Theprotest paradigm is a set ofpropagandistic news coverage patterns common in themainstream media that delegitimizes, downplays, and unfavorably represents protesters. Outlets that use the paradigm often fail to cover nonviolent protests altogether or favor"pro-establishment" narratives when they do. The paradigm is theorized by scholars to be largely driven by ad revenue incentives in countries with a commercial media model and bypartisan politics. It is more prevalent in the United States than in many other countries.
The primary characteristics of the protest paradigm include the following:
Narrative framing: When news outlets frame protesters under a pre-existing narrative, such as by using the "criminals," "riot," or "carnival" narrative.[1][2][3]
Reliance on authorities: When news outlets over-rely official sources and official definitions, such as by quoting police statements but not statements from protesters.[1][3]
No public support: When news outlets compare public opinion polling against issues advocated by protesters or draw attention to low turnout, making protesters look like an "isolated minority."[1][3]
Delegitimization: When news outlets fail to explain the meaning and context of protest actions in order to delegitimize them, such as by downplaying what the protests will realistically accomplish.[1][3]
Demonization: When news outlets exaggerate threats and focus disproportionately on the negative consequences of protests, such the effects of traffic congestion caused by a march.[1][2]
Omission: When news outlets fail to report on protests unless they engage in violent "newsworthy" conflicts, or only cover the most extreme aspects of a protest while omitting what most protests actually entail.[4][5]
According to theHerman-Chomskypropaganda model, the reason commercial media systems "prioritize privileged groups over the minoritized,"[6] is largely because media outlets overwhelmingly favor advertisement-based models for generating revenue.[7]: 14 Because revenue generation in media outlets is driven by ads, media outlets are incentivized to promote news cycle narratives that are likely to be perceived positively by "affluent" audiences, who are more likely to purchase ads compared with "down-scale" audiences.[7]: 14
Narratives in news cycles are usuallypro-establishment when affluent individuals feel threatened and more progressive when goals of affluent individuals align with the objectives of a protest.[7]: 14 For example, according to thepropaganda model, the reason why there was negative press coverage[3][8][4] during theOccupy Wall Street protests was because affluent individuals felt threatened by how the protests opposedeconomic inequality, so in order to appeal to their affluent audiences, mainstream media outlets such asThe New York Times,The Boston Globe, andUSA Today[3] portrayed these protests negatively. However, according to a professor who studied the protest paradigm,[1] when a movement is less likely to harm affluent individuals, it is less likely to be reported on negatively, such as during theGreat American Boycott protests which received positive press from theLos Angeles Times largely because the protests aligned with the interests of the "wealthy elite in terms of meeting their needs for a large labor force to staff businesses and provide residential services."[1]
According to thepropaganda model, media outlets that do not tailor narratives toward affluent audiences tend to make less money than those who do, often resulting in outlets that do not follow the protest paradigm being driven out of the mainstream.[7]: 11 [8] Consequently, non-mainstream media outlets are more likely than mainstream outlets to give positive news coverage to protests.[8] News outlets in the mainstream are also more likely to follow the protest paradigm in countries with a commercial media model.[7]: 11 [8]
In issues with apartisan divide, a driving factor of the protest paradigm in the US has been found by studies to be thepolitical party with which a media outlet aligns, often leading to use of the paradigm to discredit protests aligned with opposing political views.[9][10]
Scholars identified two dimensions of news coverage: substance (low- or high-depth of coverage of protester action and demands) and sentiment (favorable or unfavorable framing).[5]
Good news in the US is more likely to occur when journalists cover engagement inbipartisanelectoral politics.[5] Good news is also more likely when journalists engage "deeply and frequently with a community," and studies claim that student journalism[11] and non-mainstream media outlets[8] tend to do this better than mainstream media outlets.
Bad news coverage is more likely when protesters engage in violence or when protesters are investigated or charged with crimes;[5] hard news coverage is more likely when there arelabor strikes;[5] and soft news coverage is more likely when covering civic action orthird party candidates in electoral politics.[5] The moreradical a protest group is, the more likely they are to receive bad or hard news coverage.[1][10] Bad and hard news is also more likely when protests are critical of media coverage.[10]
News outlets often focus on how protests violate social norms, such as through drawing attention to protesters who dress in unusual ways,[1][3] violate laws,[1] or hold minority views in public opinion polling.[1] Outlets also often draw attention to the idea that protesters who violate the status quo are "politically deviant."[3]
Some scholars argue mainstream media framing of violent protests in a negative way without examining whether violence is acceptable on a case-by-case basis undermines the idea that violence is in some cases a morally legitimate action against oppressive systems.[2] Others argue the protest paradigm "weakens the influence of social protest in public opinion," making the general public perceive them as "illegitimate troublemakers," wasting their time, and "a threat to social order."[3]
The type of coverage a nonviolent protest receives depends significantly on the issue being covered.[5] Nonviolent protests are less likely to receive any news coverage at all because they are often deemed "not newsworthy,"[1] and one study found a high correlation between the number of arrests atOccupy Wall Street and the number ofNew York Times stories per week.[4]
As a result of how nonviolent protests often receive little news coverage, protesters are more likely to engage in violence in order to secure media attention, thereby endangering themselves.[1] For example, theWomen Against Pornography movement in Minneapolis was largely ignored until protesters "ransacked an adult bookstore," anarchists in Minneapolis only received attention after demolishing a TV set and shaming a Marine recruiting station's windows, and the1999 Seattle WTO protests only received national coverage after protesters engaged in street violence withriot police.[1] When news coverage emerges after nonviolent protests turn violent, it is usually in the form of bad or hard news[1] and often focuses on details of the conflict rather than the issues being advocated by protesters.[4]
