User:Chelsey.brantley/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 95:

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

is clear that he wasn’t exaggerating the bias against anti-war activists. The

''New York Times'' reported that Robert McNamara felt his soldiers showed “restraint . . . under provocation,"{{sfn|Reston|1967|p=1}} and in one article the protesters

were referred to as “scum of the universe”{{sfn|Roberts|1967|p=45}}; another report called the demonstration “mass paranoia . . . elicit[ing] a great deal of foolishness."{{sfn|Baker|1967|p=45}} What the press wrote about the protestors was not always so disparaging, but rarely was the message of the marchers given much time, and this sort of mainstream coverage was the only information readily

available to the general public about the anti-war movement. Some of the first reports of the march on and the siege of the Pentagon were missing reports of police violence because the reporters went home late Saturday

night before the police began employing more militant tactics. But on Monday in another story of the march the ''New York Times'' still ignored “the bloody military sweep of early Sunday morning;” the ''Washington Post''’s Monday coverage was similar in that it “continued to emphasize the violence

of the protestors, not the defenders of the Pentagon."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=76, 78}} ''Time'' came out with its story a few days after the march on October 27 in which they marginalized the protestors as “left-wing radicals, hippies, acid

heads, and people with painted faces in bizarre costumes” while at the same time “applaud[ing] the government for its restraint."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=79-80}}

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 In looking beyond Mailer’s collection of media accounts of the march, it{{pg|486|487}}
+is clear that he wasn’t exaggerating the bias against anti-war activists. The
+''New York Times'' reported that Robert McNamara felt his soldiers showed “restraint . . . under provocation,"{{sfn|Reston|1967|p=1}} and in one article the protesters
+were referred to as “scum of the universe”{{sfn|Roberts|1967|p=45}}; another report called the demonstration “mass paranoia . . . elicit[ing] a great deal of foolishness."{{sfn|Baker|1967|p=45}} What the press wrote about the protestors was not always so disparaging, but rarely was the message of the marchers given much time, and this sort of mainstream coverage was the only information readily
+available to the general public about the anti-war movement. Some of the first reports of the march on and the siege of the Pentagon were missing reports of police violence because the reporters went home late Saturday
+night before the police began employing more militant tactics. But on Monday in another story of the march the ''New York Times'' still ignored “the bloody military sweep of early Sunday morning;” the ''Washington Post''’s Monday coverage was similar in that it “continued to emphasize the violence
+of the protestors, not the defenders of the Pentagon."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=76, 78}} ''Time'' came out with its story a few days after the march on October 27 in which they marginalized the protestors as “left-wing radicals, hippies, acid
+heads, and people with painted faces in bizarre costumes” while at the same time “applaud[ing] the government for its restraint."{{sfn|Small|1994|p=79-80}}