ISSN 1472–586X print/ISSN 1472–5878 online/02/010027–10 © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1472586022013735 4

Visual Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2002

Pictures at a demonstration

DONA SCHWARTZ*

This paper chronicles a four-day meeting of anti-biotechnology and genetic engineering activistsorganized in conjunction with the annual meeting ofthe International Society of Animal Genetics held inMinneapolis, Minnesota in July 2000. The paperexamines the approaches taken by activists and jour-nalists to shape the stories that were to be publishedin the mainstream press and the conflicts and contra-dictions inherent in the strategies of each. Paralleledwith the efforts of activists and journalists to scriptthe dominant narrative, the article examines the diffi-culties of producing a visual sociologicalrepresentation of these events and suggests the infer-ences that can be drawn from interactions with andobservation of event participants .

The crucial role mass media representations play inshaping public perception is affirmed and perpetuatedin the behavior of individuals and groups that seek touse the media to “get the message out” to the public.Gaining media attention often requires planning andstaging an event that yields compelling photo oppor-tunities and engaging sound bites, a challenging butmanageable task. The ability to influence the outcome– the nature of the media coverage that emerges –depends on the groups involved, the skills they canemploy, the clout they wield, and the kind of messagethey hope to deliver. In my own community I havewitnessed, examined, and photographed the efforts oftwo groups to garner media attention to further theiraims. The results differed dramatically despite thecareful planning, hard work and earnest resolve ofeach group. In the first instance, seasoned businessand political leaders in Minneapolis, Minnesota spentyears and millions staging a public relationscampaign that used the Super Bowl as a vehicle fortheir message: “Minneapolis is a world-class city andan attractive venue for business and travel.” TheSuper Bowl Task Force, a group formed to plan forthe event, succeeded in scripting activities, dressingthe stage, generating enthusiasm, and, ultimately,shaping the media’s representation so the desiredmessage was delivered to an audience of millions(Schwartz 1998).

Despite their best efforts, success evaded thesecond group composed of young political activistswho gathered to oppose the growth of biotechnology .Calling themselves the “ISAG WelcomingCommittee”, they planned and staged the “ISAGCounter Conference” in opposition to the Interna-tional Society for Animal Genetics annual conferenceheld in Minneapolis, 22–26 July 2000. While thegeneticists met at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, activistsheld workshops, communal dinners, a public “speak-out” and a candlelight vigil at various locationsaround the city: a church, community center, and cityparks. In addition, the group encouraged ongoingspontaneous “direct actions” along with a plannedrally and protest outside the Hyatt aimed at raisingawareness and shutting down the conference shelteredinside. Even though they used some of the sameproven strategies as the Super Bowl Task Force toframe upcoming events – controlling media access,focusing attention on select issues through pressconferences, staging media events for the press tocover, preparing camera-worthy props and quotablesound bites – their attempts to influence presscoverage of events they had planned failed. Severalfactors militated against these event planners’ abilityto spawn a sympathetic representation.

The views espoused by the protesters, widelyperceived as politically radical, and the threat ofviolence made especially salient by prior protests inSeattle, encouraged the press to cast them in a roleadversarial to the cultural mainstream. The ISAGWCand journalists alike knew that violence wouldenhance the protest’s newsworthiness, and each waswilling to exploit the situation’s dramatic potential.By itself, framing the group and its agenda as politi-cally extreme undermined the possibility of positivemedia coverage. But other barriers added to thehurdles the ISAGWC would need to clear to get theirmessage voiced. The protesters themselves harboredanimosity towards what they called the “corporatemedia” and its representatives. Despite their stridentcritique of the press, protesters nevertheless attemptedto shift the way the event would be framed by invitingjournalists to a news conference. Even though manyof the protesters made no secret of their contempt for

*Dona Schwartz is an Associate Professor in visual communication at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota.Her current work examines strategies for developing multimedia visual ethnographic narratives on the web and is available at www.picturesto-ries.umn.edu. She is the author of Contesting the Super Bowl and Waucoma Twilight: Generations of the Farm.

