[Onthebarricades] Germany G8 Blockades 15 - analysis

[Andy]

http://allafrica.com/stories/200706111124.html

Rwanda: What Are the G8 Anti-Globalisation Protests About?

New Times (Kigali)
ANALYSIS
10 June 2007
Posted to the web 11 June 2007
Omar D. Kalinge-Nnyago
Kigali
Images of clashes between G8 protesters and riot police in the German port 
city of Rostock in which 1000 people were injured sent different signals to 
different people of the world.
For Africans living under pseudo democratic regimes, it reminded them that 
there is no difference between the so-called developed world and their own, 
in real terms. Police will always crackdown, uncompromisingly and hard, on 
protestors.
 To police in Africa, it was an inspiration. Beating up protesters was not, 
after all, very uncivilised. To the African protesters who often stir up 
trouble to provoke the security forces to their advantage, it was apparent 
that theirs was a global tactic, not unique to them alone. "Even the 
Europeans do it".
Police blamed the violence on some 2,000 militants known as the "black 
block." The protesters say that security forces infiltrated their otherwise 
peaceful demonstration to make the demonstrators look bad, and to present 
them to the world as irresponsible hecklers, thus diverting the world from 
the real issues at the core of the dissent, that is injustice and 
exploitation of the South by the so-called industrialised nations.
The mass-circulation Bild am Sonntag newspaper declared the violence 
Germany's "G8 Shame!" "Yesterday images were formed in our country that will 
damage our reputation across the world," wrote commentator Claus Strunz in 
one of the newspaper's columns.
All, then, are guilty and all are innocent. But why are people demonstrating 
against the G8 anyway? What is this anti-globalisation coalition that has 
sought to be heard since 1999?
Anti-globalisation is a term most commonly ascribed to the political stance 
of people and groups who oppose certain aspects of globalisation in its 
current form. It is considered by many to be a social movement, while others 
consider it to be an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate 
social movements.
In either case, participants are united in opposition to the political power 
of large corporations, as exercised in trade agreements and elsewhere, which 
they say undermines democracy, the environment, labour rights, national 
sovereignty, the third world, and other concerns.
The groups and individuals that would come to be known as the 
"anti-globalisation movement" developed in the late twentieth century to 
combat the globalisation of corporate economic activity and the free trade 
with developing nations that might result from such activity.
Members of the anti-globalisation movement generally advocate alternatives 
to liberal economics, and seek to protect the world's population and 
ecosystem from what they believe to be the damaging effects of 
globalisation.
Support for human rights NGOs is another cornerstone of the 
anti-globalisation movement's platform. They advocate for labour rights, 
environmentalism, feminism, freedom of migration, preservation of the 
cultures of indigenous peoples, biodiversity, cultural diversity, food 
safety, and ending or reforming capitalism.
By contrast, certain paleo-conservative American opponents of globalisation, 
such as Patrick Buchanan, argue against globalisation from a point of view 
of economic nationalism. Against outsourcing, such paleo-conservative 
opponents of globalisation phrase their opposition xenophobic terms.
"The industrialised world must protect itself against the Global South", 
Buchanan argues, because what he calls the "Third World" is racked with 
disease and the peoples there lack a Western culture. Economic 
globalisation, therefore, will result in the "Death of the West". It is 
therefore not difficult to know why Buchanan cannot be president.
Although adherents of the movement often work together, the movement itself 
is heterogeneous. It includes diverse and sometimes opposing understandings 
of the globalisation process, and incorporates alternative visions, 
strategies and tactics.
Many of the groups and organisations that are considered part of the 
movement were not founded as anti-globalist, but have their roots in various 
pre-existing social and political movements. The anti-globalisation movement 
has its precursors in such movements as the 1968 movement in Europe and the 
protest against the Vietnam War in the United States. It continues to oppose 
the invasion of Afghanistan and occupation of Iraq.
Generally speaking, protesters believe that the global financial 
institutions and agreements undermine local decision-making methods. Many 
governments and free trade institutions are seen as acting for the good of 
multinational corporations.
These corporations are seen as having privileges that most human persons do 
not have: moving freely across borders, extracting desired natural 
resources, and utilising a diversity of human resources. They are perceived 
to be able to move on after doing permanent damage to the natural capital 
and biodiversity of a nation, in a manner impossible for that nation's 
citizens.
Some of the movements' common goals are; an end to the legal status of 
so-called "corporate personhood" and the dissolution or dramatic reform of 
the World Bank, IMF, and WTO.
So, if you were in Rostock, would you or would you not have joined in the 
demonstrations?

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070608115350638

The Black Bloc: The Demonized Face of G8 Protests
Friday, June 08 2007 @ 11:53 AM PDT
Contributed by: arch_stanton
Views: 424
Violent anarchists have been dominating the headlines when it comes to G8 
protests. Known as the Black Bloc, they see themselves as the ultimate 
opposition. Other demonstrators blame them for causing new problems.


The Demonized Face of G8 Protests

Violent anarchists have been dominating the headlines when it comes to G8 
protests. Known as the Black Bloc, they see themselves as the ultimate 
opposition. Other demonstrators blame them for causing new problems.

They are the demonized face of the G8 protests, the violent anarchists who 
are dominating the headlines and shoving the many thousands of peaceful 
demonstrators to the margins of the media coverage. They are known 
collectively as the Black Bloc and their attendance en masse at the protests 
this week has been met with trepidation among many who march beside them and 
those watching for the sidelines.


The description of the Black Bloc in the recent reports of violence in 
Rostock and its surrounding areas insinuates that this is an international 
organization hell bent on vandalism and property destruction in the name of 
some anti-capitalist agenda. It gives the Black Bloc a greater air of threat 
to think of it as one malevolent force, an anarchist army under the control 
of a few powerful autonomists.


Diverse beliefs

In fact, the Black Bloc is a cover-all title for protestors from many 
different groups with a myriad of aims and tactics who normally join 
together in an affinity group to carry out one shared aim at a protest. 
While those involved in a black bloc within a larger demonstration may have 
come together to carry out one common act or tactic, the beliefs the 
individuals hold within that bloc can be quite diverse.


"A new world order can only be created through violent struggle," a black 
blocker who gave his name as Ernesto told DW-WORLD.DE. "We have seen how 
ineffective peaceful mass protests have been. Millions took to the streets 
to try and stop the invasion of Iraq and yet the corrupt world powers still 
wage their war. Fighting for change is the only way -- otherwise we face a 
future of blind subservience, slavery and control."


