User:Chelsey.brantley/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 79:

protesters were abused. For any journalist there was difficulty in covering

something as large as the march on the Pentagon “because of the extensive

terrain in question and the ~~rapidmovements~~ of the protestors and soldiers."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=72}} Acting as a novelist-journalist, Mailer collects varied media accounts

terrain in question and the rapid movements of the protestors and soldiers."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=72}} Acting as a novelist-journalist, Mailer collects varied media accounts

of the march and weaves them into the narrative; here he features

one Leftist perspective of the march, identifying the witness as “Harvey

Mayes of the English Department at Hunter”:

<blockquote>One soldier spilled the water from his canteen on the ground in order to add to the discomfort of the female demonstrator at his feet. She cursed him—understandably, I think—and shifted her body. She lost her balance and her shoulder hit the rifle at the soldier’s side. He raised the rifle, and with its butt, came down hard on the girl’s leg. The girl tried to move back but was not fast enough to avoid the billy-club of a soldier in the second row of the troops. At least four times that soldier hit her with all his force.{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=303}}</blockquote>

Mailer was obliged to portray the graphic scenes from the march which were missing in many media reports. Perhaps the stories of abuse were reported on more by the Left media because the Left journalists were among the protestors, down in the tussle, while mainstream reporters observed from a safe

distance, avoiding a potential encounter with violent police.

Mailer also gave accounts of “the [mainstream] press [who were], in the

aftermath, antagonistic to the March” and so included passages of an article from the ''New York Times'' which stated that “[i]t is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some

of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander. . . . [M]any officials here are surprised that

there was not much more violence."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=313}} Notice that the ''Times'' does not mention any specific violence of the MPs. Numerous commentators condemned ''not'' the beatings meted out to the demonstrators, but the protest

itself; David Brinkley called it a “coarse, vulgar episode."{{sfn|Wells|1994|p=202-3}} However,

Maurice Isserman, one marcher, remembers the marchers for the most part as peaceful, remaining “pretty true to Gandhian principles."{{sfn|Isserman|2007|p=B15}}

In looking beyond Mailer’s collection of media accounts of the march, it{{pg|486|487}}

===Citations===

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 protesters were abused. For any journalist there was difficulty in covering
 something as large as the march on the Pentagon “because of the extensive
-terrain in question and the rapidmovements of the protestors and soldiers."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=72}} Acting as a novelist-journalist, Mailer collects varied media accounts
+terrain in question and the rapid movements of the protestors and soldiers."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=72}} Acting as a novelist-journalist, Mailer collects varied media accounts
 of the march and weaves them into the narrative; here he features
 one Leftist perspective of the march, identifying the witness as “Harvey
 Mayes of the English Department at Hunter”:
 <blockquote>One soldier spilled the water from his canteen on the ground in order to add to the discomfort of the female demonstrator at his feet. She cursed him—understandably, I think—and shifted her body. She lost her balance and her shoulder hit the rifle at the soldier’s side. He raised the rifle, and with its butt, came down hard on the girl’s leg. The girl tried to move back but was not fast enough to avoid the billy-club of a soldier in the second row of the troops. At least four times that soldier hit her with all his force.{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=303}}</blockquote>
+Mailer was obliged to portray the graphic scenes from the march which were missing in many media reports. Perhaps the stories of abuse were reported on more by the Left media because the Left journalists were among the protestors, down in the tussle, while mainstream reporters observed from a safe
+distance, avoiding a potential encounter with violent police.
+Mailer also gave accounts of “the [mainstream] press [who were], in the
+aftermath, antagonistic to the March” and so included passages of an article from the ''New York Times'' which stated that “[i]t is difficult to report publicly the ugly and vulgar provocation of many of the militants. They spat on some
+of the soldiers in the front line at the Pentagon and goaded them with the most vicious personal slander. . . . [M]any officials here are surprised that
+there was not much more violence."{{sfn|Mailer|1988|p=313}} Notice that the ''Times'' does not mention any specific violence of the MPs. Numerous commentators condemned ''not'' the beatings meted out to the demonstrators, but the protest
+itself; David Brinkley called it a “coarse, vulgar episode."{{sfn|Wells|1994|p=202-3}} However,
+Maurice Isserman, one marcher, remembers the marchers for the most part as peaceful, remaining “pretty true to Gandhian principles."{{sfn|Isserman|2007|p=B15}}
+In looking beyond Mailer’s collection of media accounts of the march, it{{pg|486|487}}
 ===Citations===