If You Were Wondering Why Protest Coverage Seems Fairly Muted, NPR's Public Editor Confirms This is Intentional
If You Were Wondering Why Protest Coverage Seems Fairly Muted, NPR's Public Editor Confirms This is Intentional
https://www.threads.net/@nprpubliceditor/post/DIhOEQQOyqP
EDIT: Also worth noting that the next nationwide protest date for 50501 is May 1st
You're viewing a single thread.
In a way, it's good that the protests aren't getting a whole lot of coverage. That means that they are peaceful enough that they're boring. That's what we want: PEACEFUL disruption.
Pretty sure the protests will start getting more attention when the administration starts firing tear gas and rubber bullets into the crowds when their bad-actor plants start causing issues.
I disagree. They should have more coverage because they are peaceful and people will feel safe enough to come join. What they can show:
- The dates for the future and how many have happened in the past
- Talk about what the signs are saying and get responses from the Republicans. You know, like when Bide was "too old."
- Give the general mood.
- Send reporters to ask why people are there.
This is journalism 101 and she is super, duper wrong.
-
Past and future protests can be covered in press releases. Not worth sending a reporter for.
-
The cameras show the signs. That’s the point of the signs. Opposing politicians don’t want to comment.
-
General mood can be covered in seconds by images.
-
Why people are there again is covered by the signs and the aim of the protest. Unless people got lost on their way to the anti-hedgehog protest in the next street.
- Press releases aren't very good if the press doesn't cover them
- They show some signs. And a handful of signs don't convey just how many people are all shouting in unison. Cherry picking the witty quotes is like a BuzzFeed list.
- Nope. Hard no. A picture speaks a thousand words, but those words are up to interpretation by the viewer. It can mean different things to different people. Photos don't convey the chants, the yelling, the questions, and the raw emotion of a crowd.
- Cherry picking a few signs missing the whole point of the protest in that MILLIONS are demanding answers and change. The reason of the protest isnt what's written on the signs. It's that we are large swaths of people organizing and demanding change or answers. That they need to answer to the citizens at large. And not just the quips on a sign.
And that's not even representative of how many different fucking signs there are and if media pick up those that are more niche and don't align with the protests at large.
If only those assholes covered trump the same way and not report every little fart he or his administration expresses. There is a reason that fox talks about the d's being evil and trump is a monarch over and over, it's because it usually takes 7x for someone to hear what is being said. But you know that, don't you.
Everything the President says is consequential, because he is the head of the largest(ish) military in the world, America hasnt been shy of economic and military imperialism over the past 25 years, and the Americans have decided to give their political head extreme power. To ignore him would be to ignore the gorilla in the room just because that gorilla is deranged. Excuse me, the gorilla in the room is deranged, that is NOT a gorilla anyone should be ignoring. The media are doing their job by reporting the White House. The Americans fucked up their one useful job by allowing him to be the most powerful man in the world. Again.
-
Okay but I'm sure you can answer many of those questions without the article right? So why send journalists constantly to rehash something people aren't going to end up reading?
Maybe the compromise is a monthly roundup of protests on general, so there's no attention fatigue?
Who says people wouldn't read it? If they interviewed people on the ground, I would absolutely read that. Also, if they had the dates listed and people counts of last ones, I would read that too to see how it's comparing and if it's getting more tailwind. People are always saying they haven't heard about the protests until they finally do. I'm sure there are tons that haven't heard about them because NPR isn't even covering them.
Why would you stick up for less coverage? That makes no sense in this community.
The issue is they aren't disruption.
They are peaceful, which is good. But they are not disruptive.
They aren't disruptive yet. I assume the plan is to start without disruption as a way to amass numbers, gain support, and show how widespread the opposition is. As time goes on, the protests will move away from the weekends, which will automatically make them more disruptive.
I think when the actual disruption starts is when the likelihood of push back, and them no longer being peaceful, increases. And, as you said above, peaceful is good.
Yes, keep it peaceful
Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world