THREAD: I've read a lot of questions/criticism about reporters' coverage of anti-gov't COVID-19 protests. I think the reporting thus far is defensible, but that newsrooms are currently at a crossroads.
Let me put on my best @jayrosen_nyu hat and try to explain it...
Let me put on my best @jayrosen_nyu hat and try to explain it...
^^^ photo by @AnnaLizNichols for @MichiganAdvance, one of my outlet's great sister pubs for @statesnewsroom.
I think there are many explanations for the protest coverage to this point over the past week or so:
I think there are many explanations for the protest coverage to this point over the past week or so:
1. After the rush of reports about major shutdowns + event cancellations, things have slowed in terms of fewer bombshells to report. Yes, there are still loads of important COVID-19 stories to cover, but these protests come amid a sort of lull of daily updates/reporting routines
2. It's geographic opportunity, for reporters/attention-seekers alike: the protests are being held at centers of gov't where reporters are headed anyway. In Ohio, journalists are hitting 2 birds w/1 stone by taking pics on their way in and out of statehouse press conferences.
3. There is a novelty to protests following a month-plus of uniformly glowing public response to the state gov't (here in Ohio, at least). A poll in March found 80% of Ohioans approve of @GovMikeDeWine's handling of the crisis. Yet *these* people are mad
ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020/03/30/pol…
ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020/03/30/pol…
4. There's always the unavoidable truth that reporters, even the best-intentioned ones, are drawn to controversy. It's human nature to overestimate the impact of loud voices/big guns even if they are still very much an extremist minority.
So that explains the initial coverage, but why the *continued* coverage?
Well, I think the attention has shifted somewhat from noting the existence of these protests to now exposing the varied nature of their fringe elements:
michiganadvance.com/2020/04/17/sus…
Well, I think the attention has shifted somewhat from noting the existence of these protests to now exposing the varied nature of their fringe elements:
michiganadvance.com/2020/04/17/sus…
Packing away the reporters notebooks after 1 protest might give illusion that the discontent is only COVID-related. But we've seen MAGA, anti-abortion/gun rights crowds and anti-Semites at these gatherings. I think there's value in exposing this stuff:
.@jwgop & others have fair beefs about the extent of coverage.
However: I don't think it has come at the expense of other reporting priorities. By & large, journalists across the U.S. have covered the virus responsibly/extensively in their communities.
However: I don't think it has come at the expense of other reporting priorities. By & large, journalists across the U.S. have covered the virus responsibly/extensively in their communities.
If you don't believe me, see my thread where I highlighted 88 outlets in all 88 Ohio counties, each covering the virus in many, many ways. Reporters may be drawn to controversy, but they're also drawn to important stories and quieter tales of human good:
Quick aside: @MarionRenault did the same exercise in Minnesota. You could do this in every state in America.
Now.
All that said, we are presently at a crossroads. The initial coverage is explainable, and the further coverage highlighting the protesters/their motives is also explainable.
Where we go from here, however -- now *that's* the rub.
All that said, we are presently at a crossroads. The initial coverage is explainable, and the further coverage highlighting the protesters/their motives is also explainable.
Where we go from here, however -- now *that's* the rub.
One element of 'the reporting path forward' deals w/the fact that establishment voices in gov't/business have been mostly silent about the protests to this point. This is partially about politics, partially about self-interest:
So, instead of turning back to the voices in power responding to these protesters, reporters -- without much to go on -- may stick to quoting the wackos.
Perhaps they shouldn't, and perhaps they should pressure officials to grow a spine, but this is where we find ourselves.
Perhaps they shouldn't, and perhaps they should pressure officials to grow a spine, but this is where we find ourselves.
This could easily turn into a spiral, wherein extended coverage gives splinter groups undue attention ➡️ leading to them gaining support ➡️ thus meaning an even less likelihood that voices in power will speak out so as to not offend the growing masses ➡️and so on...
Journalism isn't an exact science. Newsrooms should be having this talk, if they haven't already, about the most responsible way forward.
Coverage criticism may be fair, but it shouldn't lead to broader cynicism about journalists' roles in providing truth to the public. /thread
Coverage criticism may be fair, but it shouldn't lead to broader cynicism about journalists' roles in providing truth to the public. /thread
