The BSF has received a good amount of mainstream coverage, in addition to the welcome ink-and-pixels in the alternative media. Here’s a quick, but frequently updated, read through…

BSF Media Coverage Gratifying, Though Sometimes Puzzling (cont.)

8/10/04

The big progressive Canadian news site rabble.ca favored the BSF with plaudits, and excellent analysis.


8/8/04

Michael Blanding gave us another great piece in In These Times. A couple of quibbles, Jason Pramas got to respond to the idea that the BSF was "overwhelmingly white," but his points about over 20 percent of the BSF attendees being people of color were not quoted. In addition, the SEIU was not primarily responsible for the turnout of people of color as Blanding maintained, but was indeed responsible for a good chunk of the working class turnout to the BSF (which he missed in his coverage).

The BSF got a mention in the Cambridge (MA) Chronicle.


8/6/04

The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) offered up a rather touching human interest piece about a retired Eastern Kodak engineer who took a bus from upstate New York to the BSF; so he could put forward his idea for a "social tariff" on American corporations that outsource jobs to other countries. This tariff would send money back to the those countries to be used for social needs rather than to fatten the coffers of multinationals.

The BSF received a nice mention in the Bangor (ME) Daily News.


8/5/04

Neither the Village Voice reporter nor the Chicago Tribune columnist had any idea what the BSF was, or why it had been organized. The Voice thought it was all about the "Kerry voters" in attendence (and of course that wacky Hemposium again), and the Trib columnist literally had no idea where she was. She actually thought that the BSF was a section of the UMass Boston campus called "Boston Social Forum," and that the thousands of people she saw around the Stonewalk "protest" she'd come to cover were UMass Boston students who just happened to be at school on a weekend in high summer. She couldn't resist the stinky hippie angle either. It seems folks don't sweat out in Chicagoland. For the correct take on the Stonewalk, one has to check out stories in the Natick (MA) Bulletin & Tab and the MetroWest Daily News (Framingham, MA).

The Nation's BSF coverage in their 8/16/04 print edition was apparently dispatched from an alternate bizarro universe were nothing of significance happened at the forum at all.


7/29/04

Today’s Boston Globe coverage prominently mentions the BSF in a front page story about progressive activism at the DNC—and correctly notes that 5000 people attended the forum last weekend (after printing a lower estimate a few days ago).

Utne Reader Online outdid themselves with two great stories [1] [2] on the BSF this week, one of which makes a thought-provoking comparison between the amount of money spent on the BSF and the amount of money spent on the DNC—and the relative merits of each.

Commondreams.org favored the BSF with an excellent article.

An Alternet piece on the BSF was generally good, but unfortunately perpetuated a couple of myths about the BSF that are off-base. First, the reporter came away with the mistaken idea that the BSF was overwhelming attended by white folks, when BSF organizers are certain that well over 20 percent of attendees were people of color—a much higher percentage than usual at a large multiracial event. Second, the article makes it seem like the World Social Forum was created by grassroots groups and the BSF was not, when the reverse is true. The WSF was created by the head of a large French news magazine, a Brazilian entrepreneur, and a Brazilian activist-politician—all of whom were, in fairness, opposed to the corporate-dominated World Economic Forum, and to corporate-backed international institutions like the IMF and World Bank. It was brought into being by large, well-funded non-governmental organizations, foundations, sectors of the Brazilian government and at least one corporation. What made the first 2001 forum so amazing was that large grassroots Brazilian social movement groups go involved early on and saved it from being just another wonk-fest of global do-gooders with their creativity, political saavy, organizational genius and the numbers they were able to bring to the event. Once that grassroots pattern was established, it carried over to subsequent forums (although there has often been significant tension between monied interests and grassroots forces throughout the WSF process). The BSF, on the other hand, was grassroots from day one—created by small non-profits, plus labor, community, and religious activists—on a totally shoestring budget. Collective grassroots talent, experience and passion brought the first major social forum in North America into being. It’s important that people understand that, and it’s hoped that Alternet prints some sort of correction in the days to come.

