It seems like the stories we're being told about politics are at some kind of weird dividing point.

In the TV news world - everyone is bending over backwards to be 'balanced' and objective - the New York Times puts a front page story on the Sunday paper about John Kerry making his staff 'scurry around' to find out information about Medicaid premium increases. How dare he. And at Viacom, Chairman Sumner Redstone says he's supporting Bush because 'he's voting for his business, not his personal politics.' Ok, fine if that's what people want to do - they're call, I guess.

But meanwhile, films like Outfoxed and F911 are selling out theatres, generating tons of media, and telling stories that the mainstream media seems to not want to touch. It may be that subjects like Outfoxed could never be on TV (it's the pot calling the kettle black) but in theatres... they're doing just fine.

Now we're days away from "Going Upriver" the George Butler movie on the early days of John Kerry's career. It opens on 10/1 on 200 screens.

This will be interesting - because Vietnam isn't the kind of topic that brings people out to the theatres... but this is an opportunity to cast a vote with a $10 movie ticket... should be interesting... maybe even a surprise if it exceeds expectations...

OPINION (originally published in MEDIAWEEK).
Steve Rosenbaum
Missing Points of View
TV news didn’t show the whole story during the RNC in New York

If you want to check in on the state of freedom of speech and public dissent in America, New York during the Republican National Convention was the place to be. And certainly the media was here in force. ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and a horde of crews from outlets around the world.
I decided that I didn’t want to watch from the sidelines, so working with 14 other filmmakers, we split up assignments and ventured off to cover the RNC and the events that surrounded it from many points of view.

On Aug. 30, as the second day of the Republican Convention got underway, I found myself in Herald Square after a long day of shooting. All day long I’d been bumped, pushed, herded, and engaged by mix of policemen, publicists, and activists.

I was THE MEDIA. Or, as protesters called us, “Media”, as in “Media, Over Here” or “Hey Media!” The day had been full of events, staged for maximum effect. Some worked better than others. The giant lawn sculpture of the Statue of Liberty on the Sheep Meadow was hard to get excited about from the ground. But the Hallibacon protest in front of the Texas Delegation’s Halliburton breakfast was definitely effective political theater.

By 7 p.m. in Herald Square, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was doing a panel discussion about Laura Bush’s role in the campaign. As the chat went on, crowds gathered on both sides of 6th Avenue, chanting, “This is what Democracy looks like” and “Down with Bush.”

I knew 6th Avenue and 34th street had been slated for an “unpermitted” protest. The plan was to “shut down” Herald Square in a massive peaceful sit-in that would snarl traffic and tie up both subway and bus access to Madison Square Garden. The crowds grew and grew, with sidewalks crammed past capacity.
Despite the live camera positions and crane shot, MSNBC ignored the din. I asked a producer why, and she said, “We don’t want to let staged events dictate the news." OK, makes sense—they didn’t want to be “played.” But wait a minute, what’s happening inside Madison Square Garden? Isn’t that a “staged news event”? What’s the difference?

The protesters, several of whom I spoke to at length, had reasoned, passionate, politically astute options. They had something to say. But no one was listening. They were just a crowd of “rabble rousers” worth little more than a passing shot and relegated to background noise.

But after being ignored by MSNBC, one of them jumped a fence and tried to “get” Chris Matthews. Why? What was their goal? To simply act out and cause trouble? Or was it their acknowledgement that this kind of action was the only way to “make news” and become part of the story?

Before I left the scene, I saw NYPD officers on little motor scooters, and riot police with rolls of orange snow fencing ensnare entire sidewalks of pedestrians and make mass arrests. Without a doubt, the law had been broken. The sidewalks were blocked. The “peace” had been disturbed. But something else had been lost as well.

Later that night, ABC’s Nightline did a half hour on New York City security. Lots of shots of police, guns, phone banks, and promises of safety and security. At the end of the broadcast, perhaps 20 seconds were devoted to the “protesters” with a series of shots of arrests. Again, no explanation of the protests, just pictures of them in handcuffs being taken away.

