“Polls in summer 2020 estimated that between 15 million and 26 million people had participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making the protests the largest in U.S. history.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests

Given the sheer scale of people protesting they were, by all reasonable definitions, mostly peaceful. When news reports prefer to show things like broken windows and trash cans on fire, but it’s impossible to show 15 to 26 million people spread across 50 states, emphasizing that the protests were mostly peaceful and the violent images are the outlier is responsible journalism.

The journalist is literally standing in front of a burning building: https://youtu.be/igzNAzcXNBA

It’s totally fair to lose faith after seeing that.

> It’s totally fair to lose faith after seeing that.

Nah, not IMO. The video you linked to has the reporter claiming that the current state is "in stark contrast" to the day's earlier protests.

BTW, the term that I stated originally ("Mainstream media") may include CNN but it also includes AP, Reuters, and many more press agencies that are much more dignified. CNN used to be 'headline news' but has transformed into the same nonstop opinion shows in order to compete with Fox. So it's not the best source IMO.

But don't lose faith. Don't base things on the worst example. Instead judge Mainstream Media by the NYT, Washington Post, Reuters, NPR.

I’ve lost faith, it’s too late for that. Reuters and AP seem to play it straight. NPR I’d say is somewhat biased, not really at the facts level but in the way stories are framed. NYT is a hopeless lost cause. WaPo, I have no opinion on, I don’t really read them much.

Over 80 people killed during the summer of love but January 6th was an "insurrection"?

You mock yourself if you are sincerely defending this crap.

It’s the MSM showing you a video of a burning building. Why does that cause you to lose faith in the MSM when they give you video evidence of what’s happening?

We had video evidence of those Convington kids and then found out the part shown was a section that didn't tell the story. Video has been shown and edited a bit too much lately. It's not the shown video but what isn't being shown that is often the problem.

"Mostly peaceful" said the reporter, in front of a burning building.

Context matters.

They were showing the anomalous situation, and giving an overview for greater context.

Reporting only the former, or only the latter dissociates the two. This was clearly establishing and acknowledging context for the extreme outlier of the situation being pictured.

But you’ve already made up your mind, I suppose, and no amount of logic or reason will bring you back.

If you want me to believe protests are "mostly peaceful" then don't report in front of a fucking conflagration.

Furthermore - and there's no nice way to say this - why are people so dumb as to believe news outlets as if they're arbiters of the truth? As if they were the very Ancients themselves from the Stargate universe, descended down to enlighten us all with zero self-interest?

The New York Times COMPANY. A COMPANY. Owned by a trust-fund jackass who inherited it from his great-great-great-however-many-times-grandfather.

CNN, owned by Turner Broadcasting Company, owned by WarnerMedia, owned by AT&T... the same AT&T that's lied about bringing fiber to America after getting how many billions in tax dollars for the past 36-something years from Congress?

How deluded do you have to be to think any of these outlets are being even remotely objective about "The News"?

They pander to your goofy asses, and you consistently believe them. CNN is no better than Fox News is no better than MSNBC is no better than <insert here>.

EDIT: You're not goofy, guys... you're just honestly fucking gullible and dumb if you believe any of them. You're being sold a story - a worldview compatible with whatever bullshit you want to believe. It makes me sick that people can't or won't be honest about this.

Yes, optics matter and this was one of the worst among them.

But you didn't have to go all the way back in history though. In my opinion, CNN's trope of succession is largely forgotten today in this specific journalism-is-dead context but unless "hackers" have been living under a rock for the past few years, pointing this out is far more important than continuing to cherrypick out the headlines. Remember when HN was all about punk/hackers culture from two decades ago? Times have certainly changed.

I have seen more humanity in people than I would normally expose myself to but more about those caught in the crossfire. Two examples I can think of was the story of a Seattle security guard snatching away a rifle from a group of rioters whom freshly pillaged a police car and, an urban explorer vlogging his departure from Seattle as a result from the protests.

Security guard -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXoGzJZw4Z4

Vagrant Holiday -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUO8secmc0g

Somewhat related -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZPgz5T7PXI

And you don't see a problem with the passive voice either ("Fires have been started")?

