4 ms·

I find your framing to be really curious, considering there's evidence pointing precisely the other way: My own research analyzed about 1,500 protest-related n

I find your framing to be really curious, considering there's evidence pointing precisely the other way: My own research analyzed about 1,500 protest-related news stories published throughout 2014 in mainstream, alternative, partisan and online news publications. Articles about conservative protests — like protests opposed to immigration or LGBT rights, or protests supporting Trump and gun rights — are less likely to be negatively framed as “riots” than other types of protests. In contrast, Black Lives Matter protests are more likely to be framed as riots, as news coverage focuses more on violence, property damage and confrontations with police. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/13/theres-double-standard-how-news-media-cover-liberal-conservative-protests https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/13/theres-do....

Grieving 5y ago
Try checking for something a bit more recent than 2014. Media still attempted to muzzle the craziness of the left at that point.
- SauciestGNU 5y ago
  I don't know if you looked at the article linked but it's from 2021.
  - Grieving 5y ago
    > My own research analyzed about 1,500 protest-related news stories published throughout 2014
    - SauciestGNU 5y ago
      If you read the article it explains its methodology and that it is not limited to the year 2014, which should be evidenced by the reference to Trump supporters, which presumably didn't exist in 2014 because he had not yet announced his candidacy.
      - Grieving 5y ago
        Trump had talked about running long before the initial announcement. My mistake for thinking that the quote I was replying to, which specifically limited the scope to 2014, was accurate. > A week ago, a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden as the next president. Even though some Capitol Police officers tried to hold back the mob and protect members of Congress, many observers wondered why the rioters did not experience the tear gas and rubber bullets used against the people protesting the killing of George Floyd. As the NAACP tweeted Wednesday, “They’ve killed us for less.” They literally killed one of the protesters, and not with rubber bullets. Anyway, the methodology is obviously flawed. They include alternative and mainstream news sources. Only one of these categories is granted "legitimacy", and that one skews far in the other direction.

Grieving 5y ago

Try checking for something a bit more recent than 2014. Media still attempted to muzzle the craziness of the left at that point.

SauciestGNU 5y ago
I don't know if you looked at the article linked but it's from 2021.
- Grieving 5y ago
  > My own research analyzed about 1,500 protest-related news stories published throughout 2014
  - SauciestGNU 5y ago
    If you read the article it explains its methodology and that it is not limited to the year 2014, which should be evidenced by the reference to Trump supporters, which presumably didn't exist in 2014 because he had not yet announced his candidacy.
    - Grieving 5y ago
      Trump had talked about running long before the initial announcement. My mistake for thinking that the quote I was replying to, which specifically limited the scope to 2014, was accurate. > A week ago, a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block the certification of Joe Biden as the next president. Even though some Capitol Police officers tried to hold back the mob and protect members of Congress, many observers wondered why the rioters did not experience the tear gas and rubber bullets used against the people protesting the killing of George Floyd. As the NAACP tweeted Wednesday, “They’ve killed us for less.” They literally killed one of the protesters, and not with rubber bullets. Anyway, the methodology is obviously flawed. They include alternative and mainstream news sources. Only one of these categories is granted "legitimacy", and that one skews far in the other direction.