Taking back power


Some fifty yards further into the roped off area of the Rostock 
Fischereihafen camp where black is the color de jour, a young Danish woman 
known only as Lena described her own motivation in slightly different terms.

"It is a social justice movement which wants to take the power back.to give 
it back to the people," she said. "The G8 is nothing more than an organized 
crime family; the faces may change but the objectives stay the same -- money 
and power. We are taking the roll of citizen police because these people are 
criminals and have the real cops in their pockets.

"Through direct action we intend to expose these criminals for what they are 
and lift the blinkers from the eyes of the masses."


Displays of solidarity


While some black blockers believe that this direct action should be of a 
violent nature, others believe that the power of the bloc comes from its 
togetherness and its displays of solidarity.


"Did you see the bloc on Saturday?" asked Martin X, a black blocker from 
Berlin. "Before the rocks were thrown, the power was with that congregation 
of people. The message was the people themselves.


"That black mass stood for solidarity, a revolutionary presence, a visible 
manifestation of our politics," he added. "When direct action is aimed at 
symbolic targets such as the buildings of multinationals and globalized 
franchises, I can condone that as a symbolic gesture but for me, the sight 
of the bloc moving as one is more powerful than the image of a burning car."


Troublemakers?

The diversity within the one perceived Black Bloc is not only ignored by 
some sectors of the media but is unknown to many of the peaceful, more 
colorful protestors who march beside the black-clad army. Some tar every 
demonstrator with the same brush.


"For me there is no justification for the throwing of stones and the 
fighting of the police," said Andi Friedrich, a protestor from Berlin on the 
march to Rostock's Laage military airport. "It achieves nothing more than to 
turn the story of a thousand peaceful protestors into the story of a few 
violent idiots."


"You know some have their reasons and that their politics lead them to 
believe that to fight is the only way to achieve their ends," said Carla, 
Andi's companion. "But we have seen what it achieves in reality. We have 
seen increased police brutality on innocent people caught up in the chaos; 
we have seen tougher restrictions, we have seen the hardening of politicians 
towards the real issues.


"And these again are things we should protest about, but it makes no sense 
when you consider these new problems have been caused by those who march 
alongside you for peace and justice."



http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/rost-j07.shtml

Anti-G8 demonstration violence in Rostock: questions and contradictions
By Marius Heuser and Ulrich Rippert
7 June 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The acts of violence that occurred during the mass demonstration against the 
G8 summit last Saturday in Rostock have led to noisy appeals from the German 
political and media establishment for tougher police measures. Many 
commentators have chosen to blame the mass of demonstrators and the 
organisers of the protest for the excesses, and then sought retroactively to 
justify the attacks on the right to demonstrate and freedom of assembly that 
preceded the demonstration.
Reinhard Mohr writes in Spiegel-Online that, as far as he is concerned, the 
demonstrators as a group were responsible for the riots because they did not 
distinguish themselves clearly enough from violent anarchist elements 
(so-called "autonomes"). Anyone who labels the elected heads of government 
and other G8 summit participants "gangsters and criminals" should not be 
surprised at the outbreak of violence, Mohr concludes. The author began his 
journalistic career as an editor of the Frankfurt anarchist pamphlet 
"Pavement Beach," which justified the street battles fought in the 1970s by 
his colleagues Joschka Fischer and Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
Michael Bauchmüller from the Süddeutschen Zeitung draws a link between the 
burning of cars and masked stone-throwers and a political perspective that 
questions the existing social order. "All those, however, who together with 
the G8 want to consign the whole system to history [... ] should remain at 
home for the next few days. They are the bearers of discord in a world that 
is struggling for a better future."

