Covering protests to the best of journalists' ability

Malaya Tindongan mt839718@ohio.edu 

Protesting is no new idea. It is in the constitution of the United States, as is freedom of the press. Protesting is a right as well as a function of democracy. In recent years protesting has gained more traction in fighting for human rights like the Black Lives Matter protests or the Women's March. Although journalists' job is to cover such protests, there have been some trends in covering that are unfavorable and harmful to protestors.

Photo courtesy of CBS News In an article by NiemanLab, brings up the traditional trends of covering protests by journalists and why it needs to change and how. In the past, media has been seen as reinforcing the ideas of the government and being biased toward the status quo. The media has also generally treated protests as nuisances and tended to see liberal causes more often than conservative ones. The language journalists use when writing about protests is crucial and often controversial. Generally, journalists use passive language with police and active with protestors. For example, saying "police-involved shooting" rather than "shooting by a police officer." The article says that Slate was the first publication to break the mold by titling a story as it happened, "Police erupt in violence nationwide." Other publications followed and began to write headlines to be more faithful to the actions. That raises more issues with wording choice, such as using phrases such as "unarmed Black man" that assume that Black men usually are armed. Newsrooms must also alter their processes in which protests they are covering and how they are covering them. NiemanLab brought up covering all protests and not just the most violent prominent ones. Covering only violent protests places the idea that all people protesting the same issue are doing so violently.

Additionally, covering the protests' goals is an essential part of covering the protest. However, although words are more than necessary, photos are essential in telling the story of what occurred during the protests. An article by PhotoShelter brings up the issue of whether one should blur the faces of protestors. The topic came up from another article claiming that there is a growing movement to start blurring or not including the faces of protestors. Following the article, a communications app added a feature to blur subjects' faces in photos. The issue was that no one quoted in the article said anything about blurring faces. Including people's faces in images from protests shows audiences and gives faces to the movement. It gives faces to the movement, but it also humanizes the protestors and the movement; they are real living people fighting for their rights. However, there are some things to consider when including a face in a photo. The final day falls on editors to determine if showing someone's face would be the best course of action. Although, journalists themselves must make their own ethical decisions based on context and location. Photos hold much potential, and once they are out there, they are out, and journalists must deal with the consequences, good or bad. For example, something can be legal but not ethical, like photographing homeless people or children without speaking to the individuals..