Category: HOMEPAGE FEATURE

When news of another fatal police shooting broke in the U.S. in late October, the first headline Anita Varma saw didn’t include any mention of the victim’s name. 

“The first news notification I got was about a Footlocker that was looted,” says Varma, an assistant director for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “In that moment I didn’t know about Walter Wallace Jr., what had happened, the mental health crisis or the police shooting him,” says Varma. “It was sobering.”  

Unfortunately, the tendency to foreground the physical destruction that follows some police shootings is common in the news media. Some news outlets have long emphasized incidents of property destruction or vandalism – categorized as “riots” or “lawlessness” – in their coverage of movements or issues affecting Black people. 

Reignited after the killing of George Floyd, nationwide protests by the Black Lives Matter movement brought the call for defunding law enforcement to the frontline of American discourse. While such movements are not new, for many journalists working today, the challenges of covering this moment are. 

From sensationalism to implicit biases, news media have struggled over the past year to understand and report on this movement, exposing the need for journalists and newsrooms to reconsider their role in representing, framing and sharing movement stories. 

WHAT IS NEWSWORTHY?

As journalists, editors and media professionals report on unfolding protests, the decision-making process to determine what details or stories are meaningful and relevant can often be hurried and hasty. This can result in misleading and largely inaccurate coverage that nonetheless holds the power to strongly influence readers’ perceptions of the event. 

“It boils down to how journalists and editors are making decisions about what is newsworthy,” Varma says. “Is it only newsworthy if there’s a fire? Can it be newsworthy that this many people are concerned, and what are they trying to accomplish by coming together?” 

Much of this coverage ignores peaceful congregations and organized viewpoints to instead concentrate on property destruction.

In June, The New York Times published the highly-criticized and controversial opinion piece “Send In The Troops” by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton. In it, Cotton described the Black Lives Matter demonstrations as “an orgy of violence” and argued for military interventions. And while Cotton is far from a journalist, the editors’ decision to publish it matters. 

The New York Times attempted to foster conversation by platforming the opposing side, but when Cotton failed to ground his counterargument to the demands of the demonstrators the op-ed became an exercise in sensationalism. The Times failed to recognize or correct Cotton’s mischaracterization of the movement and in fact gave his ideas a broader audience. 

THE LANGUAGE THAT DELEGITIMIZES PROTEST

Danielle Kilgo, a professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, researches the way news outlets have used words such as “riot” to delegitimize protests of anti-Black racism. Her research shows  that anti-Black racism demonstrations tend to be trivialized in the media by a focus on dramatic moments rather than ideology. 

“Mainly the way these protests become delegitimized is by focusing on the actions and extending the narrative that the protests are extremely disruptive, chaotic, not politically normal,” Kilgo says.

Kilgo found that demonstrations against anti-Black racism often lacked quotes from protestors involved, but highlighted views from officials who were opposed to the protests. The coverage also relied on sensational aspects to frame the story as an event rather than a movement. This lack of context, or meaningful exploration of what motivates protestors, cannot do justice to a growing social conversation. 

Fair coverage of protests means using a framing that focuses on the movement’s demands. Even when reporting on individual demonstrations, journalists should first and foremost center the protest’s message and provide adequate context for their demands. 

THE PROTEST PARADIGM

Characterizing social unrest as a riot fundamentally influences the reader’s perception of the movement and its intention, which tends to lower public support. Media scholar Douglas McLeod has researched a phenomenon he dubbed the “protest paradigm,” a tendency to portray protests as dangerous or without meaningful impact.

“Framing in terms of how you tell the story, a lot of times it is about looting and property damage, burning a police car, going into stores, stealing stuff, and there’s kind of an assumption that the people that were looting those stores were the protesters themselves,” McLeod says. “There’s kind of an implication that they weren’t interested in any social justice, but were interested in getting theirs. This goes without ever stopping to ask questions like, ‘Were the people who are engaged in looting actually part of the protest group?’” 

Newsrooms commonly categorize all protestors and all property damage as part of the movement, without verifiable proof. McLeod, who has studied protest coverage and this paradigm for more than 30 years has seen the persistence of this misperception. 

“One of the things that the media does is they kind of define things, define situations, define what happened and what went down. So what was the protest about? Looting? Anger? Civil disobedience? We tend to ignore the less dynamic things like children walking hand-in-hand, calling for peace and understanding that doesn’t make good TV news,” McLeod says. 

When movements and protests seek out media coverage, the temptation is to shift their actions to fit the criteria set by the outlets for what is considered newsworthy. This often results in more violent demonstrations to gain the necessary news coverage. Journalists and editors thus not only have the power to shift public perception of a movement but to influence the movement’s actions.

THE FUTURE

While “objectivity” has been a journalistic cornerstone for a long time, its value to newsrooms is increasingly in question. Media outlets are beginning to grapple with their role in maintaining the status quo and the harm that has been done to the most vulnerable communities. A hard look at the way protest narratives are framed is a crucial place for this reevaluation.