In the Nightline piece, there was a montage of “most dangerous” activists. I almost thought I heard the word “insurgents.” Each person looked dangerous and angry. I would have been scared, if it wasn’t for the fact that one of them was a woman that I’d gone to college with 20-plus years ago. I knew her to be smart, political, and engaged. So rather than accept the fact that she was dangerous, I called her. And spent the next day filming her. We walked, talked, and discussed world affairs, politics, her movement, and the frustration she and others have that they’re being left out of the discussion. I asked her about the Nightline piece, and what it felt like to be judged without being interviewed. She pointed out that I’d found her without much effort. Had ABC wanted to ask her questions, she wasn’t hard to find.

What we have to come to terms with is that the rules have changed. A balanced attempt to cover the convention would have asked how many protest organizations there were, and sought out the differences between them. How can viewers otherwise understand the scope, issues, and agendas of these groups of individuals?

To suggest that they were simply here to cause “mischief” or “tear down the government” is to tear the heart out of our democracy. Dissent is essential. And coverage of it can’t be sidelined or marginalized.

And for mainstream media, the need to return to covering news is all the more essential. The country is deeply divided on real issues, and if we don’t focus on the issues that are at the heart of that debate, then major media will push issue-oriented viewers to alternative sources as they try to come to terms with them: the “war on terror,” the war in Iraq, the economy, and our long-term place as a leader in world affairs.

Steve Rosenbaum is CEO and co-president of CameraPlanet.com, an independent news and documentary production company based in New York.

I'm working with 14 filmmakers to collaberate on a film about the RNC in NYC. (if you have video - contact me at RNCfilm@cameraplanet.com).

But in making that film I found myself in Herald Square on August 31st, as the second day of the Republican Convention got underway.

All day long I'd been bumped, pushed, herded, and fawned over by mix of
policemen, publicists, and activists.

I was - THE MEDIA. Or, as protesters call us "Media", as in "Media Over
Here" or "hey MEDIA."

The day had been full of events, staged for maximum effect. Some worked
better than others. The giant lawn sculpture of The Statue of Liberty on the
Sheeps Meadow was hard to get excited about from the ground. But the
HalliBACON protest in front of the Texas Delegation's Halliburtton breakfast
was effective political theatre.

In Herald Square MSNBC's Chris Mathews was doing a panel discussion about
Barbara Bush's role in the campaign. As the chat went on - crowds gathered
on both sides of 6th Avenue. Chanting "This is what Democracy looks like"
and "Down with Bush."

Despite the live camera positions and Crane shot - MSNBC ignored the din
around them. I asked a producer why and she said "We don't want to let
staged events dicate the news." Ok, makes sense - they didn't want to be
'played.' But wait a minute - what's happening inside Madison Square
Guarden? Isn't that a 'staged news event'? What's the difference.

The protesters - who I spoke to at length - had reasoned, passionate,
polticially asstute opions. They had something to say. But after being
ignored by MSNBC - one of them jumped a fence and tried to 'get' Chris
Mathews. Why? What was their goal? To simply act out and cause trouble? Or
was it their acknowlegement that this kind of action was the only way to
'make news' and become part of the story.

Later that night - Nightline did a half hour on New York City security. Lots
of shots of police, guns, phone banks, and promises of safety and security.
At the end of the broadcast they dedicated perhaps 20 seconds to the
'protesters' whith a series of shots of arrests. Again - the news isn't what
they say - it's simply pictures of them in handcuffs being taken away.

What we have to come to terms with is that the rules have changed. A
balanced attempt to cover the convention would have asked - how many protest
organizatons are they, what is the difference between them. How can viewers
understand the scope, issues, and agendas of these groups of individuals.

To suggest that they're simply here to cause 'mischief' or 'tear down the
government' is to tear the heart out of our democracy. Dissent is essential.
And coverage of it can't be sidelined or marginalize.

And for mainstream media the need to return to covering news is all the more
essential.