CNN’s Disregard of ‘Democracy Spring’ Not Surprising

On April 19, the Democracy Spring protest entered its ninth day. As a 2.0 version of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Democracy Spring was collectively disregarded by mainstream U.S. media, and consequently led to protesters shouting, “CNN where are you?” Ironically, the same day also marked the 100th anniversary of the Pulitzer Prizes, the highest honor in American journalism, a day when many U.S. mainstream media representatives won awards, thus forming a sharp contrast to the protest.

The coverage by traditional U.S. media of Democracy Spring was very similar to coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement in the autumn of 2010, when there was only a lukewarm response to these domestic mass movements. During the Occupy Wall Street movement, surveys conducted by the Nieman Journalism Lab of Harvard University showed that more than half of the surveyed reporters and editors thought the movement “lacked newsworthy value.” In the survey, one reporter said, “Some people are angry at something, besides this, what else can be reported?”* The media made the same judgment about Democracy Spring.

The argument was not unfounded. Traditional U.S. media are not public in the true sense, if one uses corporate media principles such as “amplification of deviance,” “binarism,” and “bleed to lead” to gauge importance. The Occupy Wall Street and Democracy Spring movements lacked clear political demands and effective organization from the outset, and did not present distinct corporate news issues. Similarly, traditional media only paid attention to the Occupy Wall Street movement after the Brooklyn Bridge clash between police and protesters and bloodshed in Oakland, California. The Democracy Spring movement was, until then, a “civil disobedience” with no bloodshed or violent incidents, hence from a journalistic perspective, the movement was still restricted by the “bleed to lead” principle.

After the structural overhaul that occurred in deregulating monopolies and with “cross-media corporatization” in the ’90s, traditional U.S. media have been moving farther away from being a fundamentally independent press and have become a vassal for capitalism and monopolistic corporations. As such, since the new millennium, traditional U.S. media have had difficulty carrying out public duties and being public watchdogs, not to mention difficulty in replicating the glory of investigative journalism practiced by the muckrakers of the early 1900s, the anti-Vietnam War movement in the ’70s, and by journalists who exposed the Watergate scandal.

Many reporters and editors of traditional media held the status of middle-class elite, enjoyed their high position and lived lavish lives. With respect to public movements such as Occupy and Democracy Spring, traditional media have often considered these efforts as being started by mobs similar to draft evaders, students and hippies. It isn’t surprising that reporters today are indifferent, silent, or at most providing lighthearted reporting in the face of such social movements.

Moreover, traditional U.S. media have also used the ideas of professionalism and objectivity to justify restraining journalists in the Occupy movement from voicing their political demands. A typical example was part-time broadcaster Lisa Simeone of National Public Radio. The program she hosted was halted because she acted as the spokeswoman for “Occupy D.C.” and participated in the demonstration. NPR officials said, “It’s fine if you want to be a leader of an organized protest movement, but you can’t also be in a journalistic role.” This was considered to be contrary to “journalistic objectivity” and “professional ethics.” The broadcaster countered that she did not host a news program, but was hosting a program to introduce Western opera. Participation in the demonstration was her personal pursuit.

Protesters involved in Democracy Spring pointed to the influence of money in manipulating elections, where political campaign advertising is a major source of income for traditional media. For the 2016 election, initial estimated spending on TV campaign advertising is $4.4 billion; Donald Trump himself claimed to be spending $2 million per week running campaign advertising. Therefore, traditional media have become an integral part of the “money politics” mechanism. They are, of course, one of the protest targets of Democracy Spring. Thus, it was unavoidable that traditional U.S. media would remain silent against Democracy Spring.

Another more practical consideration is that journalists from American newspapers, radio, television and other traditional media face the risk of being laid off in the name of “digital reform” at any time. Hence, traditional journalists keep a safe distance from these radical movements. Sitting on the sidelines or even maintaining complete silence could be considered a helpless choice, too.

The author is the associate dean of Tsinghua University School of Journalism and Communication, and holds a doctorate from Penn State University.

*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, this quote could not be independently verified.