For visibility, one common trick is to involve the news media. A small group of protesters converge and just stand around and chit chat. Someone calls the press. The press shows up with their cameras and the protesters snap into action… chanting, shouting, flying flags. They make a show for the camera. The press wants to sensationalize, so they are onboard with this. The camera chooses a distance and angle that tries to make the protest look larger than it is, taking care to ensure that the frame cuts off some people so you don’t get the impression that you’re viewing the whole crowd. They film for a couple minutes or so, interview someone, and leave. As soon as they leave, the protesters go back to hanging out, or they disburse. Because it’s all about reaching the press; not about reaching a few bypassers.
Some protests are actually by hired people. Students are sometimes compensated to show up and act, for the camera. I assume they would agree with the cause but just need a little extra motivation to give up some of their time.
Politicians are likely wise to these tactics of making a protest look bigger than it is but I think it’s a good way to start, to reach the public who might later bring the crowd needed (which apparently is 3.5% of the population according to the article).
The last bullet is interesting for sure. From the article:
‘1960s civil-rights activists “did things like pick cities to protest where they knew the police would be maximally repressive”, he says.’
So it’s a game of being non-violent yourself (so you don’t encourage people to vote for the shitty party of law and order), but at the same time you need the police to act their worst, presumably to get more press. I wonder if it would be sensible to do non-destructive tasks that only appear destructive, to provoke cops. Like give protesters a spray can of something that the rain will remove (not paint, obviously).
For visibility, one common trick is to involve the news media. A small group of protesters converge and just stand around and chit chat. Someone calls the press. The press shows up with their cameras and the protesters snap into action… chanting, shouting, flying flags. They make a show for the camera. The press wants to sensationalize, so they are onboard with this. The camera chooses a distance and angle that tries to make the protest look larger than it is, taking care to ensure that the frame cuts off some people so you don’t get the impression that you’re viewing the whole crowd. They film for a couple minutes or so, interview someone, and leave. As soon as they leave, the protesters go back to hanging out, or they disburse. Because it’s all about reaching the press; not about reaching a few bypassers.
Some protests are actually by hired people. Students are sometimes compensated to show up and act, for the camera. I assume they would agree with the cause but just need a little extra motivation to give up some of their time.
Politicians are likely wise to these tactics of making a protest look bigger than it is but I think it’s a good way to start, to reach the public who might later bring the crowd needed (which apparently is 3.5% of the population according to the article).
The last bullet is interesting for sure. From the article:
So it’s a game of being non-violent yourself (so you don’t encourage people to vote for the shitty party of law and order), but at the same time you need the police to act their worst, presumably to get more press. I wonder if it would be sensible to do non-destructive tasks that only appear destructive, to provoke cops. Like give protesters a spray can of something that the rain will remove (not paint, obviously).