“Starting stories with the perspective of the people who are showing up can be a major intervention,” says Varma, whose research focuses on journalistic solidarity with the public. “Once journalists and news outlets have that defined, they are much less likely to lose sight of that issue.” 

The perspective of the individuals involved is critical to capturing the full scope of an individual demonstration. It can radically change the reader’s perception of the demonstration and help break down the movement’s intentions. 

A sensationalized focus on destruction without the perspective of protesters largely ignores any insight into the movement. Instead, journalists must recognize the power they have in representing movements and use that power to accurately report the movement’s purpose.

“If we can get journalists, editors and newsrooms to shift to this fundamental, non-politicized ideal that human rights should be privileged and to look at our journalistic ethics that show this is what we are supposed to do in the first place, then that will plant the seed for a better future,” Kilgo says.

See also, “Five problems with your protest coverage: what reporters and news consumers need to know about protest narratives.”

The Center for Journalism Ethics encourages the highest standards in journalism ethics worldwide. We foster vigorous debate about ethical practices in journalism and provide a resource for producers, consumers and students of journalism. Sign up for our quarterly newsletter here. 

A Q&A w/ Texas Observer editor-in-chief Tristan Ahtone and reporter Pauly Denetclaw

When Texas Observer editor-in-chief Tristan Ahtone announced in October that the 66-year-old Austin-based news nonprofit and magazine would create an Indigenous affairs desk, he pointed to the state’s six state and federally recognized tribes, as well as dozens of tribes that the state has displaced and yet more that the state has decimated or disbanded. 

“For whatever reason, news organizations in Texas don’t report on Indigenous communities. The Texas Observer intends to be different,” Ahtone wrote. 

The announcement came just three months after Ahtone stepped into the Observer’s top role, and he’d been planning for it before accepting the job. A member of the Kiowa tribe, he’d helped High Country News create its Indigenous affairs desk and later became its first editor. He wasn’t interested in working for an outlet that wasn’t willing to create such a desk. 

The Observer has received a year of funding for this reporting from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, but Ahtone aims to continue the effort after the initial funding runs out. 

Leading the reporting is Pauly Denetclaw, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, who spent three years reporting for the Navajo Times. Since joining the Observer in September, Denetclaw has reported on families’ calls for investigations following the deaths of two Navajo soldiers at the Fort Hood Army base  and the unprecedented steps tribes in Texas have taken to control the coronavirus. Her latest story reveals that, as U.S. companies race to build the 650,000 new cell towers needed to make 5G cellular networks a reality, Texas tribes have been inundated with building requests, often without enough time to research whether the project would damage a cemetery or a place of religious or historical significance. 

“The great thing about reporting in Indian Country is you can just throw a microphone in a room and walk away with a story,” Ahtone said. “I think one of the greatest advantages here, which feels really weird to be an advantage, is apparently we’re the only ones in the room listening. It’s just completely untapped.”

Ahtone and Denetclaw sat down (virtually) with Center for Journalism Ethics contributor Natalie Yahr to discuss why this beat matters, how news media can begin to undo years of harm to Native communities and why writing with Native readers in mind can make for better stories.

These desks are not yet a common thing. What’s the case for why an outlet should consider making this a priority?

AHTONE: You’re right that they’re not exactly common at least in terms of mainstream or legacy outlets, but I think, to date, we’re looking at more than 30 Indigenous affairs desks around the country. There are quite a number. The catch, obviously, is that these aren’t being adopted by large newsrooms like the Washington Post or the LA Times or The New York Times, and especially not television outlets either. I guess I would just say that you’re not serving your audience if you don’t have somebody who covers Indigenous communities. And I guess I would argue that if your newsroom is sort of taking the active stance of not diversifying and ignoring Indigenous voices or expertise in covering Indigenous communities, it’s hard to hide the sort of colonial nature of your news outlet.

DENETCLAW: If you don’t have a designated person to report on Indigenous communities, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe around specific dates like Thanksgiving and Native American Heritage Month, as well as Indigenous Peoples Day, but Indigenous communities should be covered year-round. And I think that is a disservice to the entire community that you are reporting for because Indigenous people live all over the United States in urban areas. 

Absolutely. I worked on a story about a year ago about Native American law students here in Wisconsin, and the students I spoke to talked about how, at some point in their schooling, other students told them that they didn’t think Native Americans were still around. What kind of responsibility do you think news media have for that misconception? 

DENETCLAW: That narrative is very common. The media is responsible for this narrative that Indigenous people don’t exist, so it is the responsibility of media to tell Indigenous stories and correct the misconception that was created through media. 

AHTONE: I would just add to that, in terms of looking at the history of a lot of journalism outlets, 100 years ago, even 50 years ago, we’re looking at outlets that are calling either for the active removal or outright killing or assimilation of Native people. So there is a deep-rooted history, and I think one of the things that we see when it comes to the sort of reckoning that’s going on in journalism right now is that there is one area that journalists refuse to touch, and that is any sort of reconciliation for treatment of Indigenous people.

For those reporters and editors who are working at outlets that don’t yet have an Indigenous Affairs desk, do you have suggestions for how to try to be watching for the stories that matter?

