kettling' and taking pictures of protesters who have not commited any crime, therefore criminalizing them) and so numbers will probably continue to dwindle. I would also argue that all figures regarding protesters will look minute when compared to the Iraq war, the comparison you made. As stated that was a moral issue for protesters and indeed a one off in this country's history. I think direct action, independent media, and increased dialog can create change without needing massive numbers of protesters on every march. Anyway I have ranted for far to long and I probably haven't even discussed the things you were writing about. It felt good to blurt it all out!!! Hope your good mate
Dan Gudg
Cheers Gudg, appreciate the feedback. I totally take your point and defer to your wisdom regarding the true objectives of the protest. I really like your point about how the lack of a middle class involvement in the protest meant that tension borne out of the class system was always likely.
I was , probably in a quite long winded way, trying to critique the media coverage. The use of mobile phones and citizen journalism meant that, for me, the mass media were less interested in the interrogation of the real issues, more tracking the tension and almost acting as a baiting force between the two parties.
Although the media coverage ensured that no cause was likely to emerge with enhanced credibility, I believe, that democratic public service broadcasting had an opportunity to take an objective snapshot of a protest crucially important to these times. Unfortunately, they denegrated into the voyeurism of extreme behaviour, regardless of what side of the fence it came from, and subsequently exhibited the self-same mentality that they were hierarchically judging
Yeah I agree with you about the media. Photographers matched demonstrators in numbers and it seemed everywhere you looked there were camera lenses snapping away!!!
Post a Comment