Read on Twitter
1. Police don't attack peaceful protesters
2. Police have been attacking protesters
3. Therefore, protests haven't been peaceful
In the past month many fewer Americans have agreed with this syllogism, but I'd bet it's still a majority view because of how we consume media. THREAD
2. Police have been attacking protesters
3. Therefore, protests haven't been peaceful
In the past month many fewer Americans have agreed with this syllogism, but I'd bet it's still a majority view because of how we consume media. THREAD
It seems impossible to watch the videos all over Richmond Twitter and across the country and think the police haven't resorted to needless, unprovoked violence. But if you're reading this you're probably Extremely Online. What do average people see?
Remember Monday night when people were camped out at City Hall, watching movies on a projector with kids in tents and police started launching tear gas? This is what print readers saw on the front page.
Look at the headline and sub-headline of the top story. If you didn't see any video, would you think this was a movie night with kids, or a violent, or about to be violent, protest?
The story is highly skeptical of the police account, questioning the use of force by police and whether the police-claimed violence by protesters actually happened. It notes physicians told the RPD that tear gas was exacerbating the pandemic. And more. https://www.richmond.com/news/local/a-dozen-arrested-early-tuesday-at-richmond-city-hall-protest/article_3e864a9c-6f94-5ad8-ac96-2ebc046bc33c.html
But the headlines of this story and the first two sentences, often written by editors, paint a very different picture from the rest of the article. If you just glanced at this article, what narrative would you take away from this? https://www.richmond.com/news/local/a-dozen-arrested-early-tuesday-at-richmond-city-hall-protest/article_3e864a9c-6f94-5ad8-ac96-2ebc046bc33c.html
And look how the adjacent story on the front page is framed. "Vandalism and looting", next to a photo of graffiti. Your eye is drawn to that. If you just glanced at it, rather than read to the end of graf 3, you might think looting is still common, rather than mostly 3 weeks old.
I got some pushback when I criticized the article earlier, and that's fair. One can argue over the newsworthiness of the story, but is it a page 1 story? Eviction, pandemic, election...businesses recovering from 3-week old "vandalism and looting"? https://twitter.com/RTDBrainTrust/status/1275572717153144844
It's not just what you write, but how you write it, what information you put at the top of a story, which stories go where in the paper, what you cover. If you believed the syllogism above, what would you take away from this front page? Editors have a duty to think about this.
This framing problem is on TV too. Tear gas and rubber bullets bleed, so it leads. It's hard to capture the half hour a peaceful protest gets trampled on in 90 seconds of video. If you believe the syllogism, glance at print and watch local TV, what would you think?
There's a lesson for media in here, but also for protesters. You get to shape, partially, your coverage. Companies, government, the police have PR for a reason. There are a few cops authorized to speak on behalf of RPD: Reporters will always go to them. Who speaks for protesters?
Naming "leaders" to an organic movement feels wrong. People have different demands. But if there are no spokespeople, reporters will interview random people and ask random people on Twitter for permission to use their video. A message will be aired: Is it the one you want?
This doesn't absolve media from carefully telling the story, but if you want to win the messaging war you need dedicated people who can talk to the media and who they'll trust. Here's a good example of a clear messenger, tying it all together. https://twitter.com/SheriShannon27/status/1276727659138080769
Many people have come around to the problems with policing in the country. They have been convinced, to various degrees. But if we want to fully destroy the syllogism, we need to persuade people who somehow haven't been convinced. Get that message to them.
Giving a coherent message to journalists who have you on speed dial isn't manipulation: It is telling your story. It's being focused. Journalists have awoken to a lot of the BS from police: Many are ready to report your side fairly. But you have to give it. /end
