Protest Photography and Consideration of Privacy

A qualitative analysis of BLM protest photos published by The Star Tribune, The Minnesota Daily, The Oregonian and the PSU Vanguard

By Ella Banken

Literature Review

Protest activity has historically, and continues to be, covered with different approaches by different news organizations (Cowart, et al, 2016; Kilgo, et al, 2019). This coverage has been analysed in a number of ways. The visuals circulated by major news organizations play a large role in the framing of protests. Different types of images are seen to promote varying narratives. Within media coverage, there is often a “law and order” theme, perpetuated by images of police versus protestors (Berger and Garrow, 2011; Cowart, et al, 2016). Research found that the majority of images published by 24-hour news outlets during the Ferguson protests in 2014 depicted police and protestors separately, rarely showing them in the same image (Cowart, et al, 2016). This presents a pattern in which protestors, regardless of the civility of their actions, gain public attention, and then police are present to maintain order. Historically, this media framing has even been used advantageously by law enforcement to portray them as more civil and justified, dating back to civil rights protesting in the 1960s (Berger and Garrow, 2011).

This law and order narrative persists within sourcing practices of journalists covering protests (Berger and Garrow, 2011; Cowart, et al, 2016; Kilgo, et al, 2019). Long-standing journalism practices encourage the use of “official” or “expert” sources to discuss a topic (Nielsen, 2020; Nilssen, 2020; Maenpaa, 2014). While this practice is prevalent in all news beats, and is not specific to coverage of protests (Nielsen, 2020), it can be seen as particularly problematic in the context of protest. When receiving information almost exclusively from traditionally official sources such as police officers or government employees, this often erases the messages of the protestors (Nilssen, 2020; Kilgo, et al, 2019). Journalists may refrain from interviewing protestors or bystanders under the guise of “objectivity”, but this further delegitimizes the actions of those challenging the state of affairs (Kilgo, et al, 2019). While the individual story may appear to be objective and unbiased, the resulting outcome of story upon story with the same narrative is actually more biased. These stories cater to the status quo (Nielsen, 2020; Kilgo, et al, 2019; Maenpaa, 2014). 

When engaging with this outdated form of journalism in conjunction with the media’s brief attention span, the goals or hoped outcomes of a protest are ignored, or overshadowed by the discussion of the actions of the demonstrators (Alper, 2014; Kilgo, et al, 2019). The nuances of a peaceful march are often overlooked--this is referred to as the “protest paradigm” (Kilgo, et al, 2019). The most extreme acts of protests are the ones that gain the most attention, even if the majority of the protesting is peaceful. Not only does this present misleading information, but it erases individual experience (Richardson, 2017). This has been the fault of mass media for decades, through misrepresentation and the perpetuation of misunderstanding ( Nielsen, 2020; Kilgo, et al, 2019). So, it makes sense that within a technology ubiquitous society, citizen journalism has been on the rise (Allan, 2015; Nilssen, 2020; Maenpaa, 2014). 

Citizen witnessing is not a new occurrence (Richardson, 2017). George Floyd’s death was filmed by a bystander, and witnessed by a handful of others. This has been the case for many other Black men as well (Nielsen, 2020; Kilgo, et al, 2019). While even 20 years ago events like these could easily be unknown to the public, the technology that the vast majority of individuals carry in their pockets can document these atrocities (Alper, 2014). The smartphone unintentionally promotes citizen witnesses to citizen journalists (Allan, 2015). The majority of breaking news visuals and statements come from first-hand witnesses, who are most often non-journalists (Allan, 2015; Nilssen, 2020). While this is an expected outcome, it is only more recently that witnesses have bypassed involvement with the media, and gone straight to the internet. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and more make publication of materials instantaneous (Nielsen, 2020; Alper, 2014). The documentation of these events, while often painful, are tools for accountability (Allan, 2015; Nilssen, 2020; Kilgo, et al, 2019). “For the poor man of color, the cellphone is the closest visual production tool that he can muster to protect himself from news narratives that may try to frame his untimely demise incorrectly” (Richardson, 2017). Mass media has historically under- and misrepresented Black Americans (Nielsen, 2020; Kilgo, et al, 2019), so it is no surprise that with the option of self-publication, it is a popular choice. 

This presents a massive shift in the field of journalism (Allan, 2015; Nilssen, 2020; Maenpaa, 2014). What was traditionally the public’s primary informant, now finds itself playing catch-up to social media. Journalists have long prided themselves on strict codes and standards (Alper, 2014), which is simultaneously consistent and problematic. This is how the previously discussed issue of objectivity has maintained a firm hold on journalistic practices. 

Citizen journalism, however, is much less structured (Allan, 2015). Savvy media users are now taking greater control of the medium (Richardson, 2017). “Witnesses” do not adhere to rules, ethical codes or consider bias. This is a two sided coin. Without any consideration for legality or ethics, information spread by this method could be inadvertently slanderous, incorrect, or outright dangerous. There may be no consideration for those with opposing viewpoints, or for those affected by the information. There is also the growing issue of digital manipulation, and the dangers that false images present (Alper, 2014). These are the negatives of citizen journalism, not to mention that this shift is threatening the existence of photojournalism careers (Allan, 2015). However, there are many positives as well. With more attention, people whose stories have been traditionally marginalized are able to gain more traction (Kilgo, et al, 2019; Cowart, et al, 2016; Richardson, 2017). Those narratives are removed from manipulative contexts (Berger and Garrow, 2011), and stand on their own. With stories and media being produced subjectively, personal narratives are told with more weight. 

While this “citizen journalism” may not be appropriate for informing the general public, it is pushing journalists to do better. Discourse which seeks to confront the myth of objectivity is more prevalent amongst journalists (Kilgo, et al, 2019). News and images have historically pandered to a homogenized, white audience (Berger and Garrow, 2011), but there are now increased calls for transparency, and the journalist’s role as gatekeeper is being called into question (Alper, 2014; Nielsen, 2020; Nilssen, 2020; Richardson, 2017). While it may be important to maintain a specific set of standards within the field, why is it the job of any one group of people to decide what stories should be told? “For journalism scholars then, we must find these black witnesses too—both frontline and distant—to question anew how our current political climate empowers or silences vulnerable voices” (Richardson, 2017).