Major media eager to embrace police-friendly framing

Copaganda: Most major media is still much too eager to embrace police-friendly framing

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Written by Sophia Tesfaye / Salon June 5, 2020

Warnings that these dark times were coming were often laughed off as hyperbolic jokes. Well here we are, with the United States president threatening to send the military and every federal law enforcement division to push back against peaceful protesters in Washington and other major cities, and the national media still shamefully both-sides-ing our slide into fascism.

In the last week, the American media has starkly reinforced the reality that it is ill-equipped to contextualize for its audiences the gravity of this moment. It has failed to directly press police on their tactics to suppress free speech — even as they broadcast live video of brutal attacks carried out by law enforcement against peaceful protesters, elected officials and journalists alike. (As this article was filed on Thursday night, social media was transfixed by video of police in Buffalo, New York, casually shoving an elderly man to the ground, causing a serious head injury.)

There’s been very little interrogation of the law enforcement leaders whose departments now face unprecedented public criticism, even as news networks continue to rely on their public affairs officers to explain policing tactics. Instead, corporate media outlets have allowed their platforms to be hijacked by police across the country who are attempting to rewrite history in real time.

Writing for Alternet in 2016, media critic Adam Johnson described this type of editorialization as “copaganda,” defining that as “any news story that uncritically advances a police department’s image or helps undermine reform efforts.”

On the 31st anniversary of the brutal Tiananmen Square massacre, The New York Times published an op-ed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas calling for an escalation of military aggression against dissenters. Following an open revolt by a good chunk of the writers and reporters on staff on Wednesday — especially those of color — Times editorial page editor James Bennet defended the decision to publish a piece he conceded was “dangerous” while insisting Cotton’s position was nevertheless “worthy of public debate.” To make matters even worse, the Times beat a clumsy retreat on Thursday, saying in a PR statement that a “rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards.” According to subsequent reports, Bennet hadn’t even read Cotton’s op-ed before it was published.

Further Reading: https://www.alternet.org/2020/06/copaganda-most-major-media-is-still-much-too-eager-to-embrace-police-friendly-framing/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4717