It’s the spin, the contrast between what’s on the screen and the commentary about it. It causes me to lose faith in CNN as an unbiased source. Doesn’t apply to all MSM, but it’s a data point.

That is fair and logical take. But if the protesters had been wearing red caps, people would be defending a fair and logical take in the press that they were cover for violent riots and looting.

I'd be more interested in data a few years from now to show if protesting really did anything? Obviously this is a right we must protect and embolden, however for certain causes protesting in this day and age seems to do little to elicit actual political action or change - sometimes it even does the opposite.

Protests in the late 90s brought visibility to issues, AND had a clear ask to the public.

Today people protest to just being visibility. But they have no ask or strategy on how to resolve the underlying issue.

The lack of a clear ask on policy change is likely why many recent protests haven’t accomplished meaningful policy change.

I couldn't agree more - I think the number of pervasive narratives accelerated by social media (with almost zero backing in data) are also a factor here. For instance, I support reducing emissions and fossil fuel use, but I find it a bit nuts when Gen Z claims "the world will end in 12 years" without offering any real path forward other than "fuck anyone who disagrees".

Sure a head count of all protests from the whole country buries the problem from view. Using this logic Jan 6th was peaceful.

The problem is they mentioned protests, not protestors. The more relevant way to look at it is how many protest events led to rioting as it progressed?

You are letting a clumsy chyron that did a bad job summarizing an accurate report sour all of journalism for you?

You are structuring your argument as if it was a one off and not a culminating crescendo for some people. News have been getting progressively worse over the past few decades. This just happened to be a very clear and visible sign, because it is just hard to find something so visibly wrong.

The other poster was framing it as an inflection point and I was questioning that.

Also the chyron wasn't truly wrong, it was summarizing a report about what transpired over 24 hours. The protests were "mostly peaceful" until they weren't. That was all discussed on screen while the chyron was displayed. The only way to be misled by the chyron was if you were watching the channel on mute or you just saw the screenshot flying around the internet being pushed by people who wanted you to think the media is lying.

The chyron said "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting" and it probably should have said "Mostly peaceful protests after police shooting turn fiery after nightfall" but that is both longer and clunkier. So they went with a more condensed version without thinking of the awful visual it would create when screenshotted. If this is journalism's worst crime, then we are in fantastic shape.

It is not the worst crime. It just happens to be most visible, because it gives the appearance of consciously creating a narrative that fits specific needs ( in simple terms : BLM good / police bad ) and is then reinforced by semi subtle, but still clear signals ( if race is omitted in a shooting, you can at this point assume the shooter was/is black ).

That is the issue, it is not one clumsy comment. It is a series of million little moments. They do add up.

>it gives the appearance of consciously creating a narrative that fits specific needs

If this was the goal, why would they report the truth audibly while lying to you visually?

That is the point you are missing as it evidence that the chyron was clumsy rather than nefarious. You don't report two conflicting narrative if your objective is to get viewers to believe only one of the narratives. If the goal was to mislead, they did an awful job at it by telling the truth in the actual reporting. The people who want to mislead are the ones who took the chyron out of context of the report it was summarizing.

"If this was the goal, why would they report the truth audibly while lying to you visually?"

It is possible I have it reversed in my mind. Lets look at the picture at hand and see if we can agree what it represents[1].

[1]https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/27/cnn-chyron-on-kenosha-f...

Tell me what you see in this image?

To respond to what I think you are saying. Maybe the senior lead thought reporter could do better job on his feet and gave him a shot. Live riot. You will need to take some chances and see how they play out. Poor guy was clearly not ready for prime time.

>Lets look at the picture...

>Tell me what you see in this image?

This is exactly my point. Why are you only looking at a picture? You should also watch the video. Remember CNN is a TV channel. Their primary product is video. They are working to convey information through video and not an out of context screenshot.

