Draft:The protest paradigm: Difference between revisions

 

Line 47: Line 47:

When good news explains “the goals and background of a protest” in order to legitimize and humanize protesters, those in the US with [[conservatism in the United States|conservative]] political beliefs tend to perceive such news as less credible, whereas those with [[modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]] political beliefs tend to perceive such news as more credible. <ref name=sage />

When good news explains “the goals and background of a protest” in order to legitimize and humanize protesters, those in the US with [[conservatism in the United States|conservative]] political beliefs tend to perceive such news as less credible, whereas those with [[modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]] political beliefs tend to perceive such news as more credible. <ref name=sage />

=== Soft news ===

Soft news coverage is more likely when covering civic action or [[Third party (U.S. politics)|third party candidates]] in electoral politics. <ref name=fourTypes />

=== Bad news, hard news, and soft news ===

=== Bad news, hard news, and soft news ===

Bad news coverage is more likely when protesters engage in violence or when protesters are investigated or charged with crimes, <ref name=fourTypes /> whereas hard news coverage is more likely when there are [[labor strikes]]. <ref name=fourTypes /> The more [[Radical politics|radical]] a protest group is, the more likely they are to receive bad or hard news coverage. <ref name=douglas />

Bad news coverage is more likely when protesters engage in violence or when protesters are investigated or charged with crimes <ref name=fourTypes /> hard news coverage is more likely when there are [[labor strikes]]. <ref name=fourTypes /> The more [[Radical politics|radical]] a protest group is, the more likely they are to receive bad or hard news coverage. <ref name=douglas />

Some scholars argue mainstream media framing of violent protests in a negative way without examining whether violence is acceptable on a case-by-case basis undermines the idea that violence is in some cases a morally legitimate action against oppressive systems. <ref name=amini />

Some scholars argue mainstream media framing of violent protests in a negative way without examining whether violence is acceptable on a case-by-case basis undermines the idea that violence is in some cases a morally legitimate action against oppressive systems. <ref name=amini />

The protest paradigm is a set of mainstream media news coverage patterns that delegitimize, dehumanize, and unfavorably represent protesters, instead favoring pro-establishment narratives. One way it does this is by promoting engagement in bipartisan electoral politics while downplaying other forms of protest perceived as “too radical” or “outside the system.”

The protest paradigm is more prominent in countries using commercial media systems (such as the United States) because affluent audiences are more likely to purchase ads, in turn causing the media to promote news cycle narratives that appeal to affluent audiences. In the process, media that does not appeal to affluent audiences is driven out of the mainstream because they do not make as much money selling ads to affluent individuals, resulting in most mainstream media outlets following the protest paradigm.

Some characteristics of the protest paradigm include the following:

• Narrative framing: When news outlets frame protesters under a pre-existing narrative, such as by using the “criminals” narrative or the “riot” narrative. ^{[1] [2]}
• Reliance on authorities: When news outlets over-rely official sources and official definitions, such as by quoting police statements but not statements by protesters. ^[1]
• Public opinion: When news outlets compare public opinion polling against issues advocated by protesters, making protesters look like an “isolated minority.” ^[1]
• Delegitimization: When news outlets fail to explain the meaning and context of protest actions in order to delegitimize them, such as by downplaying what the protests will realistically accomplish. ^[1]
• Demonization: When news outlets exaggerate threats and focus disproportionately on the negative consequences of protests, such the effects of traffic congestion caused by a march. ^{[1] [2]}

The reason the US commercial media system “prioritizes privileged groups over the minoritized” ^[3] is largely because media outlets overwhelmingly favor advertisement-based models for generating revenue. Because revenue generation in media outlets is driven by ads, media outlets are incentivized to promote news cycle narratives that are likely to be perceived positively by “affluent” audiences, who are more likely to purchase ads compared with “down-scale” audiences. ^[4]: 14

