Much of the mass media’s equation for deciding whether to cover a protest goes something like this: (violence=coverage) OR (no violence=no coverage) OR (no violence=make it look violent). According to these standards, the Cities for People and Creative People’s Resistance Parade against the Madison-hosted US Conference of Mayors (USCM) should be forgotten. Defiantly IMC reporters deem this lack of violence cause for ample coverage and reflection. So let us move on with the story.

Approximately 200 protestors marched through the streets of downtown Madison, Wisconsin on Saturday June 15. Protestors began at the University of Wisconsin Library Mall, starting point of many past protests, around the Wisconsin State Capital, under Monona Terrace, the convention center holding the USCM, and back to the Library Mall. Honoring the protestors’ repeated slogan “Whose streets? Our Streets!”, they blocked traffic for up to ten minutes per intersection. Stops were also made at corporate Giants, Starbucks and McDonalds, where anti-corporate chants were issued. The chants were received by police-lines protecting the property.

The Parade Protest, including introductory speeches, a pit-stop at the public forum stage, and complete parade route, lasted over two hours, yet no violence resulted. According to prior protest experience, there was ample opportunity for police and protestor violence. Protestors banged drumsticks against Starbucks’ windows and the parade followed a spontaneous route, leaving police officers uncertain of which streets to block. These incidents may seem trivially frustrating, yet they have caused police provocation in prior demonstrations (e.g. 2001 Quebec City NAFTA meeting).

So why wasn’t there violence? Was it that protestors weren’t concerned with this consequence? Quite possibly; smiles abounded and the atmosphere seemed relaxed and jovial—signs of ensuing peace, not violence. One protestor, reflecting the mood of many organizers, commented that “We don’t want to hurt people. We are here to build a new society that everyone has a say in.” It seems that violence isn’t perceived as a productive route to this goal.

So what was missing? WTO corporations? Maybe not. According to several of the activists present the missing element was antagonistic police. Often protests are covered as if the violence that ensues is limited only to the results of protestor behavior. This assumption misses the vital interaction between the police and protestors. With calm police on the sidelines and friendly protestors, why would violence occur? Madison protestors and police seemed to enunciate this point.

One of the protestors, Dawn Fancher, described the violence of prior “infamous” demonstrations as “[It’s] a building up of tension between two groups of people, and there develops more and more tension. Then suddenly it snaps, and it varies which side it snaps on.” While this protestor doesn’t deny that some have acted violently, the act of provocation is identified as undeniably important. If a line of police officers continue to hit their batons against their shields and push their way through a crowd’s approved route (as occurred in Quebec City and Genoa), does this leave much room for all protestors to remain calm? Another protestor, Evan, posited that “The protestors get nervous around police because they are authority figures…They don’t know what to do, and then they lash out.” These crowd dynamics seem more like a social psychology experiment than hideous protestors searching for violence, as is often portrayed by large media outlets.

So as protestors strolled and drummed their way through Madison, the calmness of most of the officers present played a large role in the success of the parade. May we hope that the next host city of WTO, G8 or other giant corporate events is listening.

For in-depth criticisms on mass media coverage of major protests, go to www.fair.org.