Media Coverage of the Black Lives Matter Shootings

[illram]

So last night, a group of terrorists (but we are not sure if they are supremacists! ) shot at protestors (predominantly black protestors) who were protesting outside of a Minneapolis Police Station over an earlier controversial fatal shooting of an unarmed black teen by the Minneapolis Police.

This thread is not about the Police shooting, it is about the media coverage of the protesters getting shot. Let's have a look at a handful of national media outlets and their coverage, or non-coverage, of the event on their website.

The shooting happened Monday night, so I checked a handful of major US media outlets Tuesday morning for coverage of this act of domestic terrorism.

The NY Times? Not on the front page unless you scroll down.



Here it is... down the page on the left column.



LA times? Nada.



WSJ?



Nope. Again, have to scroll down. Not even important enough for a subheadline!



For fun, I checked Fox News, predictably not covering this at all.



USA Today? One step above Gwen Stefani, apparently.



Also just for fun, let's check MSNBC...



(To its credit, WaPost was the only national paper that had this front and center.) Am I surprised at this lack of coverage? No. This type of "oh by the way" coverage was entirely and sadly predictable. There was a big story this morning out of Turkey, so I don't fault the media for going with WW3 as the lede. But this wasn't even second, or third, or fourth, or... anything really. This is, in my opinion, a disgrace. An expected one, but still a disgrace.

What does CFC think? Extra credit: would media coverage of white protesters getting shot--by anyone--be covered differently?

 

[Bootstoots]

No deaths, no geopolitical importance, so the media ignored it. I suspect this would have been covered in much greater detail if this had to do with some protest movement with greater white involvement. Despite the low amount of attention initially, I suspect that this could receive much more attention if it becomes popular and can be spun as some sort of attention-getting controversy. The amount of coverage that incidents like this get seems to be all-or-nothing, and at the moment it is on the side of nothing. It could flip to all, though, depending on what the media think will get them the best ratings. The response will be governed by the market demands, structural racism and all.

 

[Kennigit]

How far scrolling down is "scrolling down?"

Media consumption has changed. It looks like NYT may be too much a mix of "a newspaper" feel with some commercial fluff (coke), i don't know if LA times spreads it's fingers to the "lesser" stories (eg question: if there was a gang arrest in LA after 2 shooting deaths from an LA shooting, would the LA times cover that almost exlusively?", and WSJ seems to have it presentable.

The other outlets are worse in that they throw out at least 1 sheer click bait story ahead (fox: nonsequitir advertising for bill oreilly; others dumb click bait)

What about something like al jazeera america which has it a few stories down, but don't really have too much of a "front page" but more a mix of topics-at-interest (im on mobile so layout may look different)

 

[Goodfella]

Your post seems to come about two hours early because both the New York Times and Fox News currently have stories on the Laquan McDonald and black lives matter shootings at the top of their homepages. However, I agree that there's something inconsistent about their coverage. They seem to only provide it if they can create a sense of racial chaos. They feature their stories with images of police clashing with black protesters which may give white readers the opportunity to blame these controversies on rowdy young black people creating disorder. In fact, the current thumbnail image on Fox for the McDonald story shows a black person raising his fist at a scared and cowering white police officer. Moreover, the shooting of Laquan McDonald is being given significantly more attention than the black lives matter shooting. I think this is because 1) someone actually died which causes news sites to immediately interpret it as more important 2) there's a video of the shooting which audiences hungry for violence are more likely to click 3) there's more room for racist justification for the shooting of McDonald than there is for the shooting of the blm protesters (i.e., 'who cares if police shoot a drugged up teenager carrying a three inch knife after being repeatedly told to put it down?'). It appears that the only reason the blm shooting is at the top of either homepage is because of its connection with the McDonald story.

 

[Kyriakos]

Given the article says that the injuries are "not life-threatening", and given the mayhem going on currently, why exactly do you find it surprising it is not the leading story or anything near that? I agree with Boots about the 'all or nothing' nature of this kind of news in the US.

Obviously it would be hugely more prominent if there was either one death or life-threatening injury.

 

[Goodfella]

Given the article says that the injuries are "not life-threatening", and given the mayhem going on currently, why exactly do you find it surprising it is not the leading story or anything near that? I agree with Boots about the 'all or nothing' nature of this kind of news in the US.

Obviously it would be hugely more prominent if there was either one death or life-threatening injury.

I don't think the failure of the white supremacists to inflict lethal or life-threatening injuries makes the story significantly less important. They still attempted to kill 5 or more people.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think the failure of the white supremacists to inflict lethal or life-threatening injuries makes the story significantly less important. They still attempted to kill 5 or more people.

