The Suppression of Direct Action
How the media promotes the delegitimization of radical protest through the protest paradigm
On Friday, January 31st, 2020 (J31), thousands gathered at Grand Central Station in New York City to demonstrate against increased transportation fares and the increase of police presence in the MTA.
For the days following the demonstrations, much of the coverage published by the media continues to uphold traditions of the protest paradigm.
A piece released by The Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute states that “journalists who abide by the protest paradigm often emphasize protesters’ tactics in their articles. Clashes with police, violence or unruly actions taken by protest participants are particularly popular because these articles make for dramatic, easy-to-read stories.”
At the onset of yet another highly controversial national election year, these protests are only the beginning. Many more are to come from all sides of the political spectrum. It is important that protest coverage is not only informing, but also educating, mobilizing, and empowering the public.
Media that filters events through the protest paradigm aids in the suppression of direct action.
When the media immediately demonizes these demonstrations without accurately shedding light on the political stance behind these actions, it creates a divide between the public and the organizers who are fighting on their behalf.
This negative portrayal can discourage any acts of nonviolent radical demonstration because the media deems it unacceptable.
Any right that a person living in the United States enjoys today was earned through the tactics of radical nonviolence and direct action. By harshly, and perhaps unfairly criticizing these tactics, the progress towards justice and equality for everyone is at risk. Media outlets that abide by this paradigm create content that can influence the public to be wary of social movements and activism. By bombarding the public with images and messages that lack context, the media plays a role in creating a narrative that says these demonstrations are meaningless, harmful, and irrational.
A 2007 study conducted on news coverage and social protest from Douglas M. Mcleod at the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, lists the characteristics of the protest paradigm as news frames, reliance on official sources, the invocation of public opinion, delegitimization, and demonization.
The New York Post’s coverage on the J31 demonstrations included lines like, “Cop-hating radicals wreaked havoc,” and “ — vandalizing turnstiles, station walls, and buses to protest a police crackdown on turnstile jumping.” They referred to the demonstrators as “the agitators”.
These lines fall under the protest paradigm characteristic of news frames which highlights acts of violence and disobedience and uses it as the main focal point of the story.
CBS-WLNY’s coverage included a few comments from protestors but mainly highlighted responses from law enforcement. Bystanders were incorporated in the piece with comments like, “We need more cops on the trains. Fewer muggings, fewer rapes,” and “The police are here to help us. You can’t have criminals roaming around with weapons, so we actually need people like the police to prevent worse things from happening.”
Coverage that centers around reactions from public officials and calling on bystanders to speak, falls under the paradigm’s characteristic of reliance on official sources and the invocation of public opinion. Heavily relying on public officials as the dominant source of information minimizes the viewpoint of the protestors that are challenging that power.
DecolonizeThisPlace (DTP) was the organization behind the FTP(F**K The Police) J31demonstrations. Some media outlets did showcase DTP’s explanation for these demonstrations.
ItsGoingDown.Org, “a digital community center for anarchist, anti-fascist, autonomous anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements” released a piece in which DTP was able to fully articulate and explain their politics and reason behind the J31 demonstrations.
When asked about the reason behind these demonstrations, DTP said,
“People are taking action for various reasons, but the most immediate spark and subsequent fuel for the outrage on the streets has been the ongoing brutalization and harassment of black and brown people on the trains … [The] combination of criminalizing the poor and gentrifying the trains brings into relief the fact that the MTA is not, in any meaningful way, a public agency accountable to be the people whose use it out of their day-to-day need for mobility.”
When we give genuine space for activists and organizers to speak freely on the issues they are fighting for, it adds a much-needed human face to the movement and leaves room for empathic understanding.
Bystanders who would otherwise not have a clue as to why people are destroying MTA stations could have an in-depth understanding of why people are upset. Empathy can lead to positive mobilization.
When showcasing an issue in a way that allows the audience to have a personal connection to it, people can understand the logic behind what may seem like the random behaviors and actions of others.
In order to help our citizens be more engaged with social issues and make an impactful change, we as journalists need to bridge the gap between demonstrators and those that are watching the demonstrations online or television.
Think of the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s; many demonstrations were criticized and diminished on the national news every evening.
Gallup reviewed surveys they conducted in the 60s during the civil rights era.
During the summer of 1961, Gallup asked Americans, “whether tactics such as ‘sit-ins’ and demonstrations by the Civil Rights movement had helped or hurt the chances of racial integration in the South”? At the time, 57% of Americans believed it hurt the chances of racial integration. Yet as we reflect during this Black History Month, we recognize how necessary those direct action demonstrations were. If people never took to the streets back then, we would not be where we are right now.
Just last week, news dropped that a district 47 councilman, Mark Treyger, is proposing to make the MTA free all year long for New Yorkers. The fact that this is being proposed just days after the demonstrations mean that these protests did amount to something.
More independent journalists must cover these protests in a way that mobilizes individuals. Now more than ever we need to have an in-depth understanding at the center of any demonstration that is to come.
When the public can have an understanding of these major demonstrations, it can create a bridge to solidarity and support by empowering citizens with the information that can motivate them to fight for a better world.
That is the kind of impact responsible journalism in the media can have in these extremely polarizing times.
