Power of the press: Danielle Kilgo on how journalists and news organizations cover protests

What stories are emphasized in the news, and why? Danielle Kilgo, a professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, argues that journalists and the news media choose to highlight “spectacle, conflict, disruption” over stories that cover “the substance of movements.” In this April 30, 2021, article, she uses her research about how the press has covered Black Lives Matters demonstrations to challenge journalists to report on protests in a way that more accurately explains and legitimizes the concerns of the protestors.

Danielle Kilgo, "Unraveling the Protest Paradigm,"Columbia Journalism Review, 30 April 2021.

 

1. According to Kilgo, the press can either “legitimize” or “delegitimize” the concerns of demonstrators through the choices journalists make as they cover protests. Explain what she means by this in your own words. What are two common ways the press dismisses the concerns and platforms of protests? These could include the language journalists use and what they choose to emphasize in their coverage.
   
2. Kilgo explains that many initial news stories about protests rely heavily on police reports for information. Why might journalists turn to these reports first? Why might using police reports to frame news stories about protests be an issue? What are other ways journalists could report on protests and gather information about the concerns of demonstrators?
3. Who is Kilgo’s primary audience for her argument? How do you know? What clues do you notice in the text itself and in the publication in which her essay appears? Where in her essay do you see her directly addressing her primary audience or making moves that appeal to this audience?
4. Kilgo includes several links to news coverage of protests, especially recent Black civil rights protests following the deaths of George Floyd, Michael Brown, and Stephon Clark. Read two or three of these stories, and then respond to Kilgo’s central argument about how journalists can promote or dismiss the concerns of demonstrators through how they cover protests. Use a template from Chapter 4 to agree, disagree, or agree and disagree simultaneously with Kilgo’s argument about “the protest paradigm.” In your response, you can use examples from the sources Kilgo includes in her essay or your own experiences reading about or participating in protests.

Comments

[Ardel Jones]

I agree that journalists and the news media choose to highlight “spectacle, conflict, disruption” over stories that cover “the substance of movements because I lived it doing the summer of 2020 and many other times after. I’ve always wondered what did the pass actions of someone have to do with the killing of them by police today. It’s like a parent punishing a child who is know 18 for something they did while they were 10, its just not right. And this idea of protest paradigm does the very same thing, it in the words of Danielle Kilgo it undermines the victimhood of the actual victims. Before we hear anything about what occurred, we hear from police that “they were a bad person” because they had a record, which in most cases time was already served time for. So, when protest start over the unjustified taking of a black life, because the media has already pushed the idea that the victim was some type of thug, the protest are delegitimized before they even start. This action is pushed further doing the protest when the actions of 1% of protesters are conveyed to the world as the actions of all protects. One person throws a bottle and you hear the classic saying “the once peaceful protest, has now turned violent.” I started by saying I agreed with Kilgo because I lived it doing the summer of 2020. After the senseless murder of George Floyd, I took to the streets of Jacksonville and marched for weeks with other pastors across the city. One particular day we were protesting in front of the court house peacefully for hours and even had a rally. For hours Black Lives Matter advocates and others showed no violence nor the threat of violence. Then comes a call from my wife “baby are you ok and safe?” My reply was “yes, I’m fine, why do you ask?” Her response to me changed the complete narrative of the day, “the news is showing people fighting, and are saying you all are violent.” I was there it wasn’t any violence, then later that day I found out the violence happened more than ten blocks from the protest and had nothing to do with us, but the media included us in the story anyway. What media chooses to run, shapes how must people see things, which in of it self is a horrible combination.

[Jimmy Jordon]

word or narrative. There is power in the media, and our founding father knew
it, along with the media itself. The sad thing is the media is using the power
they have for person gain instead of what it is meant for. Danielle Kilgo did a
very good job at how she presented her facts and I agree with them.

[Jimmy Jordon]

revised: I agree that media does exaggerate or underexaggerate, thus changing the
story on protests and many other things. Media today changes so much no
matter what side you are on, to the media it’s all about making money. The
article specifically talks about protests and how protests can have the
narrative changed on them. I think many times protests that are violent may
be changed to look peaceful and for protest that are peaceful can be
changed to look violent. Its all about perspective and the media knows it.
The media can cause panic, happiness, and much more with the change of a
word or narrative. There is power in the media, and our founding father knew
it, along with the media itself. The sad thing is the media is using the power
they have for person gain instead of what it is meant for. Danielle Kilgo did a
very good job at how she presented her facts and I agree with them.

[Joshua C Kotula]

i agree with the authors first sentence, the media does tend to highlight the bad and does tend to under and over exagerrate severity of certain situations, but we must also remember they make money of these stories, Is that why?.

[Joshua Upton]

I believe that press is the most influential piece of media in our society. Every tangible and intangible item as an ulterior motive whether that is to persuade you to buy something or convince you to believe something. This is the problem with press as a whole: it is all for the money. The media seems to push an agenda of stories that the public WANTS to hear. These stories need to "sell" and catch the eye of the viewer and press most often does this by fabricating the information that they disseminate. This makes most of the news we hear about to be falsified in some way and in turn create a flock of gullible geese. But who are we to blame? The press will make it seem that they are trust worthy and use people of power and experience to provide ethos to their point. They make it seems as if they only provide the facts when they seem to be putting more emotion in their news. The solution to this issue is not simple but we know the problem: viewers=money.

[Mr.MakeItHappen*]

I believe that this is an important topic that should be discussed through this perspective more frequently. Danielle Kilgo's asserts that the media often reports on protests in a deceptive and untruthful manner in her article. This is very true because, as Joshua Upton and others carefully describe, the media prioritizes viewership for monetary purposes. Due to this, the media focuses on reporting what their audience wants to hear, rather than accurate and truthful reports of these protests. In the case of the BLM protests, Danielle Kilgo says that the solution to this issue with the press would be to give black advocates, activists, and community members a voice in the coverage of these protest. I agree with this fully because I believe that to avoid this biased reporting, there should be more of an emphasis on reporting all perspectives of a story. It would be a difficult thing to change because media profits of this biased reporting, but people should put more pressure on them in order to reach this solution.