28 D. Schwartz

the media some must have harbored at least the dimhope that they could sensitize journalists to the issuesthey championed. Representatives of local newspa-pers and television stations dutifully attended theISAGWC press conference, commencing theircoverage of the anticipated unrest. The lack of hier-archy within the group and the protesters’ inability tomaintain a unified front proved yet another obstacleto successfully framing the upcoming protests. Evenamongst those who were designated spokespersons ,disagreements emerged during the press conferenceregarding nuances of the issue and, more crucially,how to engage the journalists who came to cover theevent. When disagreements surfaced protesterssuspended the press conference and retreated toanother room to negotiate strategy. Reporters, photog-raphers and videographers waited. The pressconference resumed, only to break down again whenit appeared to the ISAGWC that the journalists had anagenda they could not alter. The WelcomingCommittee wanted to talk about why they opposedbiotechnology and genetic engineering; journalistswanted to know whether the rally and march wouldbe violent. Neither group would move from its preor-dained position. The standoff continued despite thepersistent efforts of each to take control of theexchange. Protesters questioned the journalists abouttheir sympathies and their motives, arguing with themabout the nature of the dialogue in which they wereengaged. Journalists tried to cajole the protesters intoanswering the questions they had posed. A few at atime the frustrated protesters left their press confer-ence, leaving behind bewildered journalists whowondered if they would return once more. A spokes-person for the group announced definitively that thepress conference was over, while others pressed theirviews further in one-on-one discussions with the jour-nalists who remained. By the end of the abortiveevent all seemed to agree that any attempt at produc-tive dialogue between protesters and reporters wasfutile and the ISAGWC resigned itself to what theybelieved inevitable – press coverage that would focuson violence rather than substance.

I was on the scene at the ISAG Counter Confer-ence playing a variety of roles. As a visualethnographer (and a veteran of the Super Bowl) I wasdrawn to the unfolding event as an opportunity toexamine the creation of media spectacles, the inten-tions of those involved, and the nature of the resultantrepresentations. As a photographer I was interested inproducing an independent portrayal of the ISAGCounter Conference, encompassing both the stagedevents I knew the media would show: the protests,rallies, and vigils, and the backstage events I knew theywould not show: the planning sessions, group interac-tions and individual behaviors invisible to the public. Iwas interested in the symbiotic relationship between

protesters and the press and the contradictions inherentin protesters’ willingness to provide the media with thefodder needed to produce the negative representationsthe protesters so vehemently abhorred. I watched anddocumented the ISAG Counter Conference as itunfolded over four days, culminating in a two-hourrally and demonstration at which journalists and policeoutnumbered protesters. By examining the backstage Ihoped to shed light on the attitudes, ideals and inten-tions of involved individuals and the dynamics of thecommunity that had congregated in response to theplanned “action.” I played two additional roles thatmade my identity more complexly constituted than thealready peculiar hybrid, scholar/photographer. At thetime of the protest I worked as a “faculty intern” at theonline edition of the Minneapolis daily newspaper, theStar Tribune. The upcoming protest was a big storyand it was easy to convince my supervisor that I shouldcover the event, even though multiple writers andphotographers had already been given the assignment.It was a harder sell to cover events leading up to theprotest, other than the news conference called by theISAGWC, but I secured both permission to report from“behind the scenes” and a tentative commitment topublish my story online in startribune.com. When Iappeared at Walker Church in Minneapolis for theCounter Conference “check-in” I wore my press badge,signaling my identity as a representative of corporatemedia. The badge earned me the mistrust of those I didnot already know. The other role I played createduncertainty regarding my intentions and sympathies: Iwas “Dan’s mom.” Some of the protesters were myson’s friends and I predicted that some of them wouldbe on site, as he might have been were he in town. As Iclimbed the steps to the church the young men whostaffed the check-in table in front of the door eyed mewith suspicion. It seemed clear that as a representativeof the corporate media my presence was unwelcome. Iasked if Joe, one of my son’s friends, was there. One ofthe gatekeepers at the door fetched him from inside thechurch. Joe greeted me with some surprise as heemerged, and I explained my goals and intentions tohim. It took a while, considering the complexity of myroles and my agenda. I told him that as a part of myacademic research on media representations and photo-journalism I often photograph what journalists ignoreas a method of comparing the accounts that getpublished with the larger story that might have beentold. And, I added, with reference to my press badge,that as an intern at startribune.com I had an opportunityto publish something in the corporate media thatfocused on the issues being raised instead of focusingon the anticipated confrontations with Minneapolispolice. And finally, I said, as “Dan’s mom” I was inter-ested in the activist community of which my son was apart. Joe told me that he was not opposed to allowingme to enter the church and photograph what was going

