Are reporters doing a good job covering protests?

Four questions to ask of your media diet

Much of the nation’s attention has been focused on the protests in Los Angeles and with the nationwide “No Kings” protests planned for this Saturday, we can expect much more media coverage of protests around the country.

Depending on which media you watch, read, or scroll, you might have an accurate understanding or a wildly inaccurate perception of what is actually happening on the ground. And in an era where the risk of democratic backsliding and authoritarian encroachment is acute, that is a huge problem.

Authoritarians harness fear and falsehoods as justification to, say, deploy federal troops to quash constitutionally protected rights to assemble and peacefully dissent; and, generally, to consolidate power.

First, some context: The United States is seeing a significant uptick in protest activity this year. Between January and May, there were 7,656 protest events in the U.S. — a 40% increase over the same period last year, according to data from ACLED. Peaceful protest is one of the essential cornerstones of democracy. So while that increase is substantial, it suggests that many Americans are looking for ways to be engaged and make their voices heard.

Read more: Peaceful protest is a bulwark for democracy.

And while the vast majority of this activity has been entirely peaceful, reporters covering protests face unique challenges and risks, particularly where violence or unrest is part of the story.

The Washington Post reported on journalists coming under fire of “less-lethal rounds” while covering the L.A. protests. The Post cited reports by the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders indicating that somewhere between 20 to more than 27 journalists were “injured by police projectiles.”

A situation like the one we’ve seen in Los Angeles — days of contentious but largely peaceful protests, punctuated by violent acts by a limited number of actors — is particularly fraught for journalists on the scene and can be challenging to report accurately. Even well-meaning, professional coverage can inadvertently stoke fear, exacerbate tensions, or be used to manufacture justifications for authoritarian crackdowns.

“Tensions erupt” as “protesters clash with police” might be headlines that get attention, but they can also skew how we understand the full picture. Even worse, sensational coverage can fuel the authoritarian false narrative that heavy-handed measures — and ignoring legal constraints — are necessary to quell the “chaos.”

As we are exposed to wildly varying types of reporting on such events, across myriad platforms, this is a moment to re-evaluate our own media diets and consider how we can spot responsible reporting about public demonstrations, particularly scenarios involving violence.

What does responsible reporting look like?

Last year Protect Democracy and Over Zero, an organization working to counteract and prevent identity-based violence and other forms of group-based harm, published a series of media guides for how newsrooms can responsibly cover political violence in a number of contexts. Covering violence at a protest or demonstration was one of the first guides we published, precisely because the challenges were so serious.

The series was written for newsrooms, but provides excellent guidance to help all of us evaluate whether we’re getting information we can trust, or whether it might be time to adjust our media diet.

Here are four things to look for:

1. Is the reporting sensationalist and vague, or is it precise?

“Protesters clash with law enforcement” could be a description of a situation in which three people threw rocks at police officers, one in which thousands of individuals breached police lines, or one in which police fired “less-lethal rounds” and “projectiles” at a crowd. That kind of ambiguity is not only ineffective, it is also irresponsible. Responsible reporting avoids hyperbole and inflammatory language that evokes emotional responses but does not provide clear information.

Wherever possible, it uses numbers instead of vague descriptors to give a sense of scale. It is also specific in attributing violence to individuals, not lumping them in with a larger group such as “protestors.”

2. Does the story give you on-the-ground context?

Responsible reporting provides the context to understand what is happening on the ground. First and foremost, what was the protest about? How many people participated? How long had protests been going on before the violent event occurred? Were there counter-protesters or others who instigated a confrontation? Which law enforcement agencies were involved in the response?

These types of details are vital for readers to understand the magnitude of events on the ground and how to evaluate the political debates that follow.

3. Does the reporting connect the dots to the big picture? Does it explain the “why?” of it all?

Knowing what’s happening on the day of a protest is a start, but not an end to understanding what is happening and why it matters. We all need more context. What’s the history of the groups involved and the underlying issue in this community? How does this connect to the interests of powerful groups or political debates? Responsible reporting doesn’t just repeat talking points from those with an interest in the framing of events. It helps readers understand what’s at stake.

4. Are you getting all the pieces of the story?

Finally, responsible coverage needs to tell the fullest story possible, and that includes responses to the protest and any violence that occurred. The immediate response from law enforcement is a start, but how have local political and community leaders responded? Who is condemning violence and reinforcing norms of peaceful protest? Is the coverage offering the perspectives of the communities most directly impacted by the events?

---

This week’s coverage as a benchmark

Some media coverage of events in Los Angeles is doing all these things and more. Stories like this timeline from the Guardian provide a contextualized, clear picture of what is — and what is not — happening on the ground. Many news outlets have highlighted the larger political context — the why — immigration raids that prompted the protests and the federalization of the national guard and deployment of Marines that seem to have prompted more people to protest in L.A. and elsewhere. Some reporters have also effectively covered just how extreme, dangerous, and historically unusual the White House’s decision to rapidly militarize the situation has been.

Read more: Sowing confusion in LA with the military

Some coverage has fallen short of best practices, relying on sensationalist language or imagery and imprecise details. Headlines, images, and the social media content used to promote stories are an area where newsrooms need to pay particular attention. (Just think about how many times you’ve seen words like “erupt,” “chaos,” or “clash” in headlines and on-screen chyrons in the last four days.)

The unfolding story of the protests in Los Angeles is a reminder that media coverage that falls short of responsible reporting can sow fear or exacerbate tensions in ways that may be disconnected from facts on the ground. Such anxiety feeds directly into authoritarian narratives claiming the need for a “strongman” to provide order again.