Media Spin on Violence Against Police

[cybercoma]

Lately there's been increased reports of violence against police, fulfilling a narrative of public backlash against recent extrajudicial killings. Here we can see how news reports have skyrocketed.



This must mean that more people are attacking cops in response to recent stories of cops killing unarmed people. Except it doesn't. The actual amount of violence against cops in the US is decreasing and has been decreasing for years.



What's worse is that the media paid little to no attention to cop killings when they actually were at their highest in 2011.



Aaron Major, sociology professor at the University at Albany SUNY argues that the disproportionate coverage actually comes as a result of news outlets attempting to appear "objective." When criticisms come up about cops killing unarmed people, the news tries to appear objective by telling the other side of the story. In this case, the media interjects itself into the discussion by painting a wildly inaccurate picture of what's actually going on.

See Major's full article here.

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting, but your middle graph only goes up to 2014, so it's not that relevant to compare against increase in news coverage.

The media does these things all the time. It's a hot story, it gets news. Look at the coverage of syrian refugees in the last few weeks even though the crisis has been going on since 2011, and they say next to nothing about Iraqi refugees. And the world didn't get 10x hotter after Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

Interesting, but your middle graph only goes up to 2014, so it's not that relevant to compare against increase in news coverage.

Not my graph. Major's. And it's relevant enough when you can see there's been a decline in violence against cops since the 1970s, which roughly coincides with the decline in crime more generally. There's no 2015 figures because we're still in 2015. Those numbers haven't been tabulated yet.

The media does these things all the time. It's a hot story, it gets news. Look at the coverage of syrian refugees in the last few weeks even though the crisis has been going on since 2011, and they say next to nothing about Iraqi refugees. And the world didn't get 10x hotter after Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

That's right. This is the bigger issue. The media frames what people think about particular topics. Posters here who claim there's an increase in violence against cops weren't at all concerned a few years ago when cop deaths peaked. That's not their fault because they likely knew absolutely nothing about it. However, the disparity in coverage gives them the idea that things are somehow worse today, they tie that to black communities protesting, and suddenly they have a completely skewed vision of what's actually happening.

[bush_cheney2004]

Violence against police officers includes more incidents than those just "killed in the line of duty".

[cybercoma]

Do you have a point? Both are shown above.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not my graph. Major's. And it's relevant enough when you can see there's been a decline in violence against cops since the 1970s, which roughly coincides with the decline in crime more generally. There's no 2015 figures because we're still in 2015. Those numbers haven't been tabulated yet.

Those numbers were tabulated up to this month in your 3rd graph, so the numbers are obviously out there somewhere, even though they may be a bit harder to find since the year it's even over yet. Yes, the 2nd graph is relevant to show general lowering in police deaths up to 2014, but obviously isn't relevant to show how the media has spun anything in 2015. Whatever, the 3rd graph does the job.

This whole study just reinforces the need to back up arguments with facts like statistics instead of just optics or anecdotes.

[bush_cheney2004]

The term "media spin" reflects built in bias for the OP. Media outlets now strive for "promotable content", not hard news and facts, just as a matter of survival. Call it "spin" if it helps.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not my graph. Major's. And it's relevant enough when you can see there's been a decline in violence against cops since the 1970s, which roughly coincides with the decline in crime more generally. There's no 2015 figures because we're still in 2015. Those numbers haven't been tabulated yet.

That's right. This is the bigger issue. The media frames what people think about particular topics. Posters here who claim there's an increase in violence against cops weren't at all concerned a few years ago when cop deaths peaked. That's not their fault because they likely knew absolutely nothing about it. However, the disparity in coverage gives them the idea that things are somehow worse today, they tie that to black communities protesting, and suddenly they have a completely skewed vision of what's actually happening.

But are there other reasons for the increase in media reporting? Is the media increase because more officers are dying in the streets or is it because they are specifically being targeted because of being police officers?

[cybercoma]

But are there other reasons for the increase in media reporting? Is the media increase because more officers are dying in the streets or is it because they are specifically being targeted because of being police officers?

The argument from the author is that the increase is due to cops being in the media more often for killing unarmed civilians. The media goes out of its way to post stories of violence against police in response so that they can appear to be "unbiased" and reporting "both sides of the story." When in actual fact they're interjecting bias into the reports.

[Signals.Cpl]

The argument from the author is that the increase is due to cops being in the media more often for killing unarmed civilians. The media goes out of its way to post stories of violence against police in response so that they can appear to be "unbiased" and reporting "both sides of the story." When in actual fact they're interjecting bias into the reports.

Well is seems only fair that the media that reports on police officer killing an "innocent" black individual and they are vilified in the media in most cases before all or even any facts are known would be the same media that would go and present a story of police officers being executed in the street in the name of a retaliation.

How is it any less newsworthy that a black male kills two NYPD officers? If the media reported about every black man who is killed by police, but did not report when a black man executes police officers then there would be a bigger problem.

[cybercoma]

The media doesn't report every black man killed by the police. Not even close. The vast majority of police abuse you never hear about. It's only been recently because of high profile cases and the point here is that the media is creating a false narrative that is contradicted by the numbers. It's like giving equal time to climate change sceptics when there is near unanimous consensus amongst climate scientists. Equal time is not a balanced story when the sides aren't equal by a long margin.

[Signals.Cpl]

They are reporting balanced from both sides, if a cop is executed by someone in the name of revenge for the black community.

The question is what the media is reporting about, are they reporting more on everyday incidents which result in police casualties or is the increase specifically related to "unarmed" black individuals?

[Bonam]

The media doesn't report every black man killed by the police. Not even close.

