Apparently, the anti-war protests were widely covered

switched over to fixed news and man, theres some revisionist history going on.



then anti-war movement's marches were widely covered!?!? REALLY??!!! WHEN??!?!




dear god, someone just take brit hume out back and pistol whip him already....

I have been involved in quite a few over the years, but the one that springs to mind was the "No Blood For Oil" march in San Francisco in the run up to the first Gulf War ('91). I was there, along with a contingent from my state who bussed in for the event. It was just enormous. If you know San Francisco, you can appreciate this picture: imagine Embarcadero closed off from the wharf to the Civic Center Plaza, packed with people all the way. The Plaza was packed in too. Now, the news gave it a little notice but what got me were the reported attendee numbers. I got a concensus from several reliable sources that it hovered around a quarter million people. But what did the local news do? They asked a couple of cops at the march (who were clearly disdaining of the "hippy" element) and the cops said 30,000 - 35,000 max.

Fucking. Lying. Pigs.

And the news lapped it up like mothers mik, anxious to downplay and dismiss the entire event.

none of them were covered very well (or nearly as much as the Tea Bagging convention)
.. but there were so many that the marches *were widely covered

that must be what they meant ;)

and now this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7672387

there'd be NO record.

We were dismissed and called traitors.

I haven't been able to bring myself to watch a whole show of any M$M, especially cable, for many years now. I just can't compartmentalize all their bullshit and all my 'real' life bullshit at the same time. I have to spread it out, otherwise my ptsd kicks in and then I'm really in trouble. I know a lot of people get ticked off about those of us who live in denial, but I can't function without part-time denial.