I'm planning on being in DC on the 2nd for the march, and I hope you are too. I'm a firm believer in optics --- that people's opinions are shaped not as much by what they hear or read about something, but about what they see.
To that end I think it's important we progressives accomplish three things with the march:
- fill the joint up with marchers,
- get one or two headline-ready quotes from the podium, ideally with accompanying pictures
and
- hit a home run with signage, with bonus points for humor.
Follow me below the jump for more.
I'm not involved in the slightest in crafting the 10-2-10 event, but my perception is that it's coming at the right time and that, if used well, it can be extremely powerful.
You watch the news. You know that despite what will probably be hours of riveting, enthusiastic, important speech-making, literally millions of personal connections and networking opportunities, and countless moments of inspiration, the media coverage of the event will be simplistic (what coverage there is at all). Most politicians won't attend. Few will care. Many insiders will scoff. That's just how it is. Another weekend, another march.
Fine. What to do about it?
99% of the Americans who learn about the event will do so after it has happened, and learn about via the mainstream media. To the extent that it affects the narrative four weeks out from the election -- and all progressives should be hoping that's a large extent -- it will do so based on that media coverage. (That is, based on the media's coverage of it, not on the actual events and activities and speeches given, etc.)
Those media outlets that cover the event at all will likely do so in extremely predictable ways. The typical print piece and/or TV news piece on the event will include common items:
- They will describe what the event was, and who sponsored it.
- They will include an estimate of how many people attended.
- They will mention a short list of speakers.
- They will get some anecdotal information from attendees.
- They will describe any controversial aspects to the event (if there is any counter-protest, any violence, etc.).
If images accompany their stories, they are likely to be of:
- Speech-givers
- Large crowd shots
- Sign-carriers (single or in small groups)
Anything beyond these surface-level nuggets is an unexpected bonus -- and, I would argue, unlikely to sway anyone. Frankly, anyone who would dig deeply enough into a political story to read the full text of someone's speech, or spend time researching the background of a sponsoring organization, or look into the policy implications of a specific suggestion, is already tuned in enough to know who they're voting for. This march won't change their mind one way or the other.
The only people who might be swayed are the vast, uninterested political middle who really only note the headlines, subscribe to the CW (whatever it is), etc. -- and the media knows this, which is of course why these morsels are all they offer. But uninterested as they may be, there are voters in here whose votes we need. So let's try to get them, shall we?
Let's break each of these down and consider how to maximize the chances of sending a strong and concise message, frame the debate in a positive way, and leverage any coverage that we get of it for maximum benefit to the narrative. Let's think tactically.
1) They will describe what the event was and who sponsored it.
To a large extent this is out of our control as attendees and not organizers, but from the long list of sponsors we're in pretty good shape here. The short explanation, from a MSM standpoint, seems to be shaping up as "the event is sponsored by civil rights groups and union groups." That's not bad. Some moderate voters associate negative rather than positive connotations with "union," of course, but still, it's great to be able to describe the sponsors as real people and real grass roots groups, rather than FreedomWorksor some other astroturf corporate entity. This works well.
My sense of the easiest rebuttal to the event will be a union slam -- something along the lines of "all the unions paid their members to go to Washington for a march" or "I hope my tax dollars didn't pay to send post office idiots to DC" or something along those lines (can't you hear them now?). For my money, it'd be smart to harken back to this past weekend -- Labor Day -- in some speeches, etc., to diffuse any anti-union sentiment. But it is what it is. Other ideas welcome.
2) They will mention an estimate of how many people attended.
Based on the coverage Beck-a-palooza received a few weeks ago, we can expect estimates on turnout to be wildly debated and hotly watched. Even a low-level media report on this event will almost surely mention the attendance of the 10-2-10 event in the context of the Beck event, as in, "Attendance at the event was estimated at between 150,000 and 160,000, though no official count is available. Organizers were quick to point out that a similar event sponsored by Glenn Beck in September drew an estimated 90,000 attendees..." or "Organizers claimed attendance of 200,000, although some independent observers put the count at closer to 75,000..." or something like that. In other words, the fact that the two high-profile and clearly oppositional events are taking place so close to one another in time, at the same location, in a charged political atmosphere, right before an election, all but guarantees that comparisons will be drawn between them, and that observers will reach conclusions based on those comparisons: if more people attended the Beck event, it must mean that more people agree with its goals and message. And vice versa. We can quibble with this logic all we want, but the fact is that if we cannot easily out-draw Beck, the narrative will suffer and that story will be the story. That's why attendance is so critical. This is huge.