Of course. In normal times it would likely be the leading story in the US. But we are (almost?) in the build-up to a world war currently..

 

[useless]

Im sure those who were randomly shot were all statistically no angels

 

[Ryika]

I'll just leave this here because it has some of the interesting video footage in one condensed video.


Link to video.

No need to watch the whole thing, the important Parts:

2:36 - Eye witness explains how the 3 "White Supremacists" were filming them from afar, were "rushed at" and harassed by the protesters, who then punched(!) the "White Supremacists" who then ran away, were chased(!) and that's where guns come into play

5:36 - Another Eye witness explains how they were chasing them down the streets before shots were even fired

6:44 - Footage that seems to show the thing in action, with a BLM-protester telling another one to stop filming

Sources are linked in the description of the video, but you'll have to dig though some longer streams.

 

[useless]

Nice racist video title.

In b4 im told "oh it's not racist", "Dindu Nuffin" is a meme from /pol, a far-right racist board on a certain website.

 

[Ryika]

Nice racist video title.

In b4 im told "oh it's not racist", "Dindu Nuffin" is a meme from /pol, a far-right racist board on a certain website.

The title may very well be racist or using a racist stereotype, how does this change anything about the footage that is available within the video?

 

[useless]

The white supremecists went there with the sole intention of provoking people, which they got and then used that as an excuse to attack people, they got what they wanted. If for examples someone attends a bar mitzvah wearing a nazi uniform and they are attacked or followed/chased by the Jews attending it and they're carrying a gun and shoot someone, thats the person who is wearing the nazi uniform's FAULT not the people who reacted to him/her.

Now go ahead Ryika, explain to me why the white supremecists are not at fault here.

 

[Ryika]

The white supremecists went there with the sole intention of provoking people, which they got and then used that as an excuse to attack people, they got what they wanted. If for examples someone attends a bar mitzvah wearing a nazi uniform and they are attacked or followed/chased by the Jews attending it and they're carrying a gun and shoot someone, thats the person who is wearing the nazi uniform's FAULT not the people who reacted to him/her.

Now go ahead Ryika, explain to me why the white supremecists are not at fault here.

This is not what is being said in the footage (which is that the "White Supremacists" stood there filming, nothing is being said about any "uniforms" - one even had a BLM-Sign to blend in) and it not the story I can find in the media (which is that the "White Supremacists" showed up and started firing).

So where does this version come from? Could you provide evidence for this version of the story?

 

[useless]

Where did i say they showed up and started firing? What's this strawman about?

 

[Hygro]

Front page everything, for the end of forever, if it was BLM protesters doing the shooting.

 

[Ryika]

Where did i say they showed up and started firing? What's this strawman about?

The ones posted by the OP obviously don't, given that they basically don't have any information at all.

"Misky Noor, a Black Lives Matter spokeswoman, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, “A group of white supremacists showed up at the protest, as they have done most nights.” Protesters tried to eject them peacefully when they suddenly opened fire about a block away from the 4th precinct."

http://usuncut.com/news/breaking-se...st-shot-by-white-supremacists-in-minneapolis/

- No word about them being chased or hit as the eye witness said in the video

"The racists approached the occupation at the Fourth Precinct police station as they have done for the past few nights, being disruptive and shouting racial slurs. A group of protesters were marshalling the racists away from the main protest when the white supremacists opened fire and shot five people."

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2015/1...oot-5-minneapolis-justice-jamar-clark-protest

- No word about them being chased or hit as the eye witness said in the video

"Miski Noor, a media contact for Black Lives Matter, said “a group of white supremacists showed up at the protest, as they have done most nights.”

One of the three men wore a mask, said Dana Jaehnert, who had been at the protest site since early evening.

When about a dozen protesters attempted to herd the group away from the area, Noor said, they “opened fire on about six protesters,” hitting five of them. Jaehnert said she heard four gunshots."

http://www.startribune.com/police-s...t-blm-protest-outside-4th-precinct/353154811/

- "Herd away" seems to be an euphemism for what the other protester called "chasing". Why would you "herd them away" a whole block?

Don't get me wrong: Yes, they may very well have stood there with the intention to annoy and interrupted the event. But as far as I can tell they have certainly not just started firing after being confronted. The footage and the fact that the shooting has taken place a block away from the actual protest seem to suggest that. It seems like they were there to annoy, then things got out of hand and they have been chased before they decided to use their guns. Whether it was a legitimate defense or whether they have taken advantage of the situation and thought that they can get away with shooting them and making it seem as self-defense I can't tell, but it was most certainly not people showing up and randomly starting to shoot at them as parts of the media suggest.

