A couple of weeks from now, when the students currently sitting around in tents, blocking traffic, and smashing out windows in buildings they pay to maintain, return to their parents’ Brooklyn townhouses, suburban McMansions, and houses on the hills overlooking the city, I hope those of us in the media turn inward and take a hard look into the way we chose to cover their actions the last couple of months. If you are a New York Times reader, you would have thought we are seeing the second coming of Vietnam War protests spreading to every campus in the country. If you are a Fox News viewer, you would think that the country was being torn apart at the seams by the bigoted antisemites that will be running the world someday. But in reality, this was a very, very small story–blown up to a level of a “threat to society”.
As someone who has worked in the media for 27-years, coverage of campus protests the past few months have further exposed the growing trends in our industry that have undermined public trust in us–and fed into the public belief that we are biased and don’t actually “tell the truth”.
Let’s start with not even knowing what to call what we were reporting on–and allowing those that we are covering to control the language of the reporting. “Pro Palestinian Protests” became the default term for all actions–whether they be rallies on college quads, encampments, or storming of university buildings and offices–because that is the verbiage that the organizers themselves used, and it was simply parroted by reporters covering them.
But a cursory look at the demands from those groups reveals little is expected from or for Palestinians. Instead you get: Divestment of companies doing business in Israel, ending scholarship programs and partnerships with Israel, university statements denouncing Israeli military actions, ending Jewish support programs on campus, in the case of U-W Oshkosh: no longer working with the Oshkosh Corporation because it sells vehicles to the Israeli Defense Forces, and in the case of the University of California Riverside: no longer serving Sabra hummus in food service lines, because its parent company is Israeli. Noticeably absent are demands like: committing funds to companies that will be assisting in the rebuilding of Gaza, denouncing of Hamas–which started the war with attacks that were not supported by the people they govern in Gaza, or reviews of how billions of dollars of aid designated for Gazans and other Palestinians for decades was instead funneled to Hamas for weaponization and the private wealth of its leaders (who reside in other countries).
Media outlets on the right did start using the term “Anti Israel Protests” –which was immediately denounced by protest organizers. That, despite the ever-present chant of “From the river to the sea”–which would result in the elimination of Israel–and all of the other demands I mention before. So why did no other media outlets choose that phrasing? It’s most likely because “Anti Israel” encroaches too closely to “antisemitic”–accusations that have hung like a cloud over all of the protests since the October 7th Hamas attacks were initially hailed by many of the same campus groups that have since organized the protests. Articles dealing with that subject, at a rate of nearly 100%, have featured comments from at least one Jewish student taking part in the protests, adamant that they do not feel threatened–and that Israel is entirely to blame for the war. This inclusion has increasingly been compared to Fox News’ use of a member of Blacks for Trumps to argue the former president is not a racist.
You will also notice that when pro Israeli protestors show up at the same sites as the college encampments–they are identified only as “counter protesters”–like the Star of David flags, the yarmulkes, and Hebrew prayers don’t give you a clear indication of the viewpoint espoused by those taking part. And forget about calling either of those rallies “Protests Against the War in Gaza”, as the “Pro Palestinians” aren’t demanding that Hamas surrender, release the hostages, and give up power through democratic elections–while the “counter protesters” won’t accept a cease-fire that keeps hostages in custody or Hamas in power.
Another term you will not see associated with the action of the protesters is “illegal”. Entry into locked and private buildings is against the law. So is camping in public areas and destruction of public property. Yet, few if any media outlets have used that to describe what they are witnessing. This continues a trend that started in reporting on immigration–as advocates for those circumventing the legal means for entry into the country have used the phrase “no human is illegal” to excuse their actions and deter use of the term. Even the January 6th illegal entry into the Capitol by Trump supporters manages to escape that designation. Instead we hear reporters use terms like “storming” or “incursion”–which carries far less legal meaning.
Another point of concern is the granting of anonymity to people engaged in highly-public activities. The donning of masks and the wearing of kaffiyehs has been a hallmark of this protest movement. Apart from being classic cosplaying behavior enjoyed by the generations now on college campuses, it hides the identities of those engaging in the illegal activities I just mentioned, and protects them from the repercussions of their words and actions.
