Journalists have always had a lot of influence when it comes to current events. Especially in this digital age of online journalism—aka X, previously Twitter—how a reporter frames a story is vital.
I remain incredibly impressed with student journalists who covered campus protests last spring because they didn’t miss a thing. The Beacon’s extensive coverage of the Popular University Encampment’s student-run events, including open mic poetry and donation of meals to community members, was commendable. See also the Columbia Spectator’s photo essay on pets at their “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” in May.
But if you did not consume student publications in the spring, you would not have seen these portrayals. Major news outlets did not care about campus protests until police presence turned them into a front-page story. Emerson’s encampment existed peacefully for four days, but most people did not know about it until the morning of April 25.
I understand why people outside of the Emerson community hold strong, negative perceptions about the encampment. They weren’t there to experience the community created. They only saw the pictures and videos depicting violence published in the Boston Globe or a rage-bait column.
Journalists in power at legitimate news outlets published one-sided information. The Globe—along with pretty much every other publication reporting on the Emerson arrests—published the Boston Police’s account of what happened: four officers injured, no protesters injured. But The Beacon was there first-hand to witness the police violence, and we conducted hours upon hours of interviews about people’s experiences.
Journalists often publish information from sources like the Boston Police Department, but stories should not solely rely on this information. As videos circulated on social media showing police starting the violence, The Beacon interviewed students while major news outlets did not include that perspective.
I would like to think that this misrepresentation of protests was unique to Emerson in the spring. I would like to have faith in journalism, to believe my professors when they talk about objectivity and the importance of keeping your opinions out of your reporting. But it’s not, and I have been discouraged by the continued coverage of pro-Palestinian protests versus pro-Israeli ones.
On Sept. 12, Scott Hayes shot Caleb Gannon at a pro-Israel protest in Newton, Massachusetts. I first heard about this from a Globe article entitled “Donations pour in for demonstrator accused of shooting man during a violent clash at a pro-Israel rally in Newton” with a subheading titled “The social media platform X suspended an account belonging to the Newton man wounded by gunfire.” The two main captions of this article—the headline and subhead—didn’t seem objective to me.
A man was shot and the article they chose to publish was about how the (“alleged”) shooter is receiving donations? The GoFundMe page raised $270,000 for Hayes’ legal defense, yet no GoFundMe page was started for Gannon’s medical costs. Why? The story was slanted towards Hayes from the first publication of the story: Gannon’s name was not even published for multiple days.
From where I’m sitting, U.S. media has been pro-Israel since Oct. 7. It’s one thing for corporations to donate their money and support Israel, but the media has continuously downplayed the atrocities occurring in Gaza and Lebanon.
As journalists, we are not supposed to let our personal beliefs shine through in news articles (that’s what the opinion section is for).
I despise X and Instagram journalism, but I have found myself searching these platforms to get to the bottom of breaking news. X lets you get the multiple camera angles, but even then, vital minutes are missing from when Gannon was shot.
This is just another instance of the media painting pro-Palestine protests in a bad light. Gannon started the altercation with Hayes, but Hayes pulled a gun on him. Can you imagine the headlines if a pro-Palestine protester even had a gun at a peaceful protest?
I encourage journalists to be purposeful in their reporting and critical of the media they consume. Anyone can be a journalist these days, and the first article you read more often than not does not tell the whole story.