While the photos of street battles and reports of a thousand injured, 
including 430 policemen (it turns out that of the reported total of 400 
injured and 30 severely injured policemen just two visited a hospital and 
these two were not so badly injured that they had to be kept in overnight), 
are being eagerly used to criminalise any fundamental criticism of 
capitalism, there is a decided lack of interest on the part of politicians 
and the media in determining precisely what took place in Rostock.
In fact, the demonstration began peacefully and proceeded for many hours 
before marchers arrived at the final rallying place at the city's docks. At 
this point the protest had a decidedly festive character with theatre and 
cultural groups at the forefront. Demonstrators and organisers were shocked 
by the sudden outbreak of violence, with participants making a number of 
attempts to pacify both the stone throwers and the police.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that hard-liners in the German 
interior ministry-in particular Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble 
(Christian Democratic Union-CDU)-had announced the probability of outbreaks 
of violence weeks before, and then on the evening of the demonstration, with 
news stations showing burning cars and road barricades, called for a further 
arming of the police. Meanwhile CDU politicians are proposing the deployment 
of the notorious anti-terror GSG9 commando force at demonstrations and the 
equipping of police with rubber bullets. The next step can be predicted: a 
call from Schäuble for the use of the German army to suppress domestic 
opposition.
If, however, one begins considering the Rostock events by posing the 
question, "Who benefited from the riots?" then it is clear that the 
demonstrators lose out on all fronts. The interior ministry, on the other 
hand, is using the riots to justify both those attacks already carried out 
against freedom of assembly (as well as the assault carried out against 
left-wing organizations and globalization opponents, whose offices and 
dwellings were raided in the middle of May) and to prepare new and even more 
far-reaching attacks and police measures.
In this respect it is necessary to examine a number of obvious 
contradictions in the behaviour of the police and the security forces.
How is one to account for the fact that the police had warned weeks before 
of "autonomous rioters," but then allowed a closed formation of "black bloc" 
anarchists to parade unmonitored on one of the two demonstrations? Why wasn't 
this "black bloc" accompanied by experienced police units, as is usually the 
case? Why was a police vehicle then parked provocatively in the middle of 
the area leading up to the final rallying point? According to several 
eye-witness reports, the attacks carried out by some members of the "black 
bloc" on this vehicle were the trigger for the intervention by police. Why 
was no attention paid to repeated calls by the organisers of the rally for 
the removal of the vehicle by the large numbers of police escorting the 
demonstration?
Who gave the order to obstruct photo journalists from taking pictures during 
the peaceful phase of the demonstration? Why were the authorities so keen 
that photos not be taken?
It is well-known that at the start of the year the German authorities 
intensified the infiltration of undercover agents into the "violent 
autonomous movement." In its May 14 edition, Der Spiegel magazine wrote, "At 
the beginning of the year the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) declared 
globalization critics to be an 'operational focal point.' All preparatory 
meetings are observed, the groups involved are infiltrated" by undercover 
agents.
Just one week before the demonstration, on 29 May, the Bild newspaper 
reported on "secret police plans" in preparation for the G8 summit. 
According to Bild, the first point of a three-point plan reads, "Undercover 
agents who were infiltrated a long time ago by the intelligence services are 
to provide early evidence of planned disruptive actions."
The question therefore arises: how many undercover agents were operating in 
the "black bloc"? What information about acts of violence were communicated 
to the police command by these undercover agents, and why was nothing 
undertaken to prevent these acts of violence? Moreover, were undercover 
agents involved in the outbreak of violence, and to what extent?
These are urgent questions that need to be investigated. In view of the 
large number of casualties, it is necessary to clarify the role played by 
undercover agents. Until this information is made available, it is 
impossible to rule out the use of undercover agents as agents provocateurs 
on the demonstration.
Genoa 2001
The events of the G8 summit in Genoa in June 2001 took place just a few 
years ago and are still fresh in the memory. During the course of the 
protest, young demonstrator Carlo Giuliani (23) was killed. His family and 
other victims of police violence fought for years to clarify the 
circumstances leading up to his death. Finally, the Italian public 
prosecutor's office declared that the violence at the Genoa demonstration 
had been initiated by a hard core of approximately 200 persons, a 
considerable number of whom were either undercover policemen or right-wing 
extremists hired by the police. The provocateurs discussed their tactics 
with police, disguised themselves as anarchists and mixed with peaceful 
demonstrators before undertaking their criminal operations.
While the rioters were left largely undisturbed, their violence in Genoa 
became the pretext for the police to move with extreme brutality against the 
rest of the demonstrators. A good deal of evidence has emerged about the 
police provocation. There are numerous reports of the use of massive force 
on their part. Guiliani was shot by a cop. At the same time a particularly 
savage assault took place on the Pascoli school, where hundreds of 
demonstrators were surprised in their sleep and savagely beaten. Afterwards 
a number had to receive treatment in intensive care units.
The pretexts given by Italian police to justify its raid on the school were 
completely disproved by the public prosecutor's office. Police even brought 
along their own Molotov cocktails to plant on the young people sleeping at 
the school.
Anyone who believes that similar things could not happen in Germany is 
simply ignorant of history.
At the end of the 1960s the undercover agent Peter Urbach supplied bombs and 
weapons to members of the Berlin APO (Extra-Parliamentary Opposition), which 
later constituted one of the initial elements of the Red Army Faction (RAF). 
Ten years later a member of the BND blew a hole in the wall of the prison in 
the town of Celle in an attempt to stage a prison outbreak by RAF member 
Sigurd Debus and thereby enable the police to infiltrate the organization.
There have been numerous reports in Germany of the use of police 
provocateurs in more recent years. In May 1993 when East German miners from 
Bischofferode protested in front of government buildings to oppose the 
closure of their pit, policemen garbed as anarchists smuggled themselves 
into the demonstration and then threw bottles and stones at their colleagues 
in uniform. When some workers intervened to stop the rioters and hand them 
over to the police, the latter showed a complete lack of interest. Instead 
the police officers arbitrarily seized a number of workers and beat them 
brutally.
There have also been a number of reports of the role of deliberate police 
provocations in connection with the Gorleben anti-nuclear protests.
Eye-witness reports
In this connection it is necessary to take eye-witness reports by 
demonstrators in Rostock very seriously. On the Indymedia web site, a number 
of demonstrators have described their experiences. Almost all of the reports 
stress that for most of the day the demonstration had proceeded in a very 
calm and peaceful manner. At the same time, several demonstrators 
observed-independently of each other-that some members of the "black bloc" 
functioned independently of the main body of anarchists and seemed to be in 
contact with the police.
Thus Rainer Zwanzleitner reports on Indymedia, "We were part of the demo, 
which came from the direction of Hamburg Street, quite near the front. When 
we reached the city's docks we observed how a group of police (approx. 
10-20) positioned in front of a building site fence began, as if by command, 
to calmly commence putting on their helmets, i.e. to prepare for action. 
There had been no incidents up until that point."
Fearful of a police intervention, Zwanzleitner removed himself with his 
group from this police cordon and continued to move towards the stage set up 
for the planned final rally. "From there we could observe that the police 
had set off towards the head of the demo point. At about the same time 
several police units from the direction of the city centre piled into the 
demonstration, which had come from the railway station." The final rally had 
already begun and after approximately 10 to 15 minutes a member of the 
organising committee appealed by microphone for the police to withdraw and 
desist with their provocative deployments.
Instead the opposite took place. A police helicopter circled directly over 
the stage and flew so low that its noise dominated the entire area near the 
public-address system, making communication from the stage impossible.
"When it became calmer we left the site of the rally at the docks and 
proceeded towards the pedestrian zone. What we saw on the way was nothing 
less than a police camp. There were police vehicles everywhere." Meanwhile 
another threatening situation was brewing at the university square.
"A group of perhaps between 20 and 30 demonstrators dressed in black entered 
the square followed by police units. Some of these demonstrators remained at 
the square, some continued on to the city hall. Then we saw another 3 or 4 
figures dressed in black, who differed considerably, however, from the usual 
picture of an 'autonome': They were notably broadly built, identically 
dressed (thin nylon anoraks, identical trousers and their faces were 
masked). Under the thin clothing it was possible to identify body armour. 
And even more remarkably: they left the square, fully masked, in the 
opposite direction to the others, i.e. directly towards the police, who were 
moving in. We were then unable to ascertain where they went to next." 
(http://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/180968.shtml)
Other participants on the demonstration report that they noticed that 
members of the "black bloc" brusquely rejected political material in the 
form of leaflets and flyers. "This is new for me with regard to the 
autonomous left ... I had the impression that something was not right with 
these people, they did not appear to behave like lefts, nor like left 
anarchists, " was the report by a participant, Anna U.
"Organisational stupidity"
It is not only demonstrators who have criticized the provocative behaviour 
of the police. In Deutschlandradio Kultur Munich police psychologist George 
Sieber described the actions taken by police in Rostock as "operational 
stupidity." The police were following outdated tactics and reacted with 
disproportionate force, Sieber said.
When asked how the violence came about, he answered, "It was like this: an 
escalation had already taken place, long before it really heated up in 
Rostock. What everybody could see was how police officers appeared with very 
unusual body armour, at first glance one might have confused them with 
marines in Iraq."
When asked by a reporter whether he thought the escalation had been caused 
by the police, Sieber said the escalation had already taken place: "They 
proceeded on the basis of extreme danger or actually felt such a danger, and 
then resorted to security precautions that represented a severe violation of 
human rights. This is what I call escalation-that was in fact the highest 
level of escalation."
The demonstration was initially peaceful. "We had two observers on the spot, 
who notified us by telephone, 'there is an atmosphere here which resembles 
the Love Parade [an annual musical event in Berlin],'" Sieber reported. 
"Things first really got going when a police car was damaged and then a 
great deal happened, which one would describe as disproportionate reaction 
on the part of police officers."
Sieber criticized the fact that the security forces had proceeded almost 
exclusively "in fixed formation." Such deployments, "in fixed formation, in 
the form of a chain, as a combat patrol," are completely outdated and have 
been described since "approximately the 1970s as simply operational 
stupidity." In Rostock "everything actually took place in opposition to what 
is taught in the textbook. And the officials naturally learn at the police 
academy that one should not do it such a way." Therefore "this deployment 
was from the start completely inappropriate."
Following repeated demands by the surprised reporter, who asked whether he 
was really accusing the police command, Sieber replied, "No, this is not a 
reproach; it is possibly even what was politically intended."
This is precisely the question: Were events set in motion with the knowledge 
that photos of burning autos and stone-throwing rioters could be used to 
justify the attacks on the right to demonstrate that had already taken place 
and to prepare for a new assault on democratic rights? Was this what was 
"politically intended"?
An investigation is necessary to determine whether the riots were the result 
of a planned manoeuvre, in which undercover police operated as agents 
provocateurs in the "black bloc," while the police reacted with closed 
formations and the police command prepared to carry out a deployment which 
resulted in several hundred injured demonstrators.
We appeal to readers who took part in the demonstration and possess any 
important information about what took place to send us their material and 
establish contact with the editorial board.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200706080005

