Amid widespread discontent with the current political system, social protest is more popular than ever. But it’s difficult to see a positive impact when you read the news: Most protests get little to no media attention and the few that do are often depicted as chaotic and destructive. This is especially true in the American press, where journalists tend to follow an uninformative template for covering protests that can shape public perceptions and attitudes toward movements.
Studies have isolated common characteristics of news coverage of protests, which we call the “protest paradigm.” For example, most protest stories focus on the protest events rather than the issues being addressed by the activists, frame protesters as adversaries of police rather than their intended targets, and prioritize officialdom’s perspectives on the protests over a diverse array of informed sources. While some individual reporters deviate from this pattern, the vast majority of news coverage of protests falls into this trap.
We also find that media outlets use different frames for coverage of protests, based on their audiences and ideological leanings. For example, broadcast news outlets are more likely to employ language evoking anger and fear when they cover protests with predominantly non-White participants than they do when they cover White protests. This can potentially exacerbate differences in racial attitudes and aggravate racial disparities in the degree to which people participate in protest activities (Brader 2005; Phoenix 2022).
Finally, major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, with their deep roots in corporate sponsorships and investor interests, are less interested in aligning with the protest aims of those they cover. In fact, many newspapers avoid even covering protests that would threaten their profits. In contrast, online-only news sites and smaller local outlets can delve more deeply into the aims and implications of protests.