Thoughts on the March
The Post has a story today about how yesterday's march was, for many involved, their first political involvement. Well, from a political standpoint, it wasn't a bad start. The U.S. flags were certainly a nice touch, and the girl saying the pledge of allegiance was very good (check out Rob Bluey's photo gallery).
... Sure, Michelle Malkin's blog shows the behind-the-scenes orchestration of this event (what, it wasn't spontaneous!?). Anyone who works in politics knows that any event is scripted. She also has some pictures of some non-Hispanic leftist radicals working the event (which is much more disturbing than the revelation that the organizers handed out the signs...).
Still, perception is reality, and most "undecided" viewers aren't going to read Michelle's blog. If the goal was to win public sympathy for their cause, this march came a lot closer than the previous demonstrations in California did.
However, I do have a few thoughts on where they may have missed the mark.
... As the Post noted, "Although the crowd was mostly Latino -- speakers' statements were routinely translated from English into Spanish ..."
The language barrier is a dilemma most previous marches have not had to overcome. Upon watching the footage, it occurred to me that the speeches in Spanish (while needed for communication) may have actually served to undermine the non-threatening and inclusive image the organizers were going for (what with all the American flags).
Think of it this way: Who was the target audience? Was it the people at the event? No. They are already in favor of this. The real audience was the average person at home, watching the march on TV. Only when you consider who the target audience truly is, will you understand my assessment.
On another note, clearly, part of the purpose of yesterday's march was to send a message to Republicans. However, the biggest mistake the organizers made was in planning a march when Congress is out of session. For the life of me, I can't figure that one out ...
Who knows? Maybe they should have hired a political consultant???
... Sure, Michelle Malkin's blog shows the behind-the-scenes orchestration of this event (what, it wasn't spontaneous!?). Anyone who works in politics knows that any event is scripted. She also has some pictures of some non-Hispanic leftist radicals working the event (which is much more disturbing than the revelation that the organizers handed out the signs...).
Still, perception is reality, and most "undecided" viewers aren't going to read Michelle's blog. If the goal was to win public sympathy for their cause, this march came a lot closer than the previous demonstrations in California did.
However, I do have a few thoughts on where they may have missed the mark.
... As the Post noted, "Although the crowd was mostly Latino -- speakers' statements were routinely translated from English into Spanish ..."
The language barrier is a dilemma most previous marches have not had to overcome. Upon watching the footage, it occurred to me that the speeches in Spanish (while needed for communication) may have actually served to undermine the non-threatening and inclusive image the organizers were going for (what with all the American flags).
Think of it this way: Who was the target audience? Was it the people at the event? No. They are already in favor of this. The real audience was the average person at home, watching the march on TV. Only when you consider who the target audience truly is, will you understand my assessment.
On another note, clearly, part of the purpose of yesterday's march was to send a message to Republicans. However, the biggest mistake the organizers made was in planning a march when Congress is out of session. For the life of me, I can't figure that one out ...
Who knows? Maybe they should have hired a political consultant???
posted by Matt Lewis at 5:16 AM
Subscribe
<< Home