Do you think the reporting is misleading after watching that video? The reporter specifically mentions that the scene behind him is "in stark contrast" to the "largely peaceful demonstrations" from earlier in the day. The video is clear and truthful. The chyron tries to summarize that but doesn't do it properly resulting in the bizarre and dystopian screenshot. That screenshot is not an accurate representation of the report it accompanies. That is the failure. There is no reason to assume that failure is malicious rather than accidental.

>To respond to what I think you are saying. Maybe the senior lead thought reporter could do better job on his feet and gave him a shot. Live riot. You will need to take some chances and see how they play out. Poor guy was clearly not ready for prime time.

Also a quick side note, you seem to be suggesting that the reporter wrote his own chyron. It was almost assuredly written by some producer who was probably in some office hundreds or thousands of miles away. The reporter on the scene did a fine job.

CNN clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klVhCkhOTRQ

You are right. Live video is less clumsy. The caption still breaks it, but that is not reporter's fault.

So now the question becomes whether the caption is misleading.

Misleading can have an implied motive. I said that the chyron was clumsy in my first comment, so I agree it is bad and should have been clearer. However we have nothing to suggest that that was purposeful with an intent to mislead. It can just be someone making a careless mistake.

Also now that you recognize the video's message is clearer than the single screenshot, I would ask you to consider why you have primarily seen the screenshot. Is that maybe because the people sharing it are doing it based on their own biases and motives rather than the merit of the report itself?

Oh, there is zero doubt about that part. The moment this video showed up, it was like Christmas in July for the right side of the political spectrum in US. What you call careless mistake, I see as the problem with modern journalism. It does not even need a spin. You just show one frame and meme theory will take care of the rest.

The chyron combined with the reporting that night could have been inserted into a dystopian movie with little to no editing.

> The chyron said "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting" and it probably should have said "Mostly peaceful protests after police shooting turn fiery after nightfall" but that is both longer and clunkier. So they went with a more condensed version without thinking of the awful visual it would create when screenshotted.

I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. When your job is literally not creating awful visuals, you can't use that defense. There was a clear message being projected, and that was that the violence was good, and you really shouldn't pay attention.

>The chyron combined with the reporting that night could have been inserted into a dystopian movie with little to no editing.

What was inaccurate about the reporting that accompanied that chyron? They specifically said it was peaceful during the day until nightfall and that is when violence started. That is perfectly inline with the scene behind the reporter. The only problem was the chyron.

>I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. When your job is literally not creating awful visuals, you can't use that defense. There was a clear message being projected, and that was that the violence was good, and you really shouldn't pay attention.

No one has ever made a mistake at their job especially when they are doing it live on television in a stressful high pressure environment? This is classic Hanlon's razor. And as I said in the other comment, there was not a "clear message projected" because the audio and text messages conflicted with each other.

The message of "violence is good" also aligns with the robotic use of "mostly peaceful" throughout the media and the strange empathy TV people had for Antifa. Your interpretation is an accurate read of the sympathy the news has for BLM and others.

A person can argue that World War II was mostly peaceful. At any point of geography, it's quite rare that artillery shells are falling or tanks rolling through. Usually it's a quiet garden spot.

The fact is, the BLM protests were mostly peaceful. They were almost entirely peaceful. But that's not how we expect the news to cover any event that includes rioting or looting. We expect the news to lock on to the most sensational parts, however insignificant, and talk endlessly about how terrible this is and how BLM organizers should feel some responsibility for this. That's what the news would've done in any other circumstance. That's what it would have done for BLM in decades past. That's what it would have done if BLM had endorsed Trump. But because of the weird and universal sympathy news producers have for BLM, the protests were covered differently.

It's the cherry on top.

Between cherrypicked statistics, obvious and tremendous political bias (Both sides, but we all know which one benefits more), a complete abandonment of balanced coverage, and tinting the faces of politicians to make them appear less healthy (happened to Trump and Bernie), I'm just about done ever trusting any mainstream media source again.

When Ben Shapiro's news website does a better job of admitting their own biases than any of the three-letter networks, we have a problem.

"Fiery but mostly peaceful"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-...

Ditto.

It was the news moment I realized:

The Emperor Has No Clothes!