Lovely example of unbiased reporting by the Murdoch press...

This is seriously the worst article I've found in terms of G8 media coverage. I have a short list of boxes to tick in terms of how the mainstream media misrepresent protests, and this manages to cover most of them.

The opening paragraph sets the scene: 'It started as a good-natured march in which tens of thousands joined a protest on a bright Baltic sunlit day. People sang, danced and proudly waved their banners. Within hours, their demonstration demanding stronger action by the G8 on climate change, AIDS and poverty had been turned into a cynically manipulated operation to ensure that news about the summit would henceforth be dominated by scenes of water cannon, tear gas and stone throwing.'

Now, you may agree with that analysis. Sadly, the reporter refers to a 'cynically manipulated operation' by protesters, rather than by either the media or the police.

Two of the 'boxes' on my media misrepresentation checklist are the line which is drawn between 'good' and 'bad' protesters, and the idea that some protesters 'hijacked' events. These tropes are out in force here. For example: 'There seemed to be two separate protests running alongside one another - one innocent, the other chillingly aggressive.' This is seen by the reporter - and anyone whose main impression of such things comes from the media - as a clearly defined boundary, one side of which is beyond the pale. Needless to say, 'good' protesters are those who wish to stick to the legally sanctioned march route, attend a concert, and not in any way antagonise anyone. The problem here comes when you look at how much ('much' used in the most sarcastic sense possible) change can be brought about without some level of antagonism.

Another line which sums up this attitude nicely: 'Among the beer and hot dog stands surrounding the stage, legitimate protesters, including several from Britain's Stop The War coalition, were indignant that the real messages would be lost by the actions of a few rabble-rousers.' Here the 'good' protester is given a clearer identity - a mainstream organisation, affiliated with a political party best known for selling newspapers and attaching front groups to the campaigns of the day. (Incidentally, there are many STWC participants, and even SWP members, who I have no small amount of respect for - my issue here is with the organisations themselves and the fact that they are seen as the 'legitimate' face of protest'.) The 'bad' protester, meanwhile, is an unwelcome guest who has crashed the party and - to continue that metaphor for a second - smashed up the house and vomited in the corner. And, of course, antagonised the G8, which is never the done thing. 'Good' protesters are also, it becomes apparent, keen to distance themselves from those who favour more militant means of getting the message across.

The 'good' protesters are also, it transpires, victims: 'The peaceful elements in the crowd could smell the acrid tear gas sweeping across the harbour area.' One would almost think it was the anarchists who were letting off tear gas - a tactic of which I have yet to hear. At any rate, while the 'legitimate' protesters were feeling 'panic and disappointment', 'some young protesters clearly relished the battle. I heard one shouting, "Isn't this great!" as his friends hurled stones at policemen'. The reporter no doubt regards this as part of the 'cynically manipulated operation' referred to at the beginning of her article - of course, this is more likely than the alternative explanation, which involves youthful over-excitement underlain by some level of anger.

The main culprits for the trouble, according to this reporter, were 'the Black Block [sic], a group of black-clad trouble-makers whose sole aim was to goad the police.' Ignoring for a minute the fact that those involved in Black Bloc regard it as a tactic rather than an organisation, their function is also rather misinterpreted here. In past mobilisations, their role has been to occupy the most vulnerable points of a demonstration, fighting off police aggression and to some extent defending other demonstrators - including the 'more peaceful' ones who are so upset here - from attack. Whether or not this is successful is a matter for debate elsewhere. However, the irony is that - after the first round of aggression was over, after the Black Bloc-ers had left due to being tired or battered or just seeing their role in events as over for the day, police turned on the more 'peaceful' concert-goers. This suggests that maybe the aggression was not necessarily initiated by any element of the protest.