Finally we should note here that as we were reminded during Beck's event, there are no "official" estimates made on crowds at events like these (for various reasons, but mainly because the police got tired of trying to do it and getting yelled at by other estimators). So while there will be no "official" estimate, comparing aerial photographs taken by the same groups that did photos of Beck's event, and comparing them side-by-side, would seem like a very fair and understandable way to compare attendance. Most fair observers will be able to get on board with that.
3) They will mention a short list of speakers.
I haven't found a full list of speakers, but the ONWT page has what appears to be a pretty full list here, at the bottom of the page. The newest additions appear to be Charlie Rangel and Ed Schultz.
Recognizing that the easiest media narrative to use would be to describe this as a "union rally" -- thus depriving it of the "Americans of all persuasions" feel, that would really give it power -- my hope is that there will be good balance between the folks who are speaking and, perhaps, some other additions between now and 10-2-10. Right now there are folks from the sponsoring organizations, primarily -- NAACP, AFL-CIO, SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, Teamsters, Rainbow PUSH, Urban League, Immigration League, etc. There is one "unemployed mother" listed, as well as someone from Unemployed Workers Action Group (with whom I'm not familiar). I'd love to see more unaffiliated folks speak -- "disabled vet" and "recent graduate with huge student loans" and "small business owner" and "small town mayor" and "city councilman" and "Republican state congressman" and "school board president." Just suggestions. Note how many press articles mentioned that Alveda King spoke at Beck's rally?
Frankly, for media coverage, it's more about who the speakers are than what they say; full speeches, or even excerpts longer than 8 seconds, are extremely unlikely in any coverage, as we all konw. A few quotes, if they're lucky; nothing more than that. To that end, I'd encourage the organizers to recruit as broad a group as they can, and then group those folks into categories. Get the union groups together into a group, but then put other groups alongside them -- "local officials," "business owners," "ordinary Americans," etc. -- to fight that "this was a union mob" smear job. Make it easy for the media to characterize the speakers in a useful way. Because you know that's how it will come across to some, unless they're out in front of it.
I also think it must be said that the highest profile speakers will be mentioned first, and right now that's Schultz and Rangel. Rangel is -- sorry, folks -- damaged goods at the moment. Great that he's speaking, love the guy, want his vote, but he's in the news for all the wrong reasons. I hope he doesn't overshadow anything. Schultz suits some folks and not others. I'm relatively ambivalent -- love him on some issues, others not as much. But he brings needed visibility and is a great advocate for the group as it's currently outlined, so I say kudos.
4) They will get some anecdotal information from attendees.
There's not much anyone can do to prepare for this. Every crowd of a few thousand people -- to say nothing of a hundred thousand -- will have both professors and morons, well-spoken and poorly spoken, etc., and some fringe extremists. This rally will as well. Having said that, it would at least be nice to get the word out to whomever possible to suggest that, hey, if YOU happen to be the one interviewed, do a good job! Don't be shrill. Don't point fingers. Articulate. Try to stay on message: the GOP got us into this mess and has no new ideas for how to get us out. Policies that favor workers and the middle class are the ones that will rescue our economy, not those that favor the rich. Blaming the Democrats for the recession and simultaneously refusing to allow them to solve it legislatively is hurting this country. It is to the GOP's political advantage that the recession continue into 2012. Try not to veer into obscure policy ideas or say crazy stuff or lie or use straw men or offer conspiracy theories. It really doesn't help anyone to insult Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, or to bash individual GOP elected officials, or to call people or groups of people nasty names, etc. No Nazi comparisons. For my money, you can leave your pot legalization posters at home (flame me; just an opinion). However smart and strong you sound in person, it won't work well on the news or in the AP story. Promise. Tell your friends. Tell those around you near the reflecting pool. Never know who the camera will find.
5) They will describe any controversial aspects to the event (if there is any counter-protest, any violence, etc.).
'Nuff said. There will certainly be some opposition around, as well as some YouTubers shooting amateur video looking to embarrass attendees, and probably some counter-protests nearby of smaller scale. Ignore them. The last thing we need is some fight or shooting or brawl or series of arrests that steals headlines or column inches from the meat of the event. As far as anyone knows, Beck's event went off without a hitch. Ours has to, too.
