How Dan Choi's Reid Protest Went Awry

Here's what actually happened on Saturday at Netroots: Ousted openly gay Army Lt. Dan Choi had moderator Joan McCarter give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid his West Point ring, his discharge papers and two letters that Reid had written vowing to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell by the end of 2009.

It was meant, Choi told me before it happened, to embarrass Reid, to expose the Nevada Democrat to the liberal crowd as having failed to fulfill his promise. Choi received his discharge papers on Thursday, a year after he came out on The Rachel Maddow Show in defiance of DADT.

And yet, here is how what happened between Choi and Reid was reported by CBS News:

Before Reid began to answer questions from the conference audience today, the discussion moderator handed him Choi's West Point ring as a gift. Reid expressed his gratitude but said he could not accept the gift.

"He earned his ring," Reid said. "I'm going to give it back to him."

Choi joined Reid on stage and gave the majority leader a hug. Audience members shouted at Reid to keep the ring until "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed.

"When the bill's signed, I'll keep it safely and then give it back to him," he said.

And by Talking Points Memo:

Choi, discharged this week under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, hopped onto the stage during Reid's Netroots Nation speech and gave Reid his discharge paperwork. The two agreed that Reid would hang onto the ring until the repeal is passed and the new law of the land. Choi also gave Reid letters containing the original promise the Clinton-era policy would be repealed in 2009.

And the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Choi jumped onstage to give Reid a hug and his West Point class ring. Reid said he would return it after Obama signs away "don't ask, don't tell."

And on and on it went across the media.

So how did an effort to embarrass Reid turn into something of an emotional triumph for him? Let's go to the videotape:

As you can see, both the R-J and TPM had factual mistakes, TPM being the oddest because they provided this YouTube (that's where I got found it!) and showed their own readers that Choi never gave Reid the ring or papers at all.

But McCarter got choked up and didn't make a point of the fact that the letters she was handing him included not just the discharge papers but also those from Reid to Choi that contained broken promises. And Reid also misunderstood the point of his receiving the ring -- he became emotional about it because he thought it was a gift, a symbolic gesture to embolden Reid to get the DADT job done. It was actually supposed to be the equivalent of a divorcee giving her wedding ring back to her husband, see.

Yet when Reid went all I'm-not-worthy and tried to give it back to Choi, there was so much noise and clatter (not heard quite as well on the video) that there was no way to successfully clarify for Reid that he had actually been dissed, not honored. McCarter made no effort to fix the confusion, either. And then Reid announces that, OK, he'll keep it until he could return it after DADT ends, and the audience erupted in admiration and emotion.

There was nothing left for Choi to do at that point but to hop on stage, embrace Reid's gesture and hope it would actually mean something. But make no mistake he's still pissed, telling me for AOL News afterward: "I find it very difficult to understand any kind of senator or leader who would make a promise to the LGBT community and, because of whatever fears are latent inside of this person running for re-election or unable to show the leadership to manifest the American promise, we're still getting fired."

Why does this matter? Well, earlier this week on my Facebook page, debate ensued over whether the stopping-traffic-on-the-Strip stunt that Choi and his friends at GetEQUAL executed on Tuesday was an effective or appropriate form of protest. It caused mayhem for motorists on a very hot day and could easily have turned many of them against the cause in the process.

Except you know what? The message was loud and clear. It was unambiguous, the media reported it exactly as it was intended and it provided striking visuals. Mission accomplished.

Choi's protest at Netroots on Saturday? Not so much. It was nuanced and complex, it was so easily misinterpreted that even the person Choi wanted to embarrass didn't get it. And in the end, the media got this warm moment of Reid and Choi embracing, and the idea of boiling into a soundbite everything I've written here was absolutely impossible. Mission failed.

There is another example of protesters being too clever by half at the same session Saturday. Four Hispanic activists donned black graduation caps and gowns and stood in the front row as Reid answered questions about immigration reform, which he has also not managed to advance in any meaningful way. The students wanted to call Reid's attention to support for the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship or permanent residency for undocumented students who came to the US as minors, graduated high school and have lived here for 5 years.

I have yet to read a mainstream media account other than my own about that protest. It was just too subtle. Reid didn't even react to it -- it's possible he didn't even notice -- and the press found it far to confusing to summarize even if they understood it at all.