As the dust settles
Leila Deen
If the G8 leaders represent us, why are they forced to hide behind fences?
As the 2007 G8 summit concludes today, we hear that the G8 leaders have been 
re-packaging their existing aid commitments in order to appear to be 'doing 
something' about poverty. But the aid increases were not enough back in 2005 
and they are not enough now. And regardless of how much aid cash that rich 
countries are prepared to spend, there is something much more important at 
stake.
As the activists have being saying here all week, for genuine change we need 
to fundamentally shift the way we structure our global economic system - but 
perhaps that is expecting a bit too much of the G8!
As for their statement on climate change - that they will "consider 
seriously... at least halving global emissions by 2050" - this kind of 
woolly rhetoric is nothing short of insulting to the thousands of 
demonstrators in Germany and the millions facing imminent climate chaos 
across the world.
We need to start a radical process immediately if we are actually going to 
make any positive difference to the impacts on millions of people around the 
world.
While journalists, NGOs, and policy-makers pour over the detail of the 
communiqué and file their verdicts, Rostock is set to return to normal. 
Delegates will fly home, activists will pack up their tents, and the camps 
and blockades scattered around Heiligendamm will move toward Rostock city 
centre for a closing rally by the harbour.
Our experience has been a positive - one of collective action. Both the 
activists and the local people in Rostock have been incredibly welcoming to 
us, with only a few shops boarded up.
A German friend told us that the headline of the Hamburg regional paper 
reads: "Success for the G8 blockaders." Not sure who or what they were 
referring to but this is an interesting statement to have seen in the press. 
Was it a success? The fact that thousands and thousands of people felt the 
need to travel to Germany to register their protest I think is a success in 
itself.
The fact that protesters managed to successfully blockade roads, train 
lines, and attempted to block the sea is also a success. The fact that once 
again, people from all walks of life, ages and nationalities stood up to be 
counted - and that violence was minimal - is perhaps the greatest success of 
all.
The G8 summit may have managed to continue, and produced little or nothing 
new, but they know that we were there in our tens of thousands. And when 
leaders are forced to hide behind huge fences - and spend millions on 
security evading the people they are meant to represent - the movement can 
only feel vindicated.
As for us, it is time to take stock, reflect and relax with a beer, before 
packing up our tent, and making the long train journey back to the UK. I 
think we've earned it.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sharonlouise_trimble_and_philip_white/2007/06/words_are_not_enough.html

Words are not enough
As teenagers reporting from the G8 summit, we'd like to know how the leaders 
are going to fulfil the promises they made to the world's children.
Sharon-Louise Trimble and Philip White
Articles
Latest
Show all
Profile

All Sharon-Louise Trimble and Philip White articles
About Webfeeds
June 7, 2007 2:00 PM | Printable version
We're reporting from the G8 summit. Well, from a seaside town further down 
the coast, which is as close as most journalists seem to be getting. The 
world is waiting to hear what the leaders are going to say. Since their 
promises made two years ago in Gleneagles, millions of children have died, 
millions are still desperately poor. What will the rest of this week mean 
for them?
If the G8 leaders take on board what the public and charities are saying, it 
will make a difference; but if they don't, it won't. Protesters are making 
it clear what they want and what they don't want. They are here dressed as 
clowns and wearing identity cards on their heads. This is to show the police 
that they don't care what the authorities think. Others were blocking the 
roads with their bicycles and generally trying to cause as much chaos as 
possible. All this is happening some distance from Heiligendamn and we 
wonder what impression it makes there. We have just overheard some 
journalists say that no one is allowed to go there: are they even aware the 
protests are happening?
This afternoon we visited the Alternative Summit in Rostock. The sun 
filtered through the beautiful tree-lined roads as we drove from 
Kuehlungsborn to Rostock. There was no sign of any protest, just a few 
happy, hippy campers strolling along the edge of the forest. On the 
forecourt of a garage, police in full riot gear waited. Parked close by was 
one tank and several water cannons. Maybe they'd stopped for refreshments. 
Riot control is thirsty work.
In Rostock, we watched a Save the Children film, Running on Empty, showing 
malnutrition and hunger in Ethiopia. At the same time, President Bush and 
Chancellor Merkel were enjoying a private lunch. Even if they did talk about 
how they might help the world's poorest, words are not enough - that was 
Gleneagles, now we need real action.
Later, back at the media centre, other journalists told us tales of blocked 
roads, and tractors on train tracks. Clearly, we'd missed out ...

http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2007/06/05/G8/

After the Storm
Reflections from the scene of this weekend's G8 protests

Michael Levitin is a freelance journalist living in Berlin. He has written 
for Newsweek, Slate, and the Los Angeles Times, among others.