Pictures at a demonstration 29

on inside but he seemed hesitant to take on the respon-sibility of granting me entrée. I sympathized with hisposition and encouraged him to talk it over with hispeers. After consulting with others he ushered meinside and took me downstairs where people weregathered.

Worktables ringed the room and on one laidneatly organized stacks of fliers, articles andpamphlets representing a variety of causes. Cardboarddestined to become masks, puppets, or props for theprotest was strewn about the floor. Conversationsbuzzed. My press badge, camera, and camera bagdrew wary glances from all corners of the room. Joestood on a chair, introduced me to the group andexplained my presence. Afterwards some chose toignore me while others approached to initiate conver-sation. I tried to clarify my intentions and enlistsupport for my project so that I might gain permissionto photograph. Degrees of trust varied: some werewilling to talk, to grant me an interview and to bephotographed. Others interrogated me, and chal-lenged the notion that anything I might produce couldbenefit the group’s efforts. Those who espoused thisview had no intention of allowing me to photographthem, nor would they be tape-recorded. Otherspermitted me to audiotape only. I had anticipated amixed response, and knew that my camera would bean issue for many. For some, my link to the corporatemedia cast my intentions in doubt regardless of anyargument I might offer. There was another concernthat remained largely unarticulated: the potential useof my pictures for police surveillance. Many of theprotesters felt they had been targeted by local lawenforcement for harassment or arrest, and they had nodesire to assist police officers in their efforts to iden-tify them by appearing in my photographs. All theseconcerns, those voiced and left unspoken, were legiti-mate and I had no wish to downplay the urgency theyfelt. Nor did I want to confirm through my behaviorthe negative perceptions of the press already held bymost of the protesters.

I was scrupulous about asking permission tophotograph and I accepted refusal without hesitationdespite the difficulty it created, considering myagenda. I chose to start by initiating conversation withindividuals, requesting permission to record an inter-view and make a portrait, thus putting a face on thesentiments expressed. I photographed and inter-viewed two young men, hoping that others, observingthe process, might be more receptive to participateand be photographed. My hopes were not realized. Iwas able to record several interviews; a few othersallowed me to photograph their activities so long astheir faces were not shown, but it was clear to me thatthey were not especially keen on my camera or theintrusion of a photographer who was an outsider.Because I hoped to spend more time amongst the

ISAGWC during the next few days it seemed stra-tegic to keep my visit short. After several hoursobserving activities at Walker Church, including thefailed press conference, I said goodbye to the peoplewith whom I had spoken, indicating my intention toreturn the following day. There were more activitiesplanned for the evening: a teach-in, video screenings,an “organic/vegan café” and music, but it seemedclear to me that remaining on site would exacerbatethe tension that had already surfaced. If I planned toreturn I needed to be mindful of not overstaying thecautious welcome I had received. Of course, thiscompromised my intentions. My limited access tobackstage events could prevent me from producing avisual account that differed from the representationthe local press would produce. Unfortunately, theISAGWC’s hostility toward photographers and fearsof surveillance also compromised their ability to gettheir story told.

