Well, looking online for some stuff. Mainly stuff on protests and such trying to find a way to get to the next anti-Bush protest. Found some cool stuff, some interesting stuff, and some disturbing stuff.

Remember the WTO protests? How on the media all they showed was scenes of violence and berserk prostesters? Yet you look up info on it, and guess what? The media only showed the several dozen violent protetors. They didn't show the thousands of peaceful protestors.

Then Remeber the "riots" they had in New York City a few months ago? According to the news everyone was rioting. Look it up, turns out most were peaceful with a few wackos thrown in.

Why? Why does the media only cover the wackos and not the peaceful people? For ratings. But still, what about everything alse out there? Does the news not show when Bush does something smart(with how many little there is) yet blows up something when it is the president doing something stupid?(reading, speaking, eating pretzels) Who knows what you have missed.

Why does this go here? Well, who controls the media? Who put a block out on his family so the only way to know when the presidents niece/daughter goes on another crack attack is to look for it online? The government, the political people. "Look at how riots are happening in New York City, their Mayor must be bad. We need to get a good Mayor in there, like a (fill in governmental party here) Mayor."

All for now.

I think you answered your own question. The media focuses on the bad stuff for ratings. People react to sex,violence, the negative things in life.(not that sex is negative,just shocking to some) The headlines would not be as exciting if everything went smoothly.
But in San Francisco at least, the protests were that bad. Not only did I hear about it on the news, I talked too people who were involved.