Tuesday, 05 Jun 2007
ROSTOCK, Germany
If you dress head to foot in black, set cars on fire, launch stones and beer 
bottles at police, and brave hand-to-hand scuffles amid clouds of tear gas 
with choppers thundering overhead, best bet is you'll make the evening news. 
Which is too bad, because in the case of Saturday's late-afternoon riots in 
Rostock, the images of unrest have obscured and altered what most of us 
adults would have called the real story.

Menace or blessing?
Photo: Irene Pascual
I say adults because the couple of thousand sullen-eyed, peach-fuzz-faced 
rabble-rousers who formed the Black Bloc averaged, say, 20 years old. 
Middle-class adolescents still living at home with mom and dad, the young 
anarchists weren't the ones who'd spent thousands of hours organizing the 
Alternative Summit that's running counter to the official G8 meeting, which 
starts Wednesday in nearby Heiligendamm. They didn't arrange Bono's concert 
here; nor did they coordinate the peaceful blockades against G8 delegates 
arriving at Rostock airport; nor set up large-scale encampments around the 
city; nor promote dozens of lectures and workshops on subjects ranging from 
immigration and agriculture to militarism, feminism, and global energy 
strategy.

In short, the Black Bloc lacked the legitimacy to turn a peaceful, 
well-planned protest into mayhem -- yet that's exactly what they did. But 
let's look at it another way; by admitting, for example, that some of us --  
OK, many of us -- go to demonstrations like these nursing the secret hope 
that things might turn a little rowdy. The hope of feeling, beyond all the 
costumes, music, and speeches, a greater whiff of excitement. Of being 
somehow in the fray.

I went to Rostock, I confess, with some pretty big expectations. The media 
had so fixated on the G8 Summit -- from criticism of the seven-mile-long 
fence built to keep out protesters to speculation about Chancellor Angela 
Merkel's standoff with President George Bush over his last-minute climate 
policy proposal -- that the demonstration against it had to be sensational, 
right?

Descending on Rostock

I had arrived (with my own little global retinue of amigos, which included a 
Spaniard, a Brazilian, an Englishman, a Mexican, a Colombian, and myself, an 
American) packed body to body with other protesters on the morning train 
from Berlin. Chartered buses and trains were pouring in from cities across 
northern and central Europe, like Zurich and Cologne, Vienna and Munich, 
Stockholm and Copenhagen. Base camps had materialized around the Rostock 
region as demonstrators carrying rucksacks and tents and a week's worth of 
supplies flooded in.

Putting a face on politics.
Photo: Irene Pascual
A whole cross-section of the continent appeared to have shown up: old men 
calling for just labor laws, young mothers with strollers marching against 
climate change, students appealing for fair trade and an end to the Iraq 
war. Actors dressed in elaborate costumes hoisted masks parodying the G8 
leaders. Trumpeters blew horns, drummers beat out rhythms, and trance-music 
revelers danced as thousands of bodies kept rolling past.

All the big NGO players were represented -- WWF, Oxfam, Greenpeace, Friends 
of the Earth -- as were the vast array of antis: anti-racists, 
anti-capitalists, anti-fascists, anti-G8s, anti-about everything you could 
get your hands on. The wavy, rainbow-colored sea of signs, balloons, and 
placards -- "Down with the G8," "Stop Privatization," "International 
Solidarity" -- reflected the position stated simply on one flier: "The world 
shaped by the dominance of the G8 is a world of war, hunger, social 
divisions, environmental destruction, and barriers against migrants and 
refugees."

Despite the tensions and global concerns prompting the march, up until 3 
p.m. the mood was still bright. Heading toward the harbor where concerts 
were already under way, the protesters continued their relaxed march, by the 
tens of thousands, in what looked from a distance like a slow, musical, 
serpentine dance. But the anxious buzz of helicopters overhead was mounting. 
The green-clad cops were encroaching. Then suddenly, somewhere out of view, 
a provocation occurred. Instants later, acrid, dense, gray gas filled the 
streets.

Bodies started running. Police units multiplied, emerging from all corners 
of the city and sprinting in neat lines toward the harbor where the 
flare-ups were taking place. There was something epic about the scene: on 
the waterfront, under the port's looming cranes, with sirens wailing, music 
blaring, giant banners and balloons bobbing, the sky threatening rain, and 
the authorities with their armored vehicles threatening injury.

It didn't take long for the mainstream crowd to disperse, leaving several 
thousand young guys and girls clothed in black to engage in the fight. They 
hurled bottles and fireworks and chunks of concrete that they'd pried up 
from the street. They smashed bank and car windows, destroyed parking-ticket 
machines, and lit several cars on fire in what the German magazine Der 
Spiegel called "an orgy of violence." Only after many hours and injuries and 
arrests -- after the air became choked with smoke and gas, and after the 
Black Bloc tired of their showdown with water cannons -- did the police 
restore order.

Close to 1,000 people, nearly half of them police, were reported injured, 50 
of them seriously, before the day was through. Some 125 arrests were made. 
Sunday brought a rest for both sides, but on Monday and Tuesday they were 
back at it, with street skirmishes and armed conflicts between youth and 
authorities that led right up to President Bush's arrival with his 
entourage. Needless to say, the Alternative Summit's well-planned 
schedule -- of concerts and lectures, seminars, marches, and non-violence 
training workshops -- was vastly overshadowed by the more media-grabbing 
conflict.
Message In a Hurled Bottle

Give peace a chance.
Photo: Irene Pascual
The Alternative Summit organizers had tried very hard, and almost with 
success, to show the orderly and thoughtful face of the anti-globalization 
movement. But what they, and what we all, now have to ask ourselves might be 
this: If those late-afternoon images of chaos and confrontation hadn't 
occurred -- if the estimated 80,000 protesters had marched peacefully, 
vocally, and jubilantly to the demonstration's conclusion as planned --  
would the world have even noticed?