On Saturday the “Counter Conference”proceeded with informational sessions focusing onbiotechnology and genetic engineering, small-scaleorganic farming and agribusiness. There werestrategy sessions concerning activist interventionsand tactics: workshops covered how to locate appro-priate targets for direct actions including bannerhanging, blockades, and crop pulls. “Direct ActionSkillshare” workshops covered a variety of topics,including building an action group, planning anaction, security, communications, legal choices, andresponding to crowd control tactics. Experiencedactivists demonstrated how to help people who havebeen tear-gassed or hit with pepper spray. I attendedthese sessions and proceeded as before, asking indi-viduals if they would permit me to record interviewsand make portraits. By late morning I had spoken toenough of those present to ask and receive permis-sion to photograph the meeting itself. The morepeople I spoke with and the longer I remained intheir midst the more tolerated I felt. Still myfreedom to photograph was limited and, much to mychagrin, my camera rarely emerged from its bag. Intotal, I had made several portraits and a few pictures

30 D. Schwartz

of a Counter Conference session. I knew that thedepiction I had imagined producing would not bepossible. It occurred to me, though, that the limitedpattern of access and the consequent nature of thepictures I could make would actually produce amore incisive explication of the issues I was investi-gating than the account I had thought I wouldproduce.

On Saturday afternoon events shifted to a Minne-apolis park. Reporters appeared at the periphery,hoping to get interviews. Since they were on publicproperty the ISAGWC could no longer controlreporters’ access, but still they were kept at bay. I wasaware that I also had more freedom to shoot, but Ichose to continue my strategy of asking permission tophotograph and to refrain from shooting if permissionwas denied. My interest and approach sometimesearned a thoughtful response and at other times I elic-ited impatient indulgence. After an extended audio-taped interview with three protesters my request for aphotograph was declined, but they were willing toallow me to get a shot of them as they walked away. I

wanted to photograph a communal lunch served freeof charge to the people attending sessions in the park,but when I asked a group permission to photographthey seemed exasperated and, placing a plate on the

ground instructed me to photograph the food instead.When I did, they laughed at the ridiculousness of ourexchange. After that they allowed me to photographthem, faces included with plates in hand.

As I talked with and requested permission tophotograph the people attending the afternoon work-shops, journalists from the local media continuedwaiting at the edge of the park, still hopeful that theymight get something for the evening news or morningedition. One or two representatives of the ISAGWCventured over to the journalists’ outpost and at leastone interview was given, recompense for thereporters’ patience. I too achieved something I hadhoped for. I asked the leader of a workshop that wasto begin after lunch whether I might photograph thegroup as they sat in a circle on the ground. Sheannounced that I was going to photograph them andadvised whoever did not want to be included to leavethe circle. I was given the brief opportunity to obtainsomething absent from my images at that point – agroup photograph. I moved quickly to make thepicture, thanked the group, many of whom by nowknew me, and exited the park. Again, I chose not to

linger or try to photograph more. By mid-afternoon Ifelt I had evoked all the goodwill the group had tooffer and there were still two eventful days remaining.It was becoming clear that the issue of access and the“holes” it introduced into my representation would bea focal point of my analysis.

Pictures at a demonstration 31

The ISAGWC planned an “opening ceremony”for Sunday afternoon in a Minneapolis park near theHyatt Regency, and the activities announced in fliersand on the internet included a community dinner and“speakout”, a candlelight vigil and noise brigade.While protesters gathered in the park, the geneticistswhose work they opposed held afternoon workshopsat the hotel, followed by an opening reception to markthe official start of the conference. As they movedinto increasingly public spaces the ISAGWC exer-cised diminishing control over press access to theiractivities. The shift from sheltered preparatory work-shops (that emulated the schedule of the geneticsconference) to demonstrations staged outdoors and inpublic view signaled a change in objective. Sunday’sevents provided the ISAGWC with a platform forpublicly voicing its agenda, exhibiting the strength ofits numbers, attracting new recruits to the cause, anddemonstrating the group’s communitarian ethos. Forthe most part, those attending already supported thecause and the event was a forum for preaching to theconverted. Only the press could amplify and extendthe reach of the ISAGWC’s message to a broaderaudience, and while many still scrutinizedapproaching photographers, the protesters grudginglyallowed the media coverage the event was designed toattract.

