Over at Hullabaloo, here, here, and here, Digby has been following a story about an alleged incident in which an Iraqi war veteran claims to have been spat upon by war protestors. As he notes, such stories, all proven baseless, still have a certain cachet among conservatives despite them being not true. By dipping a toe into this strange stream of American folklore, and by examining conflicting accounts digby does the kind of work reporters should do but do not do. Indeed, by Googling the name of the veteran, Digby was able to come up with all sorts of information that could lead a skeptical reporter to ask certain questions about ahost of matters, including the reality of the incident itself.
Part of the problem withreporting on large-scale protests such as this is that there are, quite literally, too many stories without a single narrative focus. Over here we might have mothers and grandmothers walking along peacefully; over there might be a group of black-shirted anarchists taking the opportunity to cause trouble; innocent by-standers may be dragged into the midst, or protestors may simply walk away. I have participated in a number of DC protests - agaisnt the first Gulf War, for gay rights, and I can tell you it is impossible to tell anything like a coherent story about such protests because the events themselves are, largely incoherent.
An anecdote. Prior to the first Gulf War, I was with a group on the sidewalk in front of the White House on a cold January night. We were chanting, stomping our feet to keep warm, and keeping our distance from a small group that had chained itself to the fence. The police, apparently understanding the protestors, were waiting, and when one of them tossed something over the fence on to the lawn, they moved in, cutting the chain, handcuffing the protestors, and moving them to a police van idling on the curb. The protestors were not resisting, but neither were they cooperating. They did not stand, they did not walk, they had to be dragged across the sidewalk and picked up and placed in the van. One protestor, hauled off the sidewalk by a large, burly officer, was hoisted like a sack of potatoes, then dropped, the top half of his body landing on the floor of the van, his legs dangling over the edge. He rolled, very slowly, onto the ground, and was quite literally stepped over as the officer placed the next person, a bit more gently, into the van. I made a move to help the man, writhing on the ground - handcuffed, out of breath, bleeding from his nose - then stopped, because (I hate to admit this) I was afraid what this cop would do to me. A couple friends of mine and I looked nervously at one another, then turned and walked away, the man still lying on a very cold Pennsylvania Avenue. Not one of my finer moments.
The next day, there was a small blurb on the inside pages of the Metro section of the Post about the incident, but nothing about the incident with the protestor. No reports of any injuries at all. I know a reporter saw it because there was a woman to my right scribbling notes in a small pad, talking to people around me, asking questions. I mentioned this to the people who had been standing with me that night and none of them acknowledged the incident; in dact, one refused to acknowledge he had been there at all. I found this not only bizarre but disturbing until I realized that, perhaps, shame or whatever had prompted these folks to refuse to acknowledge that they had failed to help someone who had needed helping. Or, perhaps, they had faulty memories. I, for one, know the incident took place, and will remember it (to my discredit) as long as I have memory.
The point in relating this incident is simple - reporters, even the bst ones, are limited to what they can see, hear, and the information given by those to whom they talk. At the same time, there is quite literally too much going on for any one individual to absorb. incident, people, words all flash by so fast, with no coherence or connection to anything else, that it becomes impossible to filter everything in such a way that some kind of overall picture emerges. Stories of incidents that never occurred become fact. Incidents that did occur become apocryphal. There is no way, really, to decipher, which are and which are not true. I say this not to argue that the reporter is not to blame for not doing what Digby did and discovering links between the person who alleges the spitting incident and an abundance of right-wing personas and personalities. All I am suggesting is that these events can become overwhelming, and physically and emotionally exhausting as well. It might be better if reports actually waited a day or two to allow the reporters a chance to get their heads clear.
My own opinion is simple - I doubt the incident occurred, and I agree with Digby that a little journalistic leg work (or perhaps "finger work" on Google would be more apt) could have cast doubts on the entire incident. On the other hand, I can understand its genesis and its possible inclusion in the story.
Virtual Tin Cup
