Editing 1999 Seattle WTO protests (section)

== Media response ==
''[[The New York Times]]'' published false reports that protesters threw [[Molotov cocktail]]s at police.<ref>{{cite news |last=Christian |first=Nichole M. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/04/us/police-brace-for-protests-in-windsor-and-detroit.html?emc=rss&partner=rssnyt |title=Police Brace For Protests In Windsor And Detroit |work=The New York Times |date=June 4, 2000 |access-date=July 17, 2009 |archive-date=July 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180727115331/https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/04/us/police-brace-for-protests-in-windsor-and-detroit.html?emc=rss&partner=rssnyt |url-status=live }}</ref> Two days later, the ''Times'' printed a correction saying that the protest was mostly peaceful and no protesters were accused of throwing objects at delegates or the police, but the original error persisted in later accounts in the mainstream media.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=12 |title=Origins of the Molotov Myth |publisher=De-Fact-o.com |access-date=July 17, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090804145722/http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=12 |archive-date=August 4, 2009 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

The [[Seattle City Council]] dispelled the reports with its own investigation findings:
<blockquote>The level of panic among police is evident from radio communication and from their inflated crowd estimates, which exceed the numbers shown on news videotapes. ARC investigators found the rumors of "Molotov cocktails" and sale of flammables from a supermarket had no basis in fact. But, rumors were important in contributing to the police sense of being besieged and in considerable danger.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cityofseattle.net/wtocommittee/arcfinal.pdf |title=Seattle City Council findings |access-date=17 July 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060107103808/http://www.cityofseattle.net/wtocommittee/arcfinal.pdf |archive-date=January 7, 2006 |url-status=usurped |df=mdy-all }}</ref></blockquote>

An article in the magazine ''[[The Nation]]'' disputed that Molotov cocktails have ever been thrown at an antiglobalization protest within the United States.<ref>[http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/295733.shtml ''The Myth of Protest Violence''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090409102657/http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/08/295733.shtml |date=April 9, 2009 }}, [[David Graeber]]. The Nation.</ref> 

Though media coverage of the protests condemned the violence of some of the protesters, the nature of this violence has been justified by some people. Specifically, the violence employed was not person-to-person violence, but "acts directed toward property, not people".{{sfn|DeLuca|Peeples|2002}} 

Though many still denounced the violent tactics used by protesters, this violence clearly resulted in increased media coverage of the event. The WTO meeting had an increase in evening news airtime from 10 minutes and 40 seconds on the first day of the meeting to 17 minutes on the first day of violence. In addition, WTO coverage was the lead or second story on [[CNN]], [[ABC News (United States)|ABC]], [[CBS News|CBS]], and [[NBC News|NBC]] after violence was reported. Two days after the start of violence, the meeting remained the top story on three of the four networks. 

Though these numbers alone are telling, the media coverage of subsequent demonstrations that did not include violence by protesters shows even more the effect of violence on coverage. For example, the World Bank/International Monetary Fund (WB/[[IMF]]) meetings in the spring showed a "coverage pattern that was almost the reverse of that in Seattle" and that "suggests the crucial role of violence in garnering time on the public screen." In an even more striking example of the effects of violence on media coverage, the 2001 WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar, included no reports of violence. As a result, "there was absolutely no TV evening news coverage by the four major networks."{{sfn|DeLuca|Peeples|2002}}

This coverage did not center exclusively on the violence. Instead, details of the protesters' message and antiglobalization campaign were included along with the discussions of symbolic violence taking place. It is said that the violence served as a dense surface that opened viewers' and readers' minds to a whole new way of thinking about globalization and corporations' operations. That is, not only was this violence contained within the familiar setting of television, and not only did it meet the criteria of being dramatic and emotional enough to warrant air time, but it also shattered preconceived notions of globalization and the practices of corporations that drive so much of America's economy.{{sfn|DeLuca|Peeples|2002}}