This morning about 11:00 (PST) I was watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Oregon outrage and the confrontation that took place light night. The reporter (I think her name was Morgan) consistently referred to the people who invaded the wildlife center as “protestors” or “activists.” She described those still at the center as “steadfast” and “standing firm” in their commitment to their cause. She said something along the lines that there were differing views on what had happened regarding LaVoy Finicum’s death, and then quoted his grieving daughter, who had been nowhere near the scene, as saying her father would not have threatened anyone.
How can the view of someone who wasn’t at the scene and whose opinion would be affected by her relationship with her father be seen as in any way equivalent to that of law enforcement officers who were there? Those aren’t differing views of what happened. If she wanted to quote the daughter, fine, but put it should be in a different context.
How do some journalists go so far off the rails? At a press conference following the reporter, the FBI and the local sheriff used the appropriate terms for the invaders: armed illegal militants or occupiers. These armed people constantly threatened violence. They were unapologetically engaged in unlawful activity, not non-violent constitutionally protected protest. They were not steadfast or standing firm; they were and are obstinate, wrong-headed and unwilling to listen to reason or even negotiate honestly with law enforcement.
A Think Progress article today titled “Note to Media: The Heavily Armed, Law-Breaking Oregon Militants Are Not ‘Protesters’” again makes the point about how language is being used differently to describe these conspirators versus true activists:
The media has labeled Black Lives Matter events a “threat,” and activists have even been accused of inciting violence “to the point of a hate crime,“ despite the movement being largely peaceful. Police have repeatedly used excessive force against Black Lives Matter activists, deploying riot gear, tear gas, and smoke bombs on the unarmed activists protesting.
The same could be said of much of the mainstream reaction to the Occupy Movement.
As Think Progress also points out, some have suggested the proper term for these people is “domestic terrorist,” but there is no way that will be adopted. I do think reporters could be educated into using “armed illegal occupiers” if we all put pressure on them when we hear them use positive terms. I’d even be satisfied with “armed illegal protesters” as long as they are differentiated from legal peaceful protestors, who don ‘t march around brandishing guns, threaten law enforcement officers, and flout the rule of law except as they define it. Legal protesters are angry about abuses of the law, but when they are arrested, they don’t usually question the right of law enforcement to do so. They question the judgment and practices of law enforcement and government, but not their right to govern, create law and enforce it.
Shame on those, including journalists, who try to make these armed illegal occupiers seem noble when they are the next thing to traitors.