The park was filled with demonstrators, reporters,and police officers. Some of the police arrived astridehorses and rode in small groups, navigating their waythrough the crowd, making an impressive show offorce. As activities got under way, the mounted policeestablished positions at the edge of the gathering andsurveyed the event from their elevated perches. Afterthe community dinner the “speakout” got under way.All were welcomed to come forward, take the mega-phone and deliver a message to the crowd. Afterwardsmusicians performed on an impromptu stage,followed by a troupe known as the “Radical Cheer-leaders” who led the crowd in anti-biotechnolog ychants. As darkness fell the candlelight vigil

proceeded, shifting the mood from raucous to solemn.Like any other staged event this one needed an aptend and solemnity may have seemed too meek aconclusion to organizers. While it had not beenexplicitly announced, the end to the event was a“spontaneous” march. Perhaps this had been the“noise brigade” listed as part of the evening’s agenda.Whether or not it had been publicized, the police hadanticipated the march and were prepared for whatmay have seemed to them the obvious and inevitablefinale to the ISAGWC’s opening ceremony. When, atthe end of the vigil, a voice cried out “Anybodywanna go for a walk downtown?” all were in motion:protesters, police, and the few reporters who stayedlong enough to cover the entire event.

The protesters left the confines of the park andspilled out into the dark deserted city streets. Policeused their horses to contain and limit them to the side-walks. Scuffles ensued when protesters attempted toexpand their territory and take charge of the street.Angry shouting matches between demonstrators andpolice punctuated the refrain issuing from the crowd,“Whose streets? Our streets!” At the apex of themarch, protesters stood outside the service entrance tothe Hyatt Regency, chanting slogans and assessingthe possibility of gaining entrance to the hotel. Allaccess to the main entrance had been barred and thegroup congregated briefly at this, the only conceiv-able point of entry remaining. A variety of factorsmay have contributed to the brevity of the march: itwas late, it was dark, the hotel could not be breached,and there were few reporters present. The moreimportant mass demonstration was scheduled for thefollowing day and after a short time the activistsdispersed and headed home to regroup for the mainevent.

The demonstration was scheduled to begin at noonon Monday and by 11:30 the staging area, a plaza afew blocks from the Hyatt Regency, was filled withpolice and reporters. City buses transporting policewearing riot gear dispensed their passengers on thesurrounding streets. Some of the buses bore the namesof nearby suburbs, as officers from neighboring

32 D. Schwartz

communities swelled the ranks of the Minneapolisforce. Police were everywhere. So were reporters. Allaround the plaza they lay in wait for people to inter-view, notebooks open and cell phones clipped to theirbelts to speed access to the newsroom. Photographerswith cameras hanging like ammunition belts stood,shifting their weight from foot to foot, waiting for apicture worth shooting. Videographers strode amongsttheir colleagues, camera to shoulder in anticipation ofa photo opportunity. Never had I seen so many jour-nalists assembled in one place, except, perhaps, at theSuper Bowl. A throng crowded the site, but hardly anyplanned to protest. A few at a time demonstratorsbegan to arrive, warily surveying the scene as theyapproached. Their attire and demeanor made themeasy to distinguish from the men in blue and the white-collar professionals amassed at their behest. Like thepress and police, the protesters drifted from group togroup, greeting friends and associates, chatting andwaiting for the event to get under way. Anxious antici-pation energized the plaza – would it be a peacefuldemonstration? Would there be violence? Wouldenlightened discourse emerge? Would there be adramatic story to tell?

