Compare and contrast.

And just so there's no doubt in people's mind, the blanket coverage the mini-mobs are lapping up (i.e., the mobs are hugely important!) stands in stark contrast to the way the press often did its best to ignore liberal protesters who spoke out against the war in Iraq.

For instance, in October 2002, when more than 100,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C., to oppose the war, the Washington Post put the story not on the front page, but in the Metro section with, as the paper's ombudsman later lamented, "a couple of ho-hum photographs that captured the protest's fringe elements."

Not that crowd size is the be-all, end-all of an event's significance, but it's worth remembering that no credible count of yesterday's right-wing protest puts it in the 100,000 range. (And the anti-war protesters didn't have the advantage of a highly-rated cable network promoting their event every day for months.)...

But I still think it gets back to the fact that D.C. is just "wired" for Republicans. Anti-war protesters, the thinking goes, were liberal hippies out of step with the mainstream. After all, there was a Republican president and Republican House in 2002, and polls showed reasonably strong support for the war in Iraq. Why pretend the liberal protesters are important?

In contrast, seven years later, Tea Baggers have to be considered a major political movement. There's a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2009, and polls show reasonably strong support for the administration's economic agenda, but the right-wing cries can't be relegated to a few throw-away paragraphs in the Metro section.

Benen further quotes Barack Obama's 60 Minutes statement that "in the era of 24-hour cable news cycles, the loudest shrillest voices get the attention," but explains "that's only partially true--it depends on what the shrill voices are saying and from what perspective." See the FAIR Action Alert: "Fox Hunting Trumps Peace Activism at Washington Post & NYT" (9/30/02).

It seems like a good question. Until one considers the source of the complaint--and that rather helps answer the question.

Maybe the "liberal protests" are where the American Prospect's cover story of the "Baucus 13" is.Or the where the American Prospect's lengthy piece on Linda Allision's exchange with Obama is.

Since clicking on the above links yields absolutely zero results in the American Prospect coverage, Husseini urges you to "read up on the 'Baucus 13' and Linda Allison's questioning of Obama" while asking, "If 'liberal' mags like the American Prospect were serious about reform, wouldn't they have relentlessly plugged the 'Baucus 13' and Linda Allison?"

Asked to assess "corporate media's coverage of the U.S. healthcare reform debate and conservative activists' disruption of congressional town hall meetings," Hart replies:

You wonder where the media got this sudden interest in listening to and amplifying grassroots concerns. I've never known this to be very, very typical of the corporate media to care so much about what protesters think. But suddenly they've found protesters here, I think, that been able to flesh out a story line that the media want to tell, and that is that there are passions that are running hot on both sides of this issue.

On the one side, the pro-reform campaign with the White House, with the congressional Democrats; on the other side, these folks who are--whatever their motivation--going to these Town Hall meetings, and disrupting them, shouting, comparing the White House efforts to Nazi Germany and so on....

This is, I think, a situation where the media, whatever their motivation is... are wildly overplaying these folks as a testament to real legitimate public concern. You look at the public opinion on the healthcare effort, the majority are with the White House and the majority would go much further than the White House and the congressional Democrats are going.

"That perspective is almost never heard," though, says Hart, "but what you do hear a lot are these naysayers who are a minority of the population." Read some quite logical reasons why that might be in the new issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!: "Single-Payer & Interlocking Directorates: The Corporate Ties Between Insurers and Media Companies" (August 2009) by Kate Murphy.

The public plan "would provide 'only the essential health benefits,' as defined by the bill, 'except in states that offer additional benefits.'"

Meanwhile, the newspaper noted, "Democrats from three House committees are working on a single plan." Under that plan, "Different levels of coverage--'basic, enhanced and premium'--can be offered through the public option."

Those few grainy sentences, quickly swept beneath the waves from oceans of media, referred to a disturbing aspect of "public plan" scenarios. If the ostensible goal is healthcare for all, then--at best--some of the "all" would end up being much more equal than others.

The Republican Party is coming from such a right-wing place that any government action to improve healthcare access is ideologically unacceptable. In contrast, the broad outlines of a Democratic "public plan" at least embrace the precept that the not-so-tender-mercies of the market are insufficient to fully provide for the population's medical needs.

But as a practical matter, a "public plan" coexisting with the private health insurance system--generally touted by U.S. media as the pole of real options farthest from the Republican "free market" fixation--is inherently reconciled to major inequality in access to healthcare.

While "media accounts keep telling us that the current political debate on healthcare is unprecedented and groundbreaking," Solomon points to "an article in the latest edition of the Columbia Journalism Review, by seasoned healthcare reporter Trudy Lieberman, makes a convincing case that little has changed within the frames of media parameters."

Sign on to FAIR's petition telling corporate media to stop censoring the healthcare debate.

And if you happen to be near New York City, join our July 28 Petition delivery at ABC.