What would have worked? Well -- and I'm not recommending these, just making an observation here -- some really raucous shouting. Someone rushing the stage. Something dramatic and visual and unambiguous. All of that would have gotten the point onto the evening news loud and clear. And, yeah, it would have pissed off a lot of people at the event.

But in a way, Saturday was a useful lesson in the art of protest. These didn't work. At first I blamed the media, but when I realized I was about the only one in the MSM who got it right, it dawned on me that it wasn't my colleagues' faults. Had I not been forewarned by sources of what was about to take place and why, I probably would have interpreted it very similarly.

Choi-Reid photo credit: Queerty.Com

The Daily Beast Exclusive, Behind The Scenes

So I'm in the press room at the Rio today charging my computer while covering the liberal blogger confab called Netroots Nation for AOL News and I listen in as Fox News interviews DailyKos contributor Dante Atkins. He has some things to say that are germane for the tack I'm planning to take -- and, in fact, he makes the bold prediction that the Democrats will PICK UP seats in this fall's election.

When he's done on camera, I ask him to sit with me for an interview. He does. When we're finished, Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron immediately strikes up a conversation with Atkins about some of what he had said on camera.

The rest is what you can read on TheDailyBeast.Com right now, comments in which he tacitly agrees with Atkins' claim that conservative Fox News personalities essentially created the Tea Party Movement, Cameron's raising the Shirley Sherrod drama as an example of an effort by some at Fox to influence the news and about his remark that Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle.

AOL News passed on this bit, so I moved on to pitch it elsewhere and The Daily Beast grabbed it eagerly. I emailed Fox's spokeswoman for comment and got a response that Cameron claimed I had taken his comments completely out of context. When Cameron reached me, he claimed all he was doing was sticking up for the integrity of Fox's news division. Evidently at the expense of the rest of the schedule.

Thing is, Atkins, the blogger, was there, too, and not only backed up accuracy of the quotes but the context in which I wrote them. And Cameron claimed first that I didn't hear the whole thing and then that it only lasted maybe 40 seconds, and Atkins said it lasted at least 4 minutes. I thought it was even longer, but OK.

Now, those of you who follow this blog know I'm not new to analyzing and reporting on the media. I routinely defend the Review-Journal against charges of conservative bias in its news pages, I've taken journalists to task at the Las Vegas Sun, The New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. I've appeared on KNPR and several TV stations discussing media matters as an analyst. In this case, I don't even know if I believe what Cameron said was inappropriate because I don't actually have a problem with reporters expressing certain types of opinions.

But I did know it was news. And so did Cameron, which is why he moved the conversation with Atkins out of the room and away from my observation.

You may wonder if it's ethical or appropriate to report on overheard conversations. Journalists do it every day. It is not necessary to be a party to a discussion to find its contents newsworthy, but as you can read in the piece, I became a party to this conversation and Cameron began it while I was still interacting with Atkins. Plus, he said stuff about his own news organization within earshot of journalists, and there were others in the room, though I don't know who they are or what they heard.

Also, Cameron hasn't questioned whether I should have been listening or even whether the quotes themselves are accurate. He just has an elaborate explanation for what he was really saying that makes little logical sense. He chose to raise the Sherrod matter and he offered the snark about Angle. If there was some deeper, more complex point of view he hoped to express, he didn't express it in this discussion.

He also complained to me that I wasn't being fair with him because I was refuting his version of events. The good news is, I was there. I heard it. I'm not taking stories from witnesses and reconciling them as journalists normally must. So when he gives his version and it is so clearly different than what I witnessed and what the other person in the conversation had to say, I am comfortable saying that Cameron is either misremembering or being deceptive. If I wasn't there, then I certainly would be dutibound to assume his version was as likely and valid as Atkins'. In this case, that's not necessary.

Will be interesting to see where this one goes and if Atkins offers up his version of the situation on his considerable forum on Daily Kos.

As an aside, I have defended Fox's news division as well. I went to college with Brett Baier and think the world of his work. Just as with the R-J, the opinion shows and the news shows are usually significantly different and differently managed. I haven't seen Cameron much, but I suspect he's a fair reporter who strives to be accurate and balanced. Then again, he did try to rewrite an entire conversation that two other people bore witness to, so now I'm not so sure.