When thousands of protesters converge on Seattle at the end of this month
to challenge the global summit of the World Trade Organization, they're
unlikely to get a fair hearing from America's mass media.
Consider how one of the nation's most influential newspapers framed the
upcoming confrontation as November began. The Washington Post reported on
its front page that the WTO has faced "virulent opposition" -- an
assessment not quoted or attributed to anyone -- presumably just a matter
of fact.
"Virulent"? According to my dictionary, the mildest definition of the word
is "intensely irritating, obnoxious or harsh." The other definitions:
"extremely poisonous or pathogenic; bitterly hostile or antagonistic;
hateful."
Don't you just love objective reporting?
Headlined above the fold on page one of the Post, the Nov. 2 article went
on to quote four pro-WTO sources: the organization's president, a top
executive at the Goldman, Sachs investment firm, the U.S. trade
representative and a member of the British House of Commons. In contrast,
quotations from foes of the WTO were scarce and fleeting.