Banners were rolled out on the ground and propsfor guerilla theater and the march were readied andstrategically placed. As the ISAGWC made its prepa-rations so too did reporters, staking out positionsaround the staging area that would optimally accom-modate the requirements of their microphones andcameras. Protesters who had shunned the press nowperformed with reporters hovering just inches away,recording each word and deed attentively. I wasamong them, jostling for position so that I couldphotograph all the players – protesters, press andpolice – and the scene they together would enact.

Finally, I could shed the constraints limiting myphotographic activities and accept the invitation tocover the event implicitly extended to all the mediamakers present. I had been frustrated in my attempts

to foreground the background during the precedingdays, but now I could freely photograph alongside themany journalists who anxiously awaited the dramaticlead in for their stories. Now that I could photographunimpeded I faced a new challenge – to avoidproducing fodder for a prefabricated account and touse the impending photo opportunity to tell the morecomplexly woven story behind this visually seductivefacade.

Pictures at a demonstration 33

The rally began promptly as scheduled with aninvocation by “the Reverend Rusty Membrane” ofthe “Anarcho-Spiritualist Syndicate.” The “reverend”set the tone by mocking the format of a corporateshareholder meeting; his opening “prayer” provided avehicle for decrying biotechnology. A skit followedhis address, depicting the animal abuse and exploita-tion inherent in genetic engineering and the corporategreed it serves. The Radical Cheerleaders brought theperformances to a rousing close as they led the crowdin cheers that voiced the issues. At the end of theirroutine the cheerleaders signaled the beginning of themarch. Protesters gathered their placards and donnedtheir protective gear while photojournalists rushed toposition themselves for the next shot. Clasping theirbatons the police stood in formation, creating humanbarriers to contain the demonstration and prevent itfrom overstepping the staging ground defined by theplaza. The protesters had stated their aim to “shutdown” the conference and refused to be limited to thespace police allowed them. Confrontation wasinevitable.

Marchers circled in the street adjacent to the plazawith their banners held aloft as they searched for aplace or an opportunity to breach the police lines.Distinctive in their red baseball caps, and semi-professional attire, legal observers monitored theproceedings, with their notebooks and pens visiblyready to record the details of any legal impropriety.One of the observers attempted to negotiate anexpanded parade route but the police refused tobudge. Protesters were determined to reach the Hyatt;police were equally determined to rein them in. Jour-nalists were determined to get the story and the bestpossible pictures to tell it. No matter what directionthey chose, protesters encountered a formidablepolice line. A human wall of riot gear and batonscordoned off all possible routes, penning them in.Unwilling to succumb, protesters pushed forward,redrawing the boundaries containing them. A standoff

ensued as police tightened the circle around thechanting, shouting group. The protesters had maneu-vered several blocks to a street leading to a park – anopen space that would afford them the opportunity tobreak free and evade police control. Police made cleartheir intention to hold back the crowd and maintainedtheir line. Realizing the impasse some of theprotesters began sitting down; police began arrestingthe seated protesters. Two alternatives existed: wait tobe arrested or break through the police line and enterthe park. Frustration, anger and resolve propelledprotesters into battle with the police. Protected behindtheir gas masks, police let fly streams of pepper spray,

repelling the insistent crowd. After several skirmishesthe protesters prevailed and flooded into the unpat-rolled park. Most of those who had broken free keptgoing, leaving behind the police and the protest. Thusthe demonstration and skirmishes with policeappeared to be over.

A few small groups lingered in the park, sittingand talking about what had occurred. As I was photo-graphing a burly man approached: an undercoverpolice officer. He singled out one of the youngwomen who sat talking amongst her friends andremoved her from the group. Why she was arrestedafter the march had ended was unclear, unless her

34 D. Schwartz

performance in the guerilla theater made her a target.Had the protest and its violent turn been the story Isought I would have departed, well satisfied. Inoticed no journalists in the park to record theprotest’s aftermath. I alone photographed the arrest ofthe young woman known by her peers as “Freedom.”

