SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"There are times when things can be ambiguous," writes Johnson, "but after a person the police say 'premeditatedly' rammed into a crowd of anti-racist protesters with a car, it's fairly clear the anti-racist protesters aren't to blame for the death." (Image: Collage by FAIR)
For Media, Driving Into a Crowd of Protesters Is a 'Clash'
Aug 13, 2017
The Washington Post, Boston Globe, AOL News, The Hill, BBC and Sky News UK all chose to frame the ramming of a car into anti-fascist protesters as "clashes."
The BBC's breaking news tweet, "One dead amid clashes between US white nationalists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville," is an extremely odd way to describe a person driving a car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters--as was AOL's "1 Dead, 34 Injured in Clashes at Virginia Rally."
The term "clashes"--as FAIR (10/14/15) has noted before--is a term designed to obscure blame, presenting a picture of two equal sides engaging in violent activities. Reading "one dead" after "clashes" at a white nationalist rally gives us no idea who died, or who did the killing.
(Alternatively, one can veil responsibility by attributing agency to an inanimate object and disembodied emotions, as with the New York Times' headline, "Car Plows Into Crowd as Racial Tensions Boil Over in Virginia.")
There are times when things can be ambiguous, but after a person the police say "premeditatedly" rammed into a crowd of anti-racist protesters with a car, it's fairly clear the anti-racist protesters aren't to blame for the death. But one would hardly know this, reading these "clashes" framings.
Most of these articles would mention in the text (or later change the headline after social media backlash) to make it clear it was the anti-fascist protesters who were mowed down, but the initial instinct to obscure who did what to whom speaks to the pathological fear of placing blame on the far right.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Adam Johnson
Adam Johnson is a New York-based journalist, a contributing analyst for FAIR.org, and co-host of the Citations Needed podcast.
The Washington Post, Boston Globe, AOL News, The Hill, BBC and Sky News UK all chose to frame the ramming of a car into anti-fascist protesters as "clashes."
The BBC's breaking news tweet, "One dead amid clashes between US white nationalists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville," is an extremely odd way to describe a person driving a car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters--as was AOL's "1 Dead, 34 Injured in Clashes at Virginia Rally."
The term "clashes"--as FAIR (10/14/15) has noted before--is a term designed to obscure blame, presenting a picture of two equal sides engaging in violent activities. Reading "one dead" after "clashes" at a white nationalist rally gives us no idea who died, or who did the killing.
(Alternatively, one can veil responsibility by attributing agency to an inanimate object and disembodied emotions, as with the New York Times' headline, "Car Plows Into Crowd as Racial Tensions Boil Over in Virginia.")
There are times when things can be ambiguous, but after a person the police say "premeditatedly" rammed into a crowd of anti-racist protesters with a car, it's fairly clear the anti-racist protesters aren't to blame for the death. But one would hardly know this, reading these "clashes" framings.
Most of these articles would mention in the text (or later change the headline after social media backlash) to make it clear it was the anti-fascist protesters who were mowed down, but the initial instinct to obscure who did what to whom speaks to the pathological fear of placing blame on the far right.
Adam Johnson
Adam Johnson is a New York-based journalist, a contributing analyst for FAIR.org, and co-host of the Citations Needed podcast.
The Washington Post, Boston Globe, AOL News, The Hill, BBC and Sky News UK all chose to frame the ramming of a car into anti-fascist protesters as "clashes."
The BBC's breaking news tweet, "One dead amid clashes between US white nationalists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville," is an extremely odd way to describe a person driving a car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters--as was AOL's "1 Dead, 34 Injured in Clashes at Virginia Rally."
The term "clashes"--as FAIR (10/14/15) has noted before--is a term designed to obscure blame, presenting a picture of two equal sides engaging in violent activities. Reading "one dead" after "clashes" at a white nationalist rally gives us no idea who died, or who did the killing.
(Alternatively, one can veil responsibility by attributing agency to an inanimate object and disembodied emotions, as with the New York Times' headline, "Car Plows Into Crowd as Racial Tensions Boil Over in Virginia.")
There are times when things can be ambiguous, but after a person the police say "premeditatedly" rammed into a crowd of anti-racist protesters with a car, it's fairly clear the anti-racist protesters aren't to blame for the death. But one would hardly know this, reading these "clashes" framings.
Most of these articles would mention in the text (or later change the headline after social media backlash) to make it clear it was the anti-fascist protesters who were mowed down, but the initial instinct to obscure who did what to whom speaks to the pathological fear of placing blame on the far right.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.