re: #533 SanFranciscoZionist

Of course, what they actually chose to do has not exactly burnished their reputation with the local media. They need the media, whether they like it or not.

Also, whether they like it or not, they cannot claim a public space as private space, simply by pitching tents there. They, I, and the KRONTV lady, all have open access to what I still like to call Frank H. Ogawa Plaza.

Now, maybe Dr. King would have called this a victory in media relations, but I tend to doubt it.

Sure - I get all of that, and it remains to be seen how effectively this group is going to handle the media going forward.

But consider, for a minute, how early media coverage treated the civil rights movement. Mostly, the focused on the objections raised by the local civilian population, and from the business community to the money lost as a result of the activism. Sound familiar? Suppose the media of the time focused (at least to some degree if not in balance) on how people who were marching relieved themselves when they were prevented access to bathrooms (would you imagine some public urination might have taken place?) How about if they had focused to some degree on the debris left behind after marches, or after clashes with the local police?

I’m not attempting to equate the movements or the relevant media bias in the two situations - but only to illustrate how: (1) the issue of how to deal with the media is complex and (2) the question of “fairness” of treatment is always subjective.

The problem I have is if someone wants to pursue an agenda rather than consider the full context for the questions at hand.