********************
And now let's talk optics for a moment:
What might media show to accompany a story on the event? Remember, I think a picture's worth a thousand words on stuff like this. One iconic image might well tell the story better than all the speeches and all the posturing. One great picture on the cover of Newsweek with a young mother wearing an Obama t-shirt, wearing a cross pendant, holding a sign that reads "It's my country, too, and you can't have it back!" (or insert your own "most useful image to our faltering narrative" here) and we just might get a conversation going about something.
1) Speech-givers
They should be plainly dressed, with simple backdrops, unstaged. No conspicuously ethnically diverse groups hand-picked to serve as the background. I volunteered backstage for Obama. I know they do it, and I understand why. But not this time. No random guys with hard hats. No military garb. Just let the background be blurry and distant -- resist the temptation to stock it with folks holding SEIU signs. The crowd will be diverse enough -- we know that. Playing it up will only play into the "union event" meme. Just a suggestion. I think it's unnecessary and pandery.
2) Large crowd shots
Get your butt to DC.
That is all.
I mean seriously, if we can't get a group that is objectively larger than Beck's for this, we should just fold our tent and start practicing saying "Speaker Boehner." I don't care that he's been pimping his for months. I don't care that ours takes place after school starts. I don't care that he had perfect weather and we might not. I don't care that Dick Armey bussed his idiots in from all corners of the country on his dime and somehow our patron saint George Soros isn't booking buses for us. None of that matters, and no one will care, if the narrative is "Beck draws 100,000; progressives barely crack 30,000." If that's the estimate going into the last week, I hope Ed Schultz stops mentioning it and I hope it snows, because we'll need some other excuse to try to explain what a miserable failure the whole thing is and to beg people not to judge us based on it. Sorry but that's my view here.
3) Sign-carriers (single or in small groups)
There were hundreds of town hall meetings last summer, with probably thousands and thousands of signs. But you probably only saw a half-dozen, didn't you? There are misspellings, sure, that get online and into the news because they're funny. But a few others make it because they're compelling. Because they capture the event in a single image, or phrase. The "Bury Obamacare with Ted Kennedy" signs come to mind. Horrific, but clear. Infuriating, but illustrative.
As mentioned above, there will be moransat the event and they will carry dumb signs. And surely there will be pre-printed stacks of thousands of SEIU signs handed out. Fine. But I'm betting that to the extent media covers the event at all, they'll latch onto other signs, handwritten or homemade probably, that really capture the essence of the story and happen to match the overall theme nicely. Heck, with a little luck an inspired sign might even provide the theme for the media! Wouldn't that be perfect!
To that end I think some strategic thinking on signage would be hugely helpful. I've done a little brainstorming myself, but your input would be nice as well. I think a good sign that catches the eyes of a reporter and just begs to be used to accompany the story can really serve a useful purpose. See the poll below for some of my initial ideas, and add your own in the comments section. And if you're going, please steal ideas! Or maybe a hot idea will catch on in the comments. I'm not suggesting every attendee carry the same sign -- that's the exact opposite of what a grass-roots movement looks like -- but 10 or 20 or 50 variations on a single theme stand a better chance of changing opinion than one or two. And even if everyone brings different signs (and of course most folks bring no sign at all, which is fine), the themes and messaging can align -- and should, if we're to maximize the media coverage we get and increase the odds of something truly moving and memorable and discussion-worthy making it into the newspaper, onto CNN.com, or next to Brian Williams' head on the evening news for a few moments.
****************
Thanks for reading. Maybe it's the competitor in me, and the idea of pummeling Beck's recent event with one that is larger and stronger and undeniably more compelling. Maybe it's the frustration of a couple years of half-measures, of not clapping quite loudly enough, of getting a ton done but getting no credit for it, that makes me want to do whatever I can personally do to affect change (with GOTV, donations, calls, etc. also critical). Maybe it's just the terror of a GOP Congress that's looming large in the future, and the idea that this is our last best chance at rallying enough voices all together at once to combat that future, and show that all Americans really aren't ok with the tea party's vision for our country.
Remember: Obama won't be there. Rahm won't be there. Harry and Nancy won't be there. This isn't a top-down, scripted event. This isn't a Fox News-sponsored revival. This is just us -- just ordinary Americans, with no overarching agenda or corporate master, finding time to stand together in one place at one time to say what's on their minds. It's our show, and it will only be as good as we make it.
Whatever it is, I really think the 10-2-10 rally is a fantastic and important thing, and hope many thousands can attend. And above all, I hope whoever attends, the story of those there is communicated to the rest of the country in a way that shapes and alters the conventional wisdom that, today, says the GOP is what the nation wants in January.
I just can't believe that's true. Here's hoping there still to turn it around.