The arrest cast into doubt the notion that I wasfinished photographing; my story resisted the closureothers had apparently already found. Yet anotherincident sustained the narrative; the next dayreporters were summoned for a press conference to ahouse occupied by several of the protesters. Thehouse also served as headquarters for a charity run byits residents. Police had searched the house the nightbefore and seized a computer and records maintainedby the group. Residents claimed to have been brutal-ized by police in the course of the search and seizureand they provided reporters with a detailed accountand tour of the site to substantiate their claims. I wasstruck by the contradiction inherent in this appeal tocorporate media to expose police misconduct. Ratherthan view the press as it had the day before – ascomplicit in the social ills the group opposed – resi-dents of the house suddenly chose to use the press asa vehicle to redress one of those problems – policebrutality. Not only did the story I was telling eludethe imposition of narrative closure, but so too did thecomplexity of the community I was examining evadeeasy explication.

Images emerging from the confrontation near thepark formed the core of news reports on the ISAGCounter Conference. In the picture pages appearing inthe next morning’s newspapers the streets of Minne-apolis resembled a war zone. The violent clashesgenerated dramatic stories and both local newspapers,The St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis StarTribune, devoted full-page spreads to the coverage.The next day, while I was immersed in assemblingmy story on the ISAG Counter Conference, a StarTribune photographer caught sight of my work printsas I was editing at the light table. Unaware that theywere mine he impatiently summoned his colleagues

to come and take a look. Disgruntled Star Tribunephotographers were feeling bested by the PioneerPress staff and holding my work prints aloft he ques-tioned, “Why didn’t we run these?” His querygenerated a buzz in the photo area. The photogra-pher’s response highlights pertinent issues raised bythis account. The photographs I made during the fourdays of the Counter Conference show a clear progres-sion from private and guarded to public and exposed.Those events protected from photographic scrutinymay have best revealed the motivations, intentions,and ethos of the group, while the events the ISAGWCorchestrated for the camera facilitated marginalizationof the group and the views it espoused. My interviewswith members of the “Welcoming Committee” elic-ited sincere, thoughtful statements aboutbiotechnology, genetic engineering and their effects.Those willing to be interviewed expounded social andpolitical commitments they deemed important enoughto act upon. They hoped the events they had plannedwould provoke public debate and instigate change.The portraits I made linked real people to real ideasand suggested identities more complex than“protester,” “radical,” or “troublemaker.” Documen-tary-style portraits and extended interviews imbuedthese speakers with integrity and authority obscuredin the publicly performed sloganeering and chantingtypically depicted by the media. Had the ISAGWCpurposefully orchestrated such interview opportuni-ties for the press different coverage might haveemerged. The barriers erected by the ISAGWCcontributed to the one-dimensional representationproduced by the press and hampered the potential forenlightened discourse many organizers said theyhoped to provoke.

The unsuccessful press conference made equallyclear reporters’ failure to engage with and understandtheir subjects, due, in part, to the narrow frame theyplaced on the event. Reporters’ insistent requests thatthe ISAGWC forecast the chances of violence duringthe march polarized their sources. Reporters’behavior confirmed the protesters’ negative views ofthe press and their dogged pursuit of the details neces-sary to flesh out a pre-scripted narrative preventedthem from producing a news story worth telling. Evenif reporters had hoped to better understand and depictthe protesters and their cause, institutional factorsweighed against producing an incisive account. Newsorganizations are unlikely to invest significant timeand resources to develop a story unless they considerthe issue important to the target audience. Easilyproduced coverage of the most visible, dramaticevents offered management more “bang for thebuck.” Newsgathering norms and routines, deadlinepressures, and institutional priorities all militatedagainst in-depth coverage.