It may be, in fact, that the anarchic, violent spirit is already so embedded 
in the anti-globalization movement that it has become unthinkable for a G8 
protest to conclude otherwise.

This spring, in recent weeks especially, the German government seemed to be 
almost purposefully stoking the public's anger in the build-up to the 
summit. After police raided many activists' homes and offices for 
information last month, it became known that the collection and use of 
"scent samples" to track down suspected agitators, a method practiced by the 
secret police in the former East Germany, was suddenly back in vogue.

Fanning the public's paranoia, an administrative court ruled last Thursday 
that demonstrators would not be allowed to come within a four-mile zone of 
the razor-wire-topped fence that has been erected around Heiligendamm. "The 
German government has militarized security levels as though they wanted to 
build a new wall and close themselves in," said an indignant Renate Künast, 
Germany's Green Party chair. The decision overturned a lower court's ruling 
that protests could be banned within 200 meters of the security fence, which 
was built specifically to protect the Kempinski Grand Hotel, where the G8 
leaders are scheduled to meet, but not around the entire town. Noting that 
security costs for the event topped $130 million and that more than 16,000 
police officers have been engaged (the largest deployment in Germany since 
World War II), lawyer Carsten Gericke said the court's unconstitutional 
ruling marked "a black day for freedom of assembly in Germany."

Now I am wondering, as I think back to the cramped train ride Saturday 
morning when the energy in the air was so palpable but also so peaceful, 
whether the violence that day might have been foreseen -- and if so, how it 
could have been prevented. When tens of thousands of people are able 
peacefully to amass and speak, sing and dance with many voices -- and 
ultimately with one -- it is a testament to the power and the potential of 
democracy. But unless we decide clearly, and discover a way to steer our 
fellow black-clad protesters into the non-violent fold, their actions will 
continue to define the anti-G8 agenda: fighting, rather than talking about 
the issues that matter to us most. After all, our heads of state and their 
policies may still pose our best chance of staving off the serious long-term 
effects of climate change.

Then again, maybe negotiating calmly with our leaders, on their terms --  
which is to say, voicing our complaints about poverty and our concerns about 
global warming, and being virtually ignored -- is not what many of us 
secretly want. In that case, so much for the days of peaceful protest.

http://de.indymedia.org/2007/06/183680.shtml

How did mainstream media cover the G8?
Gerbrand 10.06.2007 12:21 Themen: G8 Medien Print
How did mainstream media cover the G8?

Were you at the G8?

Find out how dutch, german, english and international television stations 
were reporting about the G8. Which programmes were giving a fair and 
accurate perspective on the negotiations, and on the protests?

Users have been recording television news items and uploaded them to 
UNSPINTHEG8.ORG. Analyse the news items, and discuss with other users.
UNSPIN THE G8 is a temporary toolkit for the analysis of media reports 
during the run-up to the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany (6-8 June 2007).

UNSPIN THE G8 focuses on the clashing discourses and media representations 
of the players: world leaders, issue celebrities, activists, social 
movements, security forces, industry leaders and lobby groups. What are all 
these actors telling us? And how do mass media cover the G8 Summit and the 
G8 protests?

During the run-up to the summit, UNSPIN THE G8 will serve as a collaborative 
blog deconstructing G8 PR and media coverage. Everyone can join. It's 
simple: upload a piece of video, or audio, a newspaper clipping or a press 
statement. It can be an eight o'clock news report, a press statement, an 
interview with an official, a photo, a background article from a newspaper, 
or any other media product.

Then analyse: what's the full story of the interview, statement, news item 
or article?

For video, you could look at what the images suggest. How do editing, voice 
over, framing, music, point-of-view, insert shots, etc. contribute to a 
story? What parts of a statement have been selected, and which have been 
left out? Who were interviewed, and what impression do these people leave on 
you? What do you sense when you look at the item? Do you believe the story? 
If several viewpoints are presented, which one seems more trustworthy and 
important to you, and why is that? What is the relevance of the item and why 
did the editors choose to broadcast this story?

For newspaper clippings, you could have a look at the headline: what does it 
suggest? On what page and in what section did the article appear? Have other 
papers covered the same story, and how do they present it? What sources are 
quoted and what opinions have been included and excluded?

Other users can comment on or add to the first analysis.
  http://www.unspintheg8.org

http://www.unspintheg8.org/times-england-03-06-07-g8-activists-turn-peaceful-demo-riot

