As others have pointed out, the explanations have existed but perhaps not in your view.

From where I stand (Seattle, know multiple Defund folks), the reaction has been "So, the one true thing we think cops should do - prevent significant violent action and protect people - they failed at. This further proves our point". You can dither on whether blocking traffic is violent (it's not) but the events really only strengthened their case - BLM peaceful protesting is met with an order of magnitude more violence than actual attempted attacks on the government. So why bother having cops if they don't do anything when it actually matters?

It was a dismal communication strategy from the non-fringe leftists to adopt that slogan; there was no way it wouldn't be interpreted as "abolish the police" by a large fraction of the constituents, likely alienating many moderates and giving their opponents an obvious counter. Something like "demilitarize the police" would likely have worked much better.

> especially from the press who’s supposed to speak for the left

I have no idea what this quote means, but left leaning press have explained the concept of defunding the press just fine.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/defunding-th...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/07/defund-po...

have they? at the very least, they are not presenting a unified face.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

It's true that there are differences of opinion among the many people participating in this conversation, and the reporting on it.

But to be fair, this article does say:

"But don’t get me wrong. We are not abandoning our communities to violence. We don’t want to just close police departments. We want to make them obsolete.

"We should redirect the billions that now go to police departments toward providing health care, housing, education and good jobs. If we did this, there would be less need for the police in the first place.

"We can build other ways of responding to harms in our society. Trained “community care workers” could do mental-health checks if someone needs help. Towns could use restorative-justice models instead of throwing people in prison."

Why would you want or expect the press to present a unified face?

I don't, and it would be very scary if it did. all I'm saying it's quite reasonable to be unsure what "defund the police" means. it's not at all clear that it has some generally accepted meaning.

I agree - it doesn’t have some generally accepted meaning.

Some people seem to mean ‘no police at all’ and some seem to mean ‘don’t task the police with trivial stuff’.

But why then would the right assume it means the former?

well for one thing, the conservative slogan "defund planned parenthood" really does mean (AFAIK) remove all ways planned parenthood could possibly get a dollar from the government. it's not inconsistent to interpret "defund the police" the same way.

but more generally, it's inevitable that the opposing side will interpret a vague slogan in the most negative and scary light possible. I suspect this is often by design, ie motte and bailey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Conservatives complained about Obama defunding the military too. They knew he didn't disband it.

Because apparently "the press" and "the left" are both homogenous things that are in cahoots with each other to... do... something?

I think the standard end to that sentence is "to destroy our democracy."

It’s a handy assumption when you want to use straw-man arguments.

That’s and opinion piece and I don’t believe she is a staff member, the byline is a clue.

The article ends “ Mariame Kaba (@prisonculture) is the director of Project NIA, a grass-roots group that works to end youth incarceration, and an anti-criminalization organizer”.

It’s a good read, thanks.

That's because the mainstream press doesn't speak for the left, it speaks to make money... and outrage sells clicks.

Both can be true.

> especially from the press who’s supposed to speak for the left

According to whom?

The press speaks for the establishment, because to a large extent, that's who owns it. It sucks up to power and reflects its biases.

The lack of clarity in the slogan has frustrated me as well, but most news coverage I have seen (NPR, NYT) is usually clear about its established meaning among the people using it. Same with in-person conversations.