Pictures at a demonstration 35

Despite my attempt to provide a depiction thatwould diverge from the anticipated coverage I wasunable to produce my account on deadline. Sortingthrough notes, audiotapes and negatives took several10-hour days. Conceptualizing and producing theonline news package took several more. By the timemy story was complete it was four days old –yesterday’s news by daily journalism standards. Ibelieve my supervisor published the piece, latethough it was, because he knew that I had worked sohard for so many days (see Schwartz 2000a).Although I may have generated a representation of theISAG Counter Conference that provided a differentperspective than others appearing in local mediaoutlets, its late appearance muted its impact.

Despite these failures to significantly improvemedia accounts of the ISAG Counter Conference thesuccess of this endeavor can be measured in terms ofthe visual sociological inferences that can be drawn.As a visual sociologist I am able to foreground theimportance of what is not visible in my representationof the ISAG Counter Conference, a stance I could noteasily take as a startribune.com reporter. The photo-graphs I took showing the most violent confrontationsthat occurred during the demonstration were highlyvalued by photographers at the Star Tribune becausethey fulfilled photojournalistic norms, both in termsof newsworthiness and aesthetics. Viewed from avisual sociological perspective the same images are

valuable because they draw attention to the mutualismof press and protesters. Each provides the other withsomething useful: a dramatic story for the press andconfirmation for protesters that the press only reportson violent confrontations and eschews the issues.Ironically, the only images included with the grassroots reports on the Counter Conference posted onhttp://www.indymedia.org that decry corporate mediacoverage of the event and police brutality showed thesame confrontations. The complex relationshipbetween the press and protesters inscribed in thosephotographs can only be read against the absence ofother representations. Rather than view the lack ofbackstage images as yet another failure in thisscenario, the invisibility of the community and itsactivities to outsiders, and the energy devoted tomaintaining that invisibility is a crucial element of thenarrative.

Several questions remain unresolved – loose endsthat still resist tidying. Planners of the ISAG CounterConference consisted of a loosely affiliated group,and the priorities, interests, and motivations of indi-viduals may have diverged. Had their goals been asuniform as the agenda maintained by members of theMinnesota Super Bowl Task Force they might havemore successfully delivered their message to thepublic. Despite the inexperience of Counter Confer-ence organizers relative to the public relationsprofessionals on the Super Bowl Task Force, the

36 D. Schwartz

group nevertheless produced a public spectacle thatbriefly drew the undivided attention of media and lawenforcement. If the ISAGWC’s goal was not only toraise public awareness about biotechnology andgenetic engineering as explicitly stated, but also todemonstrate the disruptive capabilities of small,organized groups, their campaign can be consideredan enormous success. And if the protest and marchwas designed as a provocation – an event that couldbe used to substantiate claims that Minneapolis is apolice state and that corporate media cannot betrusted – organizers also succeeded in delivering thatmessage to members of the activist community. Inaddition, questions remain about the importance thatwas attributed to pictures of violent outcomes and thecoincident rejection of representations of peacefulprocesses. Both photojournalists and protestors pre-visualized the Counter Conference in terms ofdramatic public performances and violent clasheswith police. The behaviors and activities of each

instantiated the narrative envisioned. Both corporateand independent media represented the CounterConference using images of the same violent confron-tation near the park. Are there inferences that shouldbe drawn from this convergence regarding the natureof the story form? Are narrative accounts, whetherfictional or factual, more compelling or memorable orpersuasive when they follow particular dramaticcontours? These questions invite further study anddiscussion, without even the hope of simple resolu-tion. Were this about football at least we could expectto learn the score.

REFERENCES

Schwartz, Dona. 1998. Contesting the Super Bowl. NewYork: Routledge.

———. 2000a. “An inside look at the genetics protest,”startribune.com , Saturday 29 July.

———. 2000b. “Keeping the peace,” startribune.com ,Saturday 29 July.