This morning I have been watching some truly awful photos from the protests at the NATO summit in Chicago. They are brutal. There was violence - to the point that CNN (via Don Lemon) actually reported about it.

To which I say: really? I am not going to take anything away from Don Lemon, who correctly asked "Does Anybody Deserve This!" It's longish, but it is truly worth listening to what Mr. Lemon is discussing. He is watching a video feed from the protests.

Over the weekend literally thousands of people marched in protest. Police engaged in what I would consider violence. It appears that the lesser-reported story was this from CNN: That is the entire blog post - the entire thing. I posted it so as to not try to sway opinion (something that I have a tendency to do, unapologetically in many cases). Note the very last paragraph: "largely, peaceful demonstration". And yet it wasn't peaceful. People were beaten. There was blood. It was gruesome.

Then there is this, from a local Chicago news report:


I'd like to return to this particular portion of the report:


The Guardian UK's Bernard Harcourt, reports: (bold-face mine)

Yes, there is something to be said about the world's leaders posing for photo opportunities. My larger question here (and one that I am trying to process) is this often used quote: If it bleeds,it leads. It appears so to me at this point. With that thought in mind, does the blood letting -- be it from police or those that seek to provoke such reactions -- overshadow a very important message that many people - myself included - wish to spread?: We want to end the wars. We want to do so thru nonviolent protest. We want to do it without provoking violence. I am not excusing the Chicago police department here. What I am wondering is why provocation is being used as a way to promote protest.

A few reports are coming in that this provocation has been the result of a tactic called the black bloc. I don't know enough about this to truly comment. Watch the videos; you will hear that word used. My major question here is: when does provocation become more important than the actual message that a protest is trying to convey? Is it doing more harm than good?

Do we ignore the violence or do we focus on the peaceful protests? Can we find someplace in the middle -- a place where we can celebrate the good -- while feeling disappointment at those that may not represent the greater good?

As I said earlier -- I am not excusing the actions of the Chicago police department. What I want to know is why we should excuse those that may have acted to provoke violence in the name of protest. Is this the kind of action I want done in my name as a person who seeks social justice, an end to wars and economic reform? For myself I say "no". I think that it actually hurts the message.

Veterans should have had the lead story over the weekend as opposed to people choosing to be intentionally provocative. These soldiers throwing away their medals in protest of a war that has decimated our nation was a truly noble and brave thing. That, in my opinion, is an act of peaceable protest, whether one agrees or disagrees with the veterans who participated.

Provoking violence just to show the world how 'the man' wants to keep you down is simply, to be honest, immature. It's no wonder some people don't take protests seriously anymore. Well -- unless it bleeds, then CNN is more than willing to cover it, without context and real reporting. I like Don Lemon -- but there seemed to be little background provided for what he was reporting. When people don't get the entire story, things just seem to become more divided.

People need to show up. People need to be nonviolent. People need to have a message. This picture says more to me than anything else:


That picture is vastly different than this:


Yet, the latter, and the narrative seemed to have garnered far more media attention. Just look at the twitter comments.

I'm not so sure about what happened in Chicago over the weekend. What I am sure about is that if you are looking for a fight you are going to get one. The best fights to be had are those that don't provoke violence from the people who have the bully clubs. The real question I ask is to what end? What does this do? How does it help?

Maybe a little less blood and a little more love? Can we get the media to pay attention to that? Sadly, I think I am afraid of that answer. I wonder who is feeding the narrative of violent protest; The media, anarchists or law enforement?

Or, is it all three? This is a picture from the Chicago Tribune:



and

Raine