Information Warfare in Miami

On Wednesday, Nov. 26, labor leaders stood up at a press conference with environmental and global justice activists and blasted the Miami police force for using repressive tactics against those protesting the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit (FTAA). That same day, Amnesty International called for an independent investigation into the strong-arm tactics utilized by a militarized force of over 40 agencies against the demonstrators.

The stakes in Miami were very high for the Bush administration. Across Latin America, millions of people have expressed their opposition to corporate driven globalization and "free trade." Meanwhile, historic alliances have been forged between various movements inside the U.S. Gone were the messaging disputes between those who advocate "Fair Trade" and supporters of "No Trade" that had characterized previous demonstrations at trade negotiations. This time, unions and street activists shared a clear, common message: "No to FTAA."

Anti-war groups such as United for Peace and Justice joined with the more de-centralized, affinity group-based wing of the global justice movement to organize direct action. Powerful labor groups like the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers made clear that despite tactical differences, there was solidarity among resistance movements. To emphasize this point, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney visited the mobilization convergence center where art-making, training and planning was underway for un-permitted street actions.

Yet this powerful display of successful solidarity is not what Americans saw on their television or read in their newspapers.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

As veterans of mass mobilizations believe that the debates over top-down corporate globalization are increasingly won and lost in the stories that emerge from both the various trade summits and the demonstrations against them. Social and environmental justice movements have become increasingly adept at producing their own media and utilizing alternative avenues to articulate our experiences to friends and allies. Yet, as progressive activists we still find ourselves wondering whether mainstream outlets witnessed the same events as we did.

As self admitted media junkies, we sat together this past weekend and devoured taped television footage and stacked print coverage of the Miami protests. We sat glued to the TV set, watching anchor after anchor use descriptions that appeared to be completely disconnected to the scenes shown on screen. At one point, an anchor's voice-over described undercover agents being chased behind police lines by protesters, while the film repeatedly showed a small group of demonstrators aiding a friend who appeared to have been attacked by other protestors (undercover agents).

Reporters and commentators repeatedly slipped up and used the phrases that illuminated their bias. In one notable instance, as Channel 7 aired lived footage of armed policemen driving frightened protesters from the downtown area, the commentator enthusiastically declared "So far, we're winning!"

Justifications for pre-emptive police action were plentiful. "[The police are] prepared, have been preparing, are ready for any scenario. When something came up they put it out," one anchor said. "Everything is going according to script," declared another. When none of the chaos that had been promised materialized, the anchors cried triumphantly that this was a result of a "massive, well-prepared police force."

Live coverage was largely comprised of uneventful shots of groups of demonstrators gathered in clumps in parks or wandering down streets, followed at close range by lines of riot cops and armored vehicles. A few repetitive shots of young masked protestors were peppered with hundreds of references by the anchors to "trouble makers", "rabble rousers," "bad seeds," "protestors looking for trouble," and, of course, the never defined but always scary "anarchists."