Media distortion of movements for social justice and violence?

[♥ ~Sigy the Arctic Kitty~♥]

I think of people who were active in fighting for social justice getting attacked and threatened by thugs or people who hated what they were standing for.

But the media in America most often seems to have focused on violence or *potential* violence by the members of a movement. I have heard and read this both for civil rights and organised labour.

Do you think that the media in America can be expected to report negatively about movements for social justice because they are part of the system and are rewarded by it?

[Ember Halo]

i think the media in America likes to spread fear of anything it can... fear of change, fear of "others", fear of *potential* violence by anything or anyone.... gets better ratings that way.

[Dialectic]

The media can be expected to report in ways that are attention-grabbing or sensationalized, which, in a somewhat inevitable and residual way, will distort the real movements for SJ.

[Jo]

yes, the media can report negatively on the group --- or not report at all - not giving them a voice.

there are many women getting harassed and killed for promoting women's rights overseas. the press varies whether they show these groups with sympathy or not. personally, i think it has to do with whether the paper/magazine is owned by a conservative group or liberal one. the conservative groups, are much harder on women and often will blame the women themselves for their troubles (threats, harrassment, break-ins, executions).

[twilight]

Yes, I think your supposition just about sums the situation up to a tee...in fact it is hard to distinguish between the political lobbies, the media, the government and those who fund the political process. They all seem like different heads on the same Hydra. And woe betide anyone that tries to wrest power back from them.

[Daniel F]

Yes, The media has the power to destroy any movement by negative coverage. in the United Farm workers, Cesar Chavez dictated if you can not abide by non violence don't be on the front lines! His concept worked, all violence against us , was not answered and our movement gained wide public support because of positive media coverage.

[Kendrick]

It's not distorted... you may want to actually read up on vandalism of Republican buildings, and attacks by liberal groups.

So, the answer is that it's the Liberal way to attack and vandalize, and then cry about it when the media reports it. And the media is known for being more Liberal, which contradicts this assumption.

[waswisgirl1]

The US Freedom of Information Act has opened up documents proving that the FBI has spied on and/or infiltrated all sorts of social movement groups, like anti-racist, environmental, feminist, labor, and peace groups, since they assume that any group not toeing the line with the government powers must be subversive, and therefore, violent! I don't recall conservative groups being targeted, like groups working against choice, even though some anti-choice groups are some of the most violent in the country, like the Army of God, which has many members in prison for bombings, arson, assault, and murder (of health clinics and their staff).

The US media is only too willing to make social movement groups look like a bunch of kooks, when they bother to report on them at all. If you do some research on the media monopolies in the US, even though the majority of journalists may be liberal leaning (based on past surveys, don't know if that's still true), it doesn't matter, since the majority of the US media outlets (tv, cable, radio, magazines, newspapers, books, web sites) are owned by a very few extremely conservative people that also give millions to Republicans and conservative groups in the US. Ted Turner is one of the few exceptions, to a very conservative, right-wing group of US media owners.

I know many people think the US media is liberal, but I think radio is primarily right-wing; cable and the net is all across the board; tv is not conservative or liberal, mainly boring or insipid; magazines and books run the gamut; newspapers report about the same hyped up news, only the editorials are liberal or conservative, and the majority of editorials are conservative or moderate, not too many liberal commentators around today. Tv news is a joke, it might as well be a grocery magazine it's so bad. Even there, the tv pundits are usually conservative with a few "moderates" (really luke-warm conservatives) mixed in. Jon Stewart is a comic and is probably the only liberal who says the word "news" on tv. How ironic.

Edit:
New Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as ‘Domestic Terrorism’ (12/20/2005) Additional Documents Indicate FBI Scrutiny of Anti-war Gathering:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/2312...51220.html

Who Owns the Media?
http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership