The mainstream media tell us about a civil rights protest since the 1960s, but the reality we all see is very different

A serious conflict, however not seriously told by those professionals of the situation comedy rather than the information who got down on their knees out of respect for the last rite of liberal ideology

If generals tend to always fight the previous war, commentators and journalists do not joke about intellectual laziness: they often find it hard to understand the news, the historical turning points, preferring to settle on outdated scripts. It also happens in the narratives of the current "protests" in the United States, which also arrived in Europe yesterday. In television insights and in the mainstream press, a way of telling the story prevails which seems to repeat the lines of a film about Martin Luther King. But times have changed and the tools that help elaborate the perception of reality have also changed.

That there is no Reverend King at the head of the American uprisings is evident: no theoretical elaboration, no motivated criticism, no explanation of why the crowds rise up against Trump today for the killing of an African American, while there was no significant reaction in the streets when in the last months of the Obama presidency there was a real sickness of black American citizens.

But apart from this obvious inconsistency of motivations, the new fact is the eye that looks at the demonstrators. Still in the nineties certain social phenomena could be presented in an "angelic" way by the large information centers, but since the year 2000 the news has been represented by the information anarchy of the web that breaks the communication monopolies and shows the images if not "prohibited" at least neglected .

The impact of this media turnaround was first the "right": the narrative of Saddam's chemical weapons was lively contested by the network and the star of Barack Obama was made brilliant by Facebook shares.

Then, after eight years of Obama's presidency, the network began to boil with unexpected moods. Accompanied by his Twitter chirps, Trump made his ascent to heaven. The liberals were distressed by it: the new information tools were rowing against them. "What are we journalists for …" an iconic and, in his own way, Botteri missed, in the hot hours of the victory of the most unlikely of all presidential candidates.

Protests from Clinton's followers followed, but as television commentators sought to give political dignity to that protest against the outcome of a democratic election, the Facebook and Twitter boards were merrily teeming with videos showing the reality of those demonstrators: shouts hysterical, reactions between the bully and the immature. Political infants who shrieked because they hadn't had the toy they thought was due to him by right of desire.

Today history repeats itself: the major media speak to us of a "civil rights" protest against Trump, of a country suffering from eternal racism. But the videos circulating on social networks show us looting, fleeing young men with packs of designer products, class struggle scenes between a lumpenproletariat undeserved by the lockdown and the category of traders. A serious conflict, however, not told seriously by those professionals of the situation comedy rather than the information who got on their knees in deference to the last rite of liberal ideology.

The post The mainstream media tell us about a civil rights protest since the 1960s, but the reality we all see is very different appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .


This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/i-media-mainstream-ci-raccontano-una-protesta-per-i-diritti-civili-da-anni-60-ma-la-realta-che-vediamo-tutti-e-molto-diversa/ on Mon, 08 Jun 2020 04:09:00 +0000.