The use of anonymous sources is commonplace in journalism. Reporters often protect people who provide them with inside information on government activities, business practices, or criminal enterprises. But those kept in anonymity are not standing in the middle of a college mall yelling the source material at the top of their lungs. Yet, those reporting on these protests are going out of their way not to identify the actors. Endless stories have featured quotes from “Amiya, a protester that asked that we not use her last name due to concerns for her future employment prospects”–or “Dylan, who wore a face covering to prevent school officials from identifying him”. Camera crews have acquiesced to protester demands to blur out their faces and not show speakers as they address the crowds.
This is a practice that started during the Black Lives Matter protests–even when people donned pandemic masks as they took part in the destruction of buildings and vehicles and the looting of businesses–and organizers of those protests demanded the media not provide the footage to police. I would point out that the first of the “5 W’s” we learn in Journalism 101 is “Who”–yet more and more reporters are willing to not let us know “who” is taking to the streets.
(I would note that the face covering and “don’t use my name” is not sitting well with those that led the protests of the past. Vietnam War opponents and those who took part in the Civil Rights Era marches have taken today’s protesters to task for seeking to avoid identification, often questioning their “commitment” to a cause they claim to care so much about. And when you think about it, how much does something matter to you if are not willing to “put your name on it” or accept the consequences that come with your actions?)
It is also time for journalism at large to take a look at what role we are going to play in society. Increasing numbers of reporters–especially those just entering the field–consider themselves to be “advocates” more than journalists. “I want to tell the stories of the oppressed” and “I want to make a difference in my community” are responses I have heard from those who have applied for openings in my news departments. And while those are certainly lofty goals, most of our listeners would rather know why there were so many sirens in town last night and why their property taxes are going up again. Plus, when you look only through the lens of “oppressed and oppressor” how open are you going to be to including points of view that differ from your own in your stories?
One of the lasting images I’ll take from the past few months is social media footage obtained by a New York TV station showing students taking over one of the buildings on the Columbia campus. After windows are busted out and doors are unlocked, who are the second and fourth people entering the building illegally? Kids with signs reading “Student Journalist” taped on their backs holding video cameras and cellphones. These were not reporters serving as impartial observers collecting information to share with viewers or readers. These were active and willing participants ushered (or volunteering) to be at the front of the line in a criminal act. Yes, we have had reporters embedded with military units, border patrol efforts, and wildfire units to record their actions–but they are not sent in first to make sure that they have the best angle to “capture all the action”, and they are not encouraged to join the fight.
And finally, questions have to be asked as to why we treated these protests like such a big deal? Note, that despite the prevalence of drone technology, there were few overhead shots of the encampments and protests. Why? Well, doing so would have shown just how few people were participating. Estimates of the Ivy League protests numbered in the hundreds–at schools with tens of thousands of students. The University of Texas has more than 50-thousand students, UW Madison has almost as many, yet they too could only muster a few hundred protesters.
An Axios poll this week helped to put those numbers in perspective. The survey asked current college students to name the three most-important issues to them–and the Middle East situation came in dead last of the nine options. And it was dead last by a wide margin. If the population that the kids in the tents and hiding behind the masks claim to represent could not care less, why do we care so much? Yet, there has been plenty of hand-wringing in leading op-ed pages about how “President Biden is losing America’s young voters because of his support for Israel!”
Part of that is the “advocacy” issue I mention before. “If a protest isn’t covered, did it ever really happen?” And “isn’t it our job to amplify their voices?” were likely argued in newsrooms. But a bigger reason is fear of missing out. I can guarantee that the day after the Kent State shootings in 1970, there were News Directors and editors demanding to know why they didn’t have reporters on the scene covering the protests. Viewers may not care about what is being said by the protesters–but if the cops show up and start knocking heads, that they will want to see that.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the last couple of months for everyone that has dedicated more precious air time and column space to such a minor spectacle. But there is another molehill to turn into a mountain (and webpage views) right around the corner–so who has time for self-reflection?