[Victoria Lara]

As highlighted by instances like the ones mentioned in Kingo's article, solely relying on police reports or government-released statements can create some misinformation that can send out misleading messages to the public. Although such sources can certainly give journalists valuable information, I agree with Kingo's assertion that even the police have ulterior motives when releasing statements in order to support their version of the story that can distort the narrative. As Kingo points out, police reports often, "emphasize the behaviors of the victim in the moments before they were killed," in order to set the scene in favor of and justify the police's actions and behaviors. Wherever the information comes from, it is tainted by the identity of whoever is sharing it, which is why rationality and objectivity are critical. As such, this is a great example of why it is journalists' job to go beyond the information that's readily made available by either side and conduct independent investigations and research to provide the public with fresh, unbiased information that is not meant to sway in anyone's favor. This would greatly reduce the observed favoritism, legitimization or delegitimization of ongoing movements and occurrences. When the voices of certain people or organizations are highlighted and presented as fact, someone else's is silenced and buried. Journalists and the media, ought to carve their own path in search of the truth, not follow someone's trail and arrive at their version of it.

[Kenia Neblina]

In response to Joshua C Kotula, Media does indeed make money off of these stories which is why many of the times they have miss information or over and under exaggerate the story. They want to be the first to publish it and be able to benefit from it. At this point we would all think that we shouldn't just read one article and run with it. We also have to do our little investigation to ensure we know the facts and aren't adding to the lies and chaos. If we just accept everything these articles feed us, then how is justice supposed to occur if we're just made to think the cops were in the right and did no wrong. Are we at more fault for instantly believing everything we read or see?

[Mitzy Sandoval]

As Kilgo explains that many initial news stories about protests rely heavily on police reports I believe that is because police reports are one of the most common sources to get information and are used to present the journalism with redacted information but otherwise, it couldn't be too real information, police officers could limit their comments of what really happened. Using police reports to frame news stories about protests could be an issue if you use them with no consent, so it is important to be responsible for the information which you get from those reports and be careful on how you write the data. other ways that journalists could report information could be by doing their own investigation with no help from police reports sources.

[Anna Seballos]

I strongly agree with Danielle Kilgo's claim that news sources and journalist most of the time uses violent and dramatic titles when they are sharing a news about Black Lives Matter movement, the stronger reason why they do this is for monetary purposes. Let's not forget that the main purpose of this type of industries is money, and the way to gain it is through the curiosity or anger of other people.

[Victoria Lara]

Responding to Ardel Jones:
Something very telling about today's media portrayals of individuals and movements is how quickly factual information is discarded for emotional appeal. Like with the protest you attended, when people don't have any other ways to respond to you, they resort to attacking you in any way possible, even if it means completely making things up. This is why it's very important to be careful with the messages and ideas we ourselves share initially, so that others can't use it against us when their logic fails them. It all comes down to being the bigger person and abiding by common decency to retain some measure of credibility in the future. As the old tale goes, no one will believe you when you really need it if you keep crying wolf.

[Noemi M]

As it can be a controversial topic, I think it is necessary to talk about it because the media can provide false information that misleads people. It is important to note that the media often prioritize aspects such as views and payment. They ignore events/information that is important for many people to see and hear. Kilgo affirms that when it comes to media it is often deceptive information. It makes the claim true because the media often focuses on police reports first rather than people's opinions and any other information. Information that is unbiased and truthful for people to see and connect to. Therefore, making the media publish information that is not hidden from anyone else.

[Kenia Neblina]

In agreement with Victoria Lara, when the cops voice is highlighted, the victim is silenced in the way that their story wont matter, wont be taken seriously anymore and will simply be picked apart. If people want to know the truth then they must investigate and get a variety of sources to see what the truth is. We can not just see one side and think thats all because its not. Remember there is always two sides to a story. It is important that everyone does their part, a change needs to be made or else it'll continue to be this never ending circle of being misinformed and taking the wrong side. Would you like to be a victim who wasn't given a chance to giver their side let alone receive justice? NO so do your part. Stand up, find your voice and strive for a change.

[Mitzy Sandoval]

Responding to Kenia Neblina:
I agree with Kenia Neblina, media is not measured by the information it presents, they simply care about the economic benefit they get from being the first to publish it. Answering your questions, we will not be able to know what is wrong and what is right since the country's authority itself does not set a good example, I also agree that most people believe everything that the news articles tell us, and poeple don't stop to think that the source may not be entirely reliable, so I agree that we should be better informed.

[Noemi M.]

Response to Anna Sebeallos:
Media can often use titles that appear to be dramatic to gain more publicity on them and obtain more funds. It is why they do the publications and gain views and money.

[L. Powell]

***The author of this article is Danielle K. Brown, not Danielle Kilgo. This is a major factual error in this blog, and I hope the editors of this website will fix it.

[Aminah Balooch]

For the most part I agree with a majority of the points brought up in the article and have even used some of the arguments myself in the past. One of which is that a decent amount of shaping goes into news and media articles regarding protests depending on their underlying motives. This is harmful as it is a means of spreading distorted and/or biased information. Another significant argument is that the purpose of the protests are often hidden under the shadow of the violent confrontations which take place during them, therefore becoming the focus of the protest entirely. Although it is important to share such details, they should not undermine the cause of the protests which often stem from acts of social injustice. In such cases we should be discussing the root of the problem rather than its consequences to help prevent them from reoccurring.