Reply #17: The article is way too kind

[PATRICK]

to the media role and that means the very active suppression and redirecting of public attention is underestimated. They will not pander to progressive enthusiasm, even raw power. Their first instinct is largely see it as public enemy number one. The article is largely accurate though and th media is a complex beast, just not a neutrally movable as the writer hopes. He does an injustice to activists in downplaying the coordinated, very malicious and openly deceitful role the media played all throughout the selection of Bush, as it continues to do for the sake of Bush wars.

It was a complex issue to blame such types of activists for Nixon's triumph over Humphrey with a lot more heat from the Chicago convention anger and RFK's assassination. It might be a tad simplistic now to expect them to be a major deciding factor. Still, it is very important and it is about people power or bust.