DESPITE THE antiwar movement’s show of strength around the world, news reports and commentary have managed to distort its message. On the one hand, the movement gained such momentum that it retained the media spotlight even as missiles began to fly and frontline troops advanced into Iraq. On the other hand, the media’s desire to highlight any tussle between antiwar protesters and police or pro-war supporters sought to diminish the moral weight of protesters’ efforts by casting them in a belligerent and violent light. Since the " Shock and Awe " of US bombing in Iraq was first unleashed, for instance, a LexisNexis search reveals that major newspapers have published 104 headline articles on the antiwar movement. Of that number, more than 25 percent — or 29 — have homed in on arrests, civil disobedience, and turmoil.

To be sure, antiwar protesters don’t do themselves any favors by shutting down roadways, bridges, and building entrances. In San Francisco, police have arrested as many as 1600 people since the city erupted in chaos during demonstrations last Thursday. Some demonstrators set fire to hay bales, unscrewed hydrants, and smashed cop-car windows. Though the SF police took an aggressive stance by trapping peaceful protesters — and even some unsuspecting bystanders — it’s especially hard to feel sympathy for those rabble-rousers who reportedly vomited and urinated on sidewalks in front of the city’s federal buildings.

But even when an antiwar protest proves to be overwhelmingly peaceful, the media find a way to hype hostility. The Boston Globe led its March 21 story on Day X by reporting the " scattered skirmishes " that occurred. Not only did the article play up the day’s three arrests — out of 4000-plus participants — but it failed to mention some telling details up front. One of the arrested happened to be a spectator who, unprovoked, dove into the crowd and punched out a marcher. Local TV outlets, too, broadcast scenes of protesters reportedly " clashing with police. " Boston cops were seen holding back a mass of people trying to storm the Mass Pike ramp, near Copley Square. Tension lasted but minutes in the daylong affair, yet it took center stage on the TV screen nevertheless.

At the same time, the media have presented those who oppose this war as simple-minded, flaky peaceniks who just cannot understand the practical need for military action. Even progressive outlets have taken this position. Salon, the online magazine, published a March 19 analysis by senior news editor Edward Lempinen, who argued that the antiwar left has ignored Saddam Hussein’s human-rights depravities to such an extent that it " leaves one to wonder whether this highly visible bloc of the left has weighed these issues. " His argument might make sense were it not for the fact that the US invasion of Iraq has little to do with " liberating " its civilians. After all, it wasn’t until the other justifications for this war — Saddam’s military threat, his alleged link to Al Qaeda, his flouting of UN treaties — failed to resonate that President Bush began to speak about Saddam’s cruelty to his own people.

William Saletan, of the online journal Slate, sounded a similar note in a March 21 item, in which he contended that, because the humanitarian catastrophe predicted by antiwar protesters has yet to materialize, they should shut up. Indeed, as far as he’s concerned, protests have only aided the bad guys: " Your efforts to generate resistance to the war before there is any evidence of killing, much less atrocities, contribute to the political strength of the enemy regime, " Saletan wrote. Yet this notion that the antiwar movement has strengthened Saddam is so hypocritical, it borders on the absurd. If anyone had a hand in boosting the dictator, it’s those administration officials, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell — respectively the defense secretary and Joint Chiefs of Staff chair under President George H.W. Bush — who helped wage the first Gulf War. They turned their backs on the democratic factions struggling to rise up against Saddam after the battles ended. Why aren’t they being held responsible?

What the media have forgotten is the debate over this war’s legality. They have glossed over the Bush administration’s stark move toward unilateralism and strong-arm tactics — a profound and potentially dangerous break from a half-century of international law and order. Those in the antiwar movement, however, have not forgotten. In a March 23 article in the New York Times, reporter John Leland examined how the latest movement, " unlike its socially seismic 1960s predecessor, " encompasses mainstream America, rather than a countercultural fringe. Unlike the protests of the 1960s, which focused on remaking society, he reported, today’s protesters have united around one thing: this war’s consequences. In other words, today’s protesters are more soccer mom and office-park dad than ’60s-hippie-wanna-be or anti-globalization anarchist.