And yet media reporting over the last few years gives the impression that these incidents are on the rise, that there is a recent epidemic of such incidents. Do the stats agree with that?

Reality is the media always wants to present the world as if it is falling apart, because that is what gets viewers. If someone were to watch the news and decide that the world is what's shown there, they would conclude that we are in a constant state of apocalypse.

In this case, the media interjects itself into the discussion by painting a wildly inaccurate picture of what's actually going on.

In what case does the media ever NOT do that?

The first thing any reasonable person should do when hearing any news story is assume that it was a complete fabrication or misrepresentation. Then, if the news actually has any relevance to them, they can dig deeper on the topic and find out what the truth of the related matter is.

[Guest]

Lately there's been increased reports of violence against police, fulfilling a narrative of public backlash against recent extrajudicial killings. Here we can see how news reports have skyrocketed.

I think it's just whatever is news at the time. Cop killings were news on a certain level until the Ferguson event and others, after which they could be added to that narrative as potential "revenge" killings. They just got a little more newsworthy. Whatever sells, sells.

Edited September 17, 2015 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

Reality is the media always wants to present the world as if it is falling apart, because that is what gets viewers.

I think it's just whatever is news at the time. ... Whatever sells, sells.

What I'm asking people to think about is the way that this shapes people's perceptions about reality. The media is actually creating the narrative that people believe, rather than giving people a window into the real world to see what's actually happening. People get passionate about these things without ever knowing what's truly happening.

As we sit here and discuss this in this context, that might seem obvious. "Well, duh! The media's just trying to make money," but out of context people don't often make the connection of how the media shapes the public's view on these things. People are almost never reflexive enough to look into themselves and see how media bias has shaped their own opinions. So we have a bunch of people in the world believing and arguing about narratives that have no resemblance to actual lived experiences.

[Michael Hardner]

People are almost never reflexive enough to look into themselves and see how media bias has shaped their own opinions.

It's a matter of challenge and response. We had an idea of 'liberal bias', which was responded to by FOX's overt right-wing bias and now it seems like all of MSM is being questioned, even to the point of widespread conspiracy theories taking hold (or at least getting coverage)

[Black Dog]

And yet media reporting over the last few years gives the impression that these incidents are on the rise, that there is a recent epidemic of such incidents. Do the stats agree with that?

We don't know because reliable stats aren't kept on this.

[cybercoma]

There was another article on this topic today this time on NPR. http://www.npr.org/2015/09/17/441196546/is-there-a-war-on-police-the-statistics-say-no?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150917

[dre]

And yet media reporting over the last few years gives the impression that these incidents are on the rise, that there is a recent epidemic of such incidents. Do the stats agree with that?

Reality is the media always wants to present the world as if it is falling apart, because that is what gets viewers. If someone were to watch the news and decide that the world is what's shown there, they would conclude that we are in a constant state of apocalypse.

In what case does the media ever NOT do that?

The first thing any reasonable person should do when hearing any news story is assume that it was a complete fabrication or misrepresentation. Then, if the news actually has any relevance to them, they can dig deeper on the topic and find out what the truth of the related matter is.

Well first of all it would only give that impression to people that dont understand what the media IS. Its grown into a massive advertising industry. In the 70's, the "news" was one hour per day where some old ugly dude like Kronkite would deadpan out the days news. The networks made their money mostly from other content... sitcoms, sports, drama, soap operas, etc. If they put on the content that people wanted to see, then they could generate revenue by selling advertising slots. Jounalists and editors had a fair ammount of license to determine which stories important.

Today... we have large corporations that depend on selling news alone. And since they are still at their root advertising companies, they need to put on the content that viewers want in order to sell advertising slots.

And right now, whether police brutality is on the rise or not, the public interest definately is. That may just be because a few high profile incidents sparked their interest, or it may be because there is a real problem thats getting worse.

I think theres a bit more too it than media spin though... in the US for example crime is falling rapidly, especially violent crime and has been for more than 20 years...

According to the FBI...

There were 1.16 million overall incidents of violent crime in 2013, which is the lowest total since 1978, when the population was just 222 million (compared to today's 317 million). Reports of negligent manslaughter were the lowest since 1968

So in theory confrontations between police and citizens (especially violent ones and especially fatal ones) should be down as well... BUT they dont seem to be.

The FBI tallied 461 felony suspects killed by police in 2013, the highest total in two decades. And while FBI data is adequate to demonstrate a rising trend in police killings, it is notoriously incomplete: The data is all self-reported by police departments using a wide variety of methodologies, and it only includes felony suspects. One estimate based on media reports puts the number of civilians killed by police in 2013 as high as 1,700.

I think theres a difference in how police are used by civilian leaders, and I think theres a tickle-down lack of respect for citizens that starts right at the top. And I think 911 and all the trumped up fake fear over terrorism has probably made things worse.

In 1975 Swat teams were used roughly 300 times in the US to perform knock and announce warrants. Last year there was 40 thousand of them.

Crime is way down and we are safer than ever before... BY FAR... but for whatever reason civilian leaders and their security apparatus are acting like we are all in imminent danger, and things are way worse. They need to watch us like hawks apparently, spend hundreds of billions intercepting out communications, and give police broad new sweeping powers and military style equipment.

[WIP]

There's a different/but similar thread somewhere here where I posted about the US example of dangerous occupations using Dept. of Labour statistics, that listed policing as the 14th....not first....most dangerous occupation in America. You wouldn't know it from the media spin and propaganda, but at some point, over-concern for the safety of police officers puts the public in danger.....and I'm talking about the stage they've clearly reached in a lot of US cities, where police have a carte blanche to assault, injure and murder without consequence....providing there's no video of the incident of course!