AHTONE: I think it’s just really being aware of what communities are in your state or your coverage area. At NAJA (the Native American Journalists Association), we put together a worksheet to help reporters start looking at different Indigenous nations that they may be reporting on. It’s just got such basic stuff like, How is their government set up? Who’s their primary leader? What is their economy? I think these are all things that editors and reporters just tend to not think about. One of the big examples that I come back to a lot is that there were dozens and dozens reporters out at Standing Rock (for the Dakota Pipeline protests), but we’d talk to folks after Standing Rock who wouldn’t be able to tell you what their economy was or where money came from or couldn’t tell you who famous tribal members were. You sort of got the impression very quickly that there was absolutely no research put into anything else about the tribe other than Standing Rock itself. What we advocate for is that you have to treat coverage of Indigenous communities a lot like foreign correspondence. It’s not an exact sort of one-to-one, but you have to treat Indian Country like an archipelago of different small islands and chains that are connected to each other, but also very, very different from each other.

DENETCLAW: I think that it’s also just really important for folks to understand that Native nations and being Native American is a political classification, not a racial classification. And I think that when that distinction doesn’t get made, then issues around the Indian Child Welfare Act get misreported. And so I think it’s very important to also have a very small understanding of federal Indian law in order to tell these stories accurately.

And how about for outlets whose coverage area might not include a tribal government — how should they be thinking about covering Native Americans in their area? 

AHTONE: I would say that it just requires reporters to think differently about Indians. If the idea is that you can only be tied to covering Indian Country if you’re near a reservation but can’t see Indigenous people outside of that setting, then I would argue that that’s something that’s wrong with the editors and reporters. 

DENETCLAW: Also, Native folks who live in urban areas do have different issues that they have to overcome versus folks who live in their Native communities or those who live in rural areas. Many places have Indian centers that work on these issues, and that is also a great place to reach out to.

Pauly, this is your first staff job at a non-Native news outlet. What’s different about reporting on Indigenous communities and Indigenous issues for a mainstream audience versus at a Native outlet?

DENETCLAW: Just explaining a little bit more. (When I worked) at the Navajo Times, our tribe’s newspaper, most of our audience were folks from my tribe, so there was a basic level of understanding. And now that I’m writing for a more diverse audience, there’s history that is also worth reporting on, and it’s very interesting.

AHTONE: I would add that, unless you’re reporting directly for your own tribe, the same rules apply for other Native readers. I think one of the big differences is, as reporters, we have a higher standard of work ethic that we have to reach, mainly because we run into people again. You know, Indian Country is technically a small place. It is very rare that I don’t see a source again. That is something that I think non-Native reporters don’t have to worry about. When they get it wrong, they don’t have to come back and deal with the consequences as members of the community. 

When you report on Native communities, how do you think about who your audience is and who you’re reporting for?

AHTONE: I always think about our audience as other Native readers. One, it just really helps to sort of think about who you’re serving, regardless of what kind of story it is. But, two, I think it also really helps cut through a lot of stories that are already well-known to the community. And one example I can give you, in terms of where this decision might become really clear: When I was still at High Country News, there were so many stories (on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls) that were coming out. I would argue that most Indigenous people are very familiar with the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and have been for decades. So the story isn’t new, but there were just hundreds of stories suddenly coming out about it. Just doing a story that this thing is happening did not serve Indigenous readers, so we basically didn’t touch it until we had a really good, strong angle from one reporter we worked with that looked at how the system allowed (this phenomenon) to happen more regularly in Indigenous communities that we could essentially point to specific laws and specific agencies as being almost facilitators and collaborators in the process of allowing (it) to happen. So, this gave us an opportunity to lean in and say, “OK, we’re gonna report on this to this too, and here is who is accountable for it, or here is a really good starting point on who’s accountable for it.” 

DENETCLAW: Yeah, I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot recently because I am a new reporter to working at a non-Native news outlet. And so it was really important for me to really understand that I am reporting for Native people in Texas. That is my audience. 

Is there anything else you want to add?

AHTONE: We’re looking forward to continuing to do this work. I feel like Pauly is sort of in the unenviable position of not only having to develop the beat completely, but having to be an ambassador for an industry that has been historically pretty horrible to the communities here in Texas. So it’s not only building trust but also convincing folks that journalists aren’t jerks. I think that’s an ongoing process.

DENETCLAW: And this is not an uncommon issue. The way that news outlets have historically treated Indigenous people is awful. Building that relationship back is why I love journalism and why I choose to continue to do the work that I do. And so I’m super excited for the coming months when I’m able to hopefully meet people in person and (say), “We are trying to do something different.” Healing those relationships is important. And I’m trying. I will continue to try. I will try for years, and I’m happy to do that work because I think journalism is so powerful and there is something so healing about having your community’s stories written about in a way that is truthful, authentic, and well-written and well-reported.

The Center for Journalism Ethics encourages the highest standards in journalism ethics worldwide. We foster vigorous debate about ethical practices in journalism and provide a resource for producers, consumers and students of journalism. Sign up for our quarterly newsletter here.