The Boston Herald, Boston’s other big (more conservative) daily newspaper, never actually did a story on the BSF, but it did get mentions [1] [2] here and there over the last few weeks—and a good review of the big benefit concert with Billy Bragg.


7/26/04

The BSF has received a good amount of mainstream coverage, in addition to the welcome ink-and-pixels in the alternative media. Here’s a quick read through…

But first, a caveat: as children, many of us played some version of the “telephone game”—where you get 10 people in a row, then the first person whispers something in the ear of the second person, who then whispers it to the next, and so on down the line. When the 10th person is reached, they say what they heard out loud, and almost inevitably, the words that come out are totally different from what the first person said.

Such is the case with media coverage of many events, particularly progressive events. For the Boston Social Forum, the quality of the reportage has been a little shaky at times, kind of bizarre at times, and somewhat misleading at times.

Going down the list, Jenna Russell wrote an enjoyable article in the 7/25 Boston Sunday Globe—except for her (or her editor’s) insistence on substituting the word “liberal” for “progressive” when describing participants, and the fact that she wrote that 2000 folks attended, when at least 5000 did so.

Another Globe issue (7/26)—referenced the BSF, this time as a foil for the ANSWER-run, anti-war march on Sunday (7/25).

The preview of the BSF in the previous week’s Boston Sunday Globe was darn sporting, well-written, and well-timed all around.

All in all, the Globe, a paper of international renown, has given us reasonably positive coverage over the last few months. Hats are off to Boston’s “newspaper of record.”

Jennifer Berkshire’s 7/23 BSF dispatch for The Nation website gets the story mostly right, except for the odd thesis that BSF organizers did not intend initially intend for the BSF to be an open and democratic space, when just the contrary is true. Indeed, from the beginning, BSF organizers aligned themselves with the wing of the World Social Forum process that believes that social forums should remain open space, not narrow debating clubs for favored left factions. In fact, they circulated Chico Whitaker’s “The WSF as an Open Space” very early on. Her informant also got the dates wrong, noting that BSF organizing began last spring, when in fact it started in November 2002.

Berkshire’s 7/24 BSF dispatch is a good discussion of progressive media events at the BSF and related issues.

Her 7/25 dispatch is a few snapshots of goings-on she experienced at the BSF—like a number of reporters she couldn’t resist mentioning the presence of marijuana activists.

Limitations notwithstanding, Berkshire captures the texture of the forum with a quaint, anecdotal style.

David Corn’s 7/26 column on the Kerry campaign’s gaining momentum going into the DNC takes time out for sideways critique of the BSF with the following chestnut “The so-called Social Forum, a gathering of lefties, has produced no sparks noticeable to the thousands of delegates and mediafolk who rush from one reception to the next in this summer camp of politics-and-journalism.” This comment is disquieting since Corn almost certainly did not attend the BSF. Strange for someone often insisting on building liberal-progressive-left unity. And the “facts” such as they are, are simply wrong: In the first place the BSF is part of the World Social Forum process, so it was not a “so-called” social forum, but a real, live social forum. More importantly, the BSF was not called to create any kind of sparks at the DNC; instead, it simply took place on a different terrain, the zones of contention being that of ideas and organizing, not that of Democratic Party politics.

Camille Dodero’s 7/22 coverage in the Boston Phoenix is fun, and she generally seems to understand the BSF’s goals, although she seems to be making a bit light of the BSF in spots.

WBUR’s (Boston NPR affiliate) coverage of the BSF [1] [2] is fairly extensive, however some interviews were mangled and their presentation intimated that most BSF’ers are Democrats and primarily concerned about the forum’s influence on the DNC. Strange, considering that most BSF organizers span the spectrum from anarchists to greens, and social democrats to marxists of various stripes. Digital editing can be a dangerous thing. . .

Pacifica’s coverage has been awesome, extensive, and often live. Having not too long ago succeeded in facing down an internal, right-wing coup attempt, Pacifica has clearly demonstrated why it is still the bedrock of the alternative media.

The Hill’s coverage is just weird, and omits interviews with core BSF organizers, in favor of people that were peripherally involved, or not at all.

That’s the rundown for now. More on the news as it happens…