Narratives in news cycles are usually pro-establishment when affluent individuals feel threatened, but are more progressive when goals of affluent individuals align with the objective of the protest. ^[4]: 14 For example, according to this theory, the reason why there was negative press coverage ^{[5] [6] [7]} during the Occupy Wall Street protests was because affluent individuals felt threatened by how the protests opposed economic inequality, so in order to appeal to their affluent audiences, mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times and USA Today ^[5] portrayed these protests negatively. However, when a movement is less likely to harm affluent individuals, it is less likely to be reported on negatively, such as during the Great American Boycott protests which received positive reporting from the Los Angeles Times because the protests aligned with the interests of the “wealthy elite in terms of meeting their needs for a large labor force to staff businesses and provide residential services.” ^[1]

Media outlets that do not tailor narratives toward affluent audiences tend to make less money than those who do, often resulting in outlets that do not follow the protest paradigm to be driven out of the mainstream. As a result, in countries using a commercial media model, news outlets in the mainstream usually follow the protest paradigm. ^[4]: 11

Scholars identified two dimensions of news coverage: substance (low- or high-depth of coverage of protester action and demands) and sentiment (favorable or unfavorable framing). ^[8]

Four types of news coverage ^[8]

	Unfavorable	Favorable
High substance	Hard news “Police issue repeated warnings to protesters violating campus space rule 123”	Good news “Students picket on campus to protest Senate Bill 123, police allege criminal trespass”
Low substance	Bad news “Controversial demonstration appears on campus”	Soft news “Protesters appear on campus”

Good news in the US is more likely to occur when journalists cover engagement in bipartisan electoral politics. ^[8] Good news is also more likely when journalists engage “deeply and frequently with a community,” and a study claims student journalism generally does this better than most mainstream media outlets. ^[9]

When good news explains “the goals and background of a protest” in order to legitimize and humanize protesters, those in the US with conservative political beliefs tend to perceive such news as less credible, whereas those with liberal political beliefs tend to perceive such news as more credible. ^[3]

Bad news coverage is more likely when protesters engage in violence or when protesters are investigated or charged with crimes; ^[8] hard news coverage is more likely when there are labor strikes; and soft news coverage is more likely when covering civic action or third party candidates in electoral politics. ^{[8] [8]} The more radical a protest group is, the more likely they are to receive bad or hard news coverage. ^[1]

Some scholars argue mainstream media framing of violent protests in a negative way without examining whether violence is acceptable on a case-by-case basis undermines the idea that violence is in some cases a morally legitimate action against oppressive systems. ^[2]

News outlets often focus on how radical protests violate social norms, such as through drawing attention to protesters who dress in unusual ways, violating laws, or holding minority views in public opinion polling. ^[1]

The mainstream media is more likely in the US than in other countries to “delegitimize coverage of protests that relate to racism or colonialism,” whereas countries like China and India are less likely to do so. ^[3]

The type of coverage a nonviolent protest receives depends significantly on the issue being covered. ^[8] Nonviolent protests are less likely to receive any news coverage at all because they are often deemed “not newsworthy.” ^[1]

As a result of how nonviolent protests often receive little news coverage, protesters are more likely to engage in violence in order to secure media attention, thereby endangering themselves. ^[1] For example, the Women Against Pornography movement in Minneapolis was largely ignored until protesters “ransacked an adult bookstore,” anarchists in Minneapolis only received attention after demolishing a TV set and shaming a Marine recruiting station’s windows, and the 1999 Seattle WTO protests only received national coverage after protesters engaged in street violence with riot police. ^[1] When news coverage emerges after nonviolent protests turn violent, it is usually in the form of bad or hard news. ^[1]

Broad overview: ^{[1] [3] [10] [8] [4]}

Gaza war: ^{[11] [12]}

George Floyd: ^[9]

Mahsa Amini protests ^[2]

OWS ^{[6] [7] [5]}

Pending email response to retrieve: https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/macp.13.1-2.131_1