Times (England) 03/06/07 'G8 activists turn peaceful demo into riot'
Submitted by Lise on Mon, 06/11/2007 - 11:47.
Lovely example of unbiased reporting by the Murdoch press...
This is seriously the worst article I've found in terms of G8 media 
coverage. I have a short list of boxes to tick in terms of how the 
mainstream media misrepresent protests, and this manages to cover most of 
them.
The opening paragraph sets the scene: 'It started as a good-natured march in 
which tens of thousands joined a protest on a bright Baltic sunlit day. 
People sang, danced and proudly waved their banners. Within hours, their 
demonstration demanding stronger action by the G8 on climate change, AIDS 
and poverty had been turned into a cynically manipulated operation to ensure 
that news about the summit would henceforth be dominated by scenes of water 
cannon, tear gas and stone throwing.'
Now, you may agree with that analysis. Sadly, the reporter refers to a 
'cynically manipulated operation' by protesters, rather than by either the 
media or the police.
Two of the 'boxes' on my media misrepresentation checklist are the line 
which is drawn between 'good' and 'bad' protesters, and the idea that some 
protesters 'hijacked' events. These tropes are out in force here. For 
example: 'There seemed to be two separate protests running alongside one 
another - one innocent, the other chillingly aggressive.' This is seen by 
the reporter - and anyone whose main impression of such things comes from 
the media - as a clearly defined boundary, one side of which is beyond the 
pale. Needless to say, 'good' protesters are those who wish to stick to the 
legally sanctioned march route, attend a concert, and not in any way 
antagonise anyone. The problem here comes when you look at how much ('much' 
used in the most sarcastic sense possible) change can be brought about 
without some level of antagonism.
Another line which sums up this attitude nicely: 'Among the beer and hot dog 
stands surrounding the stage, legitimate protesters, including several from 
Britain's Stop The War coalition, were indignant that the real messages 
would be lost by the actions of a few rabble-rousers.' Here the 'good' 
protester is given a clearer identity - a mainstream organisation, 
affiliated with a political party best known for selling newspapers and 
attaching front groups to the campaigns of the day. (Incidentally, there are 
many STWC participants, and even SWP members, who I have no small amount of 
respect for - my issue here is with the organisations themselves and the 
fact that they are seen as the 'legitimate' face of protest'.) The 'bad' 
protester, meanwhile, is an unwelcome guest who has crashed the party and - 
to continue that metaphor for a second - smashed up the house and vomited in 
the corner. And, of course, antagonised the G8, which is never the done 
thing. 'Good' protesters are also, it becomes apparent, keen to distance 
themselves from those who favour more militant means of getting the message 
across.
The 'good' protesters are also, it transpires, victims: 'The peaceful 
elements in the crowd could smell the acrid tear gas sweeping across the 
harbour area.' One would almost think it was the anarchists who were letting 
off tear gas - a tactic of which I have yet to hear. At any rate, while the 
'legitimate' protesters were feeling 'panic and disappointment', 'some young 
protesters clearly relished the battle. I heard one shouting, "Isn't this 
great!" as his friends hurled stones at policemen'. The reporter no doubt 
regards this as part of the 'cynically manipulated operation' referred to at 
the beginning of her article - of course, this is more likely than the 
alternative explanation, which involves youthful over-excitement underlain 
by some level of anger.
The main culprits for the trouble, according to this reporter, were 'the 
Black Block [sic], a group of black-clad trouble-makers whose sole aim was 
to goad the police.' Ignoring for a minute the fact that those involved in 
Black Bloc regard it as a tactic rather than an organisation, their function 
is also rather misinterpreted here. In past mobilisations, their role has 
been to occupy the most vulnerable points of a demonstration, fighting off 
police aggression and to some extent defending other demonstrators - 
including the 'more peaceful' ones who are so upset here - from attack. 
Whether or not this is successful is a matter for debate elsewhere. However, 
the irony is that - after the first round of aggression was over, after the 
Black Bloc-ers had left due to being tired or battered or just seeing their 
role in events as over for the day, police turned on the more 'peaceful' 
concert-goers. This suggests that maybe the aggression was not necessarily 
initiated by any element of the protest.


http://www.unspintheg8.org/media-gets-massage-uneven-battle-over-media

The Media Gets the Massage - the uneven battle over the media
Submitted by Kees Stad on Tue, 06/12/2007 - 15:15.
"It's a battle lost before started", was our first reaction when on Tuesday 
5 June, one day before the start of the G8 summit, we tried to pay a visit 
to the international media centre in Kühlungsborn, a seaside resort not far 
from Heiligendamm. Non-accredited journalists such as ourselves were not 
able to enter, but the German documentary filmmaker C. who travelled with us 
did manage to get an accreditation and would later go inside with a camera.

Because the media centre had not yet been officially opened, the fences 
surrounding it had not been fully erected so we could walk around them and 
have a look inside. The preparations were in full swing: big video screens 
were being set up, a dance group was practising an opening sequence, golf 
buggies with flags of the G8 countries (and one EU buggy) were already 
standing in line and massage therapists were already warming up in the 
much-debated massage parlours located in colourful design tents. On both 
sides of the media village - set up by the Dutch tent constructor De Boer - 
the big TV stations were setting up their podiums from which they would do 
the reporting.

The accredited journalist went inside to get his press package and came back 
20 minutes later with expected stories about the generous offers of food, 
drinks and entertainment with which the journalists were being kept happy. 
Everything for free and offered in abundance. The instructive booklet handed 
out to journalists picking up their accreditation leaves no doubt: the G8 
summit has organised a well-structured programme of press conferences and 
photo shoots. In order to enjoy the programme, however, the journalist has 
to step on a train bringing him/her straight to Heiligendamm. The train is 
protected on both sides with rows of razor wire and journalists "are not 
allowed to go to event locations [i.e. Heiligendamm] on their own", the 
booklet warns them in bold letters. In other words: journalists who try to 
reach Heiligendamm via regular roads - and therefore through masses of 
demonstrators via the three entry points at the fence around Heiligedamm - 
will be denied access. The only way into Heiligendamm is through the media 
centre and on the train.

This tactic is known from other summits. The media village is set up in such 
a way that once the journalists are inside they do not want (or dare) to 
leave again to places where they could meet normal people or even encounter 
activists. Meanwhile, they are lavished with luxuries and messages from the 
leaders. We experienced a highpoint of this tactic during the EU summit in 
Amsterdam in 1997, when the media village was set up in such a way that once 
entered it was almost impossible to leave. When the 1997 summit had ended, 
we witnessed journalist all over the city logging wheeled suitcases - part 
of the press package - stuffed with presents from the EU (bottles of wine, 
computers, .). But it is a tactic that is only partially successful. 
Fortunately, most journalists are not so foolish as to fall into the trap 
and, after a while at least, feel the need to listen to other stories than 
the propaganda fed to them by their hosts.

Stark contrast

The manner in which the press is treated by activists can hardly differ more 
from the warm reception they receive by the G8 organisers. 'Commercial media' 
is not allowed to enter the three action camps where thousands of activists 
are camping with the aim to block the G8. There are strict rules to keep the 
media outside. There are several good reasons for this choice. Many 
activists see commercial media as an extension of the powers they are 
criticising and do not want to have to deal with them. Next to this, it is 
known that German police use media images to make a comprehensive database 
of activists' faces to aid in the prosecution of more militant activists. 
Finally, the blockades could themselves be endangered by film crews making 
pictures of activists planning them. But media presence also leads to much 
distraction: every time a journalist or film crew walk into a tent where 
people are holding meetings about actions, the meeting has to be stopped to 
answer media questions or to escort journalists outside.

Despite all these hindrances, the camp organisers do their best to be at the 
service of media. At the entrance of each camp they set up a press tent 
where journalists can find answers to their questions. They created a space 
just outside the camp where journalists can film and make pictures and a few 
times they organise a tour through the camp, warning activists and campers 
beforehand that journalists are present. One such tour was joined by 100 
journalists, leaving a rather surrealist impression on the activists 
watching on. The press group of the camps works day and night, trying to 
answer an array of requests. In the Dutch case, it did not always succeed: 
for example, when a Frisian paper was asking to interview activists form 
Freesia (Friesland). After searching the camp for possible interviewees, the 
two Frisians that were found had no interest in giving interviews. Now you 
can only hope the journalist concerned is not resentful and writes a 
negative piece about activists.