Last Thursday’s protest brought out scores of college students who clearly want to do more than recreate the glory of the ’60s. Students like 21-year-old Flood, of Harvard, come across as informed, thoughtful, and genuine in their beliefs. His foray into the antiwar movement dates back to February, when he noticed the build-up of US troops in the Persian Gulf. The looming reality hit. " I knew it was time to do something, " he says. He signed on to an e-mail list for the Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice, a student-run group. Within days, he was organizing campus actions. Flood, like many of his peers, remains skeptical of the Bush administration’s motive for this war. Is it disarmament? Regime change? Liberation? But now that the war is under way, he is redefining his objectives as an antiwar activist. " My main goal, " he explains, " is to push the administration when it comes to providing humanitarian aid and rebuilding Iraq. I’m scared to death we’ll be in Iraq for a while [and] then just head out, as we’ve done in Afghanistan. That’s a real concern. "

Thursday’s event also attracted almost as many seniors as students, people like John Packard, a slightly frail yet spry 72-year-old lawyer from Lexington. After hearing about the rally on the radio that morning, Packard opted to skip work for the cause. " This is one of those experiences that don’t come along too often, " he says, " and I wanted to be part of it. " Packard, who’s participated in weekly candlelight vigils in his hometown, doesn’t believe that the war will end quickly, with relatively few casualties — as he suspects most Americans expect. " This move has brought consequences already, " he says, referring to what he calls the " dangerous " rift with our allies. " Sooner or later, " he concludes, " this kind of arrogance leads to disaster. We’ll have to deal with the long-term fallout. "

That concern could explain why so many " normal " Bostonians — those who’d never attended an antiwar rally before — turned out on Day X as well. Criticisms of the administration’s bellicosity spoke to people like Eric Mibuari, a 19-year-old student from MIT. A bright-eyed man with a beaming smile, Mibuari felt compelled to join in the march while watching it pass by his school because, he says, " Bush has overstepped his bounds. " He adds, " I don’t want Saddam Hussein to be the Iraqi president. But I feel that Bush thumbed his nose at the United Nations and the world. " A fortysomething Cambridge engineer named Richard shared the sentiment. Surveying the mass of people from his office desk, he says, " tears came to my eyes. I got up and walked out. " Perhaps because of his newfound activism, Richard was full of optimism that protesters could still make a difference. " Today won’t stop the war, " he says. " But if we keep up pressure, maybe we can change decisions in the long run. "

That the media would snub such convictions seems puzzling, all the more so given the movement’s main accomplishment. Indeed, it has inspired Americans to take not only to the streets, but also to their phones and computers, where they’ve flooded their congressional representatives with calls and e-mails about their opposition to this war. Millions have signed up to one of the largest, most middle-of-the-road peace groups, MoveOn.org (www.moveon.org), which is currently organizing a massive e-mail drive to enlist signatures for a citizens’ declaration. In part, the petition reads: " As we grieve for the victims of this war, we pledge to redouble our efforts to put an end to the Bush administration’s doctrine of pre-emptive attack and the reckless use of military power. " Put simply, the antiwar movement has sparked debate on an issue our elected officials hadn’t bothered to consider. By doing so, it’s busted through the silence imposed by Bush’s " with us or against us " post-9/11 rhetoric.

Of course, the antiwar movement’s future depends largely on the war’s outcome. A swift end to the incursion, with relatively little death and destruction, may derail its momentum. An intense, prolonged battle — at which Bush hinted last Sunday when he warned the public of the " tough road ahead " — will only propel the movement forward. But either way, antiwar protesters see a role for themselves in the future — in monitoring the administration’s humanitarian-aid and Iraqi-reconstruction efforts, as well as its commitment to international fence-mending. For them, the question isn’t whether they’ll survive, but how.

In Boston, the upcoming March 29 rally is meant to mark what organizers describe as an " important show " : that the war won’t muzzle those who oppose it. Veteran peace activist Joseph Gerson, of United for Peace with Justice, figures that most Americans have forgotten what they disliked about the administration’s conduct up to this point. As he puts it, " George Orwell’s memory hole is alive and well. " But count on the antiwar movement to remind the rest of us. Adds Gerson, " This movement will not die down. "

Kristen Lombardi can be reached at klombardi[a]phx.com