The July 20 editorial "Peace and Protest: Could an Official Gesture Improve the G-20 Summit?" reveals its bias through its language. The summit could be "spoiled" by protesters. Police are training for the "worst." There could be "conflict"; "battle lines" are to be drawn. These terms grab the baton from the TV media in the race to induce fear among the public.
This is another example of the media sensationalizing its G-20 coverage and demonizing the very notion of protest. Moreover, the naivete of suggesting that presenting a "grievances" list on paper to "aides" -- reminiscent of the old feudal system in medieval Europe -- might replace the presence of concerned citizens is mind-boggling and insulting.
The concerns of protesters are no secret to G-20 delegates. Our eco-system is being decimated, pharmaceutical and insurance companies call the shots in health care, the economy is in crisis, banks are fed billions of taxpayer dollars while families lose their homes, climate measures are woefully insufficient ...
Public protest aims to counterbalance the voice of the corporate interests that wield influence at the negotiating table with the voice of real people: the people struggling to pay mortgages and health insurance bills, whose children will face a ravaged environment and climate issues that could threaten their existence. Protesters are not a scary problem to be avoided; the majority are just the people next door getting off their backsides to try to effect positive "change."
We need smart journalism in relation to the G-20, not a subtle spin on panic-mongering.