 

[useless]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/emails-reveal-racists-plotted-confrontation-with-black-lives-matters-activists-days-before-shooting/

Three white men wearing bulletproof vests and covering their face with masks shot five Black Lives Matter protesters Monday night in Minneapolis — and some social media users are claiming the gunmen fired in self-defense.

The men, described by some witnesses as white supremacists, wounded five demonstrators shortly before 11 p.m. outside the city’s Fourth Precinct during an ongoing protest of the police shooting death of 24-year-old Jamar Clark.

Police said Tuesday afternoon that a 23-year-old white man and a 32-year-old Hispanic man had been arrested in connection with the shooting.

Demonstrators say masked men wearing military-style clothing have been harassing them for days during the protests, and Black Lives Matter Minneapolis posted a video Friday of two men on their way to disrupt the protests.

It’s not clear whether the two men in the video are connected to Monday’s shooting, and it’s not clear how Black Lives Matter obtained that video.

White supremacists have discussed various strategies online for sparking confrontation at the demonstration, which they described as a “chimpout.”

“Do you know if the BLM [Racist term] are planning to protest again tomorrow, and if so, at what time?” one white supremacist asked in an email chain.

They agreed to wear camouflage clothing and display a four of clubs to identify each other, and the white supremacist agitators argued over whether they should carry guns or wear Guy Fawkes masks.

The white supremacist mocked “social justice warriors” and other anti-racist whites, who they described in psychosexual terms.

“Best to act as much like a beta white **** as much as you can,” one the racists said.

The activists said groups of men had been appearing at the demonstration and “acting shady” since Friday, so they put together a “safety committee” to watch for potential agitators and escort them away from the protests.

That’s apparently what happened just before the shooting, when some of the protesters confronted three men, described by witnesses as two white men and possibly one Asian man.

Witnesses say the gunmen were trying to record demonstrators’ faces on cell phone video shortly before opening fire, and the two groups argued.

Then a group of protesters charged at the men and demanded they remove their masks, but witnesses said the men shouted back, “[Expletive] no,” and continued recording cell phone video.

A demonstrator, who spoke on camera with a mask covering his face, said one of the men was carrying a Black Lives Matter sign.

The witness said a demonstrator came out of the crowd and punched one of the white men, and another man stepped back and reached toward his waistband.

“I was like, he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun,” said a second witness, who also covered his face on camera.

The demonstrators said the three men then walked away from the crowd and through a gate, where another protester punched one of the men, and the three men ran off with several protesters behind.

“I was like, they’ve got a gun — don’t follow them,” the second witness said. “Don’t chase them — they’re reaching for a gun.”

The witnesses said the men then stopped in an area where no cameras were present, turned around and opened fire on the six protesters who had been chasing them.

They wounded five of them, although police have said none of their injuries were life-threatening.

The gunmen then ran to an SUV and drove away, witnesses said.

Two of the men remain at large.

Minnesota is not among 33 states with “stand your ground” laws that allow for deadly force in self-defense when retreat is possible, although state law does permit a person to protect their personal property with deadly force.

 

[Ryika]

See, that story sounds like the most balanced one I've read so far (That's 1 in ~10), so thanks for linking. I still don't see how BLM are "innocent" though, that story clearly picks up them hitting and chasing them.

Don't get me wrong: Yeah, if those <I can't believe this word is censored>s went there and had planned this outcome, they should be held accountable for the action AND the intend, but still, this version is not the "innocent people were shot at!"-version that I read in other media that are supposed to be neutral. If they had actually run that story I'd have nothing to complain about.

Anyway, now I'll miss my bus because I red the story and had to answer.

 

[downtown]

One quick thing for you guys to note

I can't speak for the network news websites (who probably draw an older audience), but for WaPo and the other newspapers, I don't think we can exactly draw the same conclusions about importance of stories based on their placement on the front page of their websites. A rapidly decreasing amount of site traffic actually comes from the front page (referrals make up way more), and so a site's frontpage might reflect more of what was published more recently, or a different algorithm, rather than what they thought was necessarily the most "important".

It's not exactly the same thing as it would be with a newspaper headline.

 

[bhavv]

Well, technically if one group holds a protest, another group is allowed to hold a counter protest.

That doesn't mean that the first group has a right to try and chase off or threaten the second group, and in such a case surely the second group are allowed to defend themselves.

You cant just have protests by a select few minorities without expecting counter protests. Even if they don't always happen, there is nothing constitutionally wrong if a group of 'white supremacists' want to hold a counter protest.