Against the millions

It is an unfair battle. Against the millions of perfumed & powdered 
journalists in the G8 media camp stand a few overworked and non-paid media 
activists in damp tents with mobile phones that fail more often than they 
work because the GSM network is continuously 'overloaded'. Where the G8 has 
professional media teams with well-paid PR-experts, the opposition has 
people who are busy with preparing blockades and who also have to take on 
chores to keep the camp going. The camps are organised in 'neighbourhoods' 
(barrios) that hold a meeting twice a day in order to split tasks. The 
toilets have to be cleaned, thousands of people have to be fed every day, 
security teams to protect the camp against Nazis and police raids, and 
infrastructure has to be set up, etcetera. And no one is paid a penny. In 
camp Reddelich (where around 3000 people are camping) two ingenious shower 
spots have been constructed where 20 people can shower at the same time 
under cold garden hoses.

The realisation that the protests against the G8 also include a battle in 
the media is all-present. Especially after the riots ending the 
demonstration on 2 June, which marked the beginning of the protests, when 
the most fantastic rumours started circulated about the violent character of 
demonstrators, many felt that the media battle had now begun. Dutch 
activists then tried to answer queries of the Dutch media. First, all their 
requests to travel with a group of activists to the blockades or to stay in 
the camp had to be turned down in a friendly fashion. At the same time, 
however, media activists try to provide them with as much information as 
possible. The circumstance in which this was taking place, however, is far 
from ideal. Access to the internet and newspapers is limited in the camps so 
you don't have a good picture of what has been reported about the protests 
so far. So as not to make appointments in the camp, where filming is not 
welcome, we make an appointment early in the morning in the nearby village 
of Bad Doberan to give an interview with a film crew present. With a few 
hours sleep and a heroic attempt to shower under ice water at 8am, you have 
to answer questions with uncombed hair, in-between three preparatory 
meetings for actions whilst your phone continuously rings because your Media 
Bus has just been confiscated by police with the accusation that it is 
coordinating 'militant actions'. The agreement to stay in contact the day 
after fails to take shape because we are all arrested during a blockade and 
spend the rest of the Thursday in Guantanamo-like cages whilst all 
telephones and personal belongings have been confiscated.

Typical is also a live debate I am allowed to take part in the radio 
programme 'Met Het Oog op Morgen' on "the violence of the demonstrators". It 
takes place at 11.30 pm via an old mobile phone in the midst of 3000 noisy 
fellow demonstrators after having spent the whole day running back and forth 
between blockades and demonstrations. Then try and explain that it is 
predominantly the police that are using violence and that the decent NGOs 
have to realise for once that they are just as problematic because they are 
not able to stand against the neo-liberal disasters that we are facing 
today.

Trump card

Facing the thousands of molly cuddled journalists in the media village you 
could be tempted to throw in the towel. However, a few factors are in our 
favour. Firstly, it becomes evident that the protests are so massive and 
diverse that journalists are attracted to them en masse. That does not yet 
imply they are also interested in our story about why we protest, but in any 
case it means they leave behind the safe village surroundings. Then what 
follows is a classic case of agenda-setting: the demonstrators have 
partially succeeded to put their critique of the G8 clearly on the agenda. 
Now the art (of demonstrators who are intending to block the G8) is to make 
sure that the media does not only give voice to the big NGOs and dogmatic 
Marxist groups who are not involved in the blockades and are merely 
freeloading on the spectacle. They, of course, have an easy time talking 
(and acting): they are not involved in the confrontational frontline 
actions, and even distance themselves from them and, unlike us, have no need 
to protect a largely criminalised 'membership' from further criminalisation 
and prosecution.

A god-sent gift therefore is the incident on Wednesday 6 June, when a group 
of four police agent provocateurs are detected at a clearly peaceful 
blockade. The group of men is found logging stones to the blockade, trying 
to agitate the demonstrators to start attacking the police, but they do it 
so clumsily that the demonstrators start being suspicious and accuse them of 
being police. Three of them escape, but the fourth is overpowered and 
recognised by some demonstrators as a plain-clothed police officer from the 
northern German city of Bremen. After the initial denial, the police can no 
longer escape the hard facts and admit their use of agent provocateurs in 
the media: 
(http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,487487,00.html). This 
story further hardens earlier claims by demonstrators that many escalations 
during the demonstration on 2 June were provoked by police teams.

Another success was the fact that the journalists' train to Heiligendamm was 
blockaded several times. Demonstrators had promised to block all entry 
points to the summit and did not spare the privileged media. There was an 
attempt to transport journalists via boat to Heiligedamm which failed due to 
wild waters, so that the media had to return to the village to report on 
other events than the scheduled G8 press junkets. Excepting Volkskrant 
journalist Hans Wansink, who, already in the run-up to the summit, had given 
his approval of every state utterance whilst relentlessly mocking 
demonstrators.

The perfect apotheosis was the press conference held by the 'Clowns Army' in 
Kühlungsborn on Friday June 8. Whilst everyone was holding press 
conferences, the clowns - who were actively involved in the demonstrations 
with a whole army - decided to also hold one in the same seaside resort that 
the media village was located. Rows of riot police tried to stop the 
cheerful group to walk towards the beach, but in vain. The crowd was too 
flexible to be stopped and trickled through the rigid police blocks, 
carrying water wings, inflatable ducks and whole plastic pools. Once arrived 
at the beach it appeared that the German TV stations NDR and ARD just 
started their live closing event. The podium was quickly filled with clowns 
and other demonstrators grabbing the microphones to make announcements, upon 
which groups of dangerous-looking riot police pulled them off the stage 
under the eyes of the audience outside and behind the TV sets. The 
presenters had to finish the rest of the programme surrounded by riot police 
whilst a clown choir shouted demands of "an objective press" and the 
exclamation the "we are all 129a" (the Article of the German Criminal Code 
that was applied against the G8-critics whose houses were raided a month 
before the summit). Football slogans ("So Sehn Gewinner Aus! So Sehn 
Gewinner Aus!") accompanied the finale of the TV broadcasting attempt. 
Direct action, also in the media battle, was the trump card of the 
demonstrators in Heiligendamm.