Yale anthropologist and left-wing political activistDavid Graeber argued "the US media is simply constitutionally incapable of reporting acts of police repression as 'violence' [...] If the police decide to attack a group of protesters, they will claim to have been provoked, and the media will repeat whatever the police say, no matter how implausible, as the basic initial facts of what happened."[12]
When good news explains "the goals and background of a protest" in order to legitimize and humanize protesters, those in the US withconservative political beliefs tend to perceive such news as less credible, whereas those withliberal political beliefs tend to perceive such news as more credible.[6]
The protest paradigm is more likely to be utilized in politically conservative newspapers.[10] For example, right-wing media outlets are more likely to invoke the protest paradigm than left-wing outlets regardingBlack Lives Matter protests in order to discredit the movement.[9][13]
The mainstream media is more likely in the US than in other countries to "delegitimize coverage of protests that relate toracism orcolonialism," whereas countries like China and India are less likely to do so.[6] US media was also more likely to use the protest paradigm than United Kingdom media when covering theIraq war protests. US media is more likely than the Belgian press to use the protest paradigm.[4]
A study found that five marginalization devices account for 66% of the variability in tone of mainstream media coverage of OWS (in order from most to least important):public disapproval,negative impact,show,ineffective goals, andlawlessness.[3] Another study found that while mainstream media characterized OWS as "lackluster," "confusing," and using a dismissive tone, non-mainstream news sources were more likely to emphasize "the strength and diversity of its protesters and demonstrators."[8] A third study found news coverage peaked during conflict between police and protesters and that there were periods of public disinterest between each conflict.[4]
Specific examples
USA Today invoked the protest paradigm in multiple articles,[3] including one (nowsyndicated toABC News) titled "Wall Street rallies become new brand of tourism," where they characterized OWS as a "carnival," downplayed its turnout, and extensively quoted a passerby who implied the movement was out of touch and unrealistic.[a][15]
Ginia Bellafante ofThe New York Times wrote an article titled "Gunning for Wall Street, With Faulty Aim"[16] which, among other NYT articles,[3] invoked the protest paradigm, characterizing OWS as a "carnival," drawing attention to low initial turnout, and extensively quoting a Wall Street trader who made condescending remarks about protesters.[b][16]
Joanna Weiss ofThe Boston Globe invoked the protest paradigm in an article titled "The right way to get heard" in which she characterized OWS as a "circus," said "too many Americans have jobs" for OWS to be realistic, and advocatedElizabeth Warren as a better alternative to the movement.[c][17]
TheGeorge Floyd protests were a series of protests, riots, and demonstrations againstpolice brutality that began inMinneapolis in the United States on May 26, 2020.[28][29] The protests and civil unrest began asreactions tothe murder ofGeorge Floyd, a 46-year-old unarmed African American man, bycity police during an arrest. They spread nationally and internationally. Veteran officerDerek Chauvin was recorded as kneeling on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds; Floyd complained of not being able to breathe,[30] but three other officers looked on and prevented passersby from intervening.[37] Chauvin and the other three officers involved were fired and later arrested.[38] In April 2021, Chauvin was found guilty ofsecond-degree murder,third-degree murder, andsecond-degree manslaughter.[39] In June 2021, Chauvin was sentenced to22+1⁄2 years in prison.[40]
Studies examined the amount of times different news outlets used the word "riot" to describe BLM protests (which were overwhelmingly peaceful)[41][42] and found apartisan divide: left-wing outlets such asCNN andMSNBC used the term "riot" to describe BLM 0.46 times and 0.24 times per story respectively, whereas right-wing outlets likeFox News used the term 1.15 times per story.[9] Studies found a similar divide among the same news sources when examining the use of the word "rioters" to describe BLM protesters and when examining positive versus negative framing of BLM protests.[9]
One study found thatAssociated Press,CNN, andFox News frequently engaged in the protest paradigm, whereasMSNBC produced less coverage overall but was more legitimizing.[13]
A report by multiple groups including theAnnenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania found that among three newspapers (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, theLouisville Courier-Journal, and thePhiladelphia Inquirer), police sources were more common than community-based sources; dehumanizing language such as "suspect," "juvenile," and "offender" were used to portray civilians targeted by police; protests were often framed as threats to public order; police violence was described with "distancing" language such as by describing officer force as an "officer-involved shooting"; outlets did not make a lacking connection between police violence and police accountability; and the rallying cry "defund the police" (used frequently by protesters) received little explanation in terms of its policy implications.[44]
Even though conservative outlets were more likely to engage in the protest paradigm, both liberal and conservative outlets both engaged in the protest paradigm,[13] such as by disproportionately focusing on violent demonstrations[42][45] even though they were overwhelmingly peaceful.[41][42] Studies have indicated this has contributed to a "decline in public support for the BLM movement," especially among thewhite population.[42]
Specific examples
Caitlin McFall ofFox News invoked the protest paradigm in an article titled "Cities reeling from violent riots tighten restrictions, implement curfews as National Guard deployed," characterizing the protests broadly as "mayhem, chaos, and wreckage," extensively quoting government officials without similarly quoting protester views, and using language sympathetic to authorities.[d][46]
In an article invoking the protest paradigm titled "For 48 hours, the nation's capital was gripped by chaos. Then everything changed," Peter Jamison, Marissa J. Lang, and Fenit Nirappil ofThe Washington Post framed the protests using the "city gripped by chaos" narrative, focusing disproportionately on high-action scenes, and characterizing the protesters' side as needing to be "brought discipline" without explaining motives or arguments in favor of the protests.[e][47]
According to Dr. Brown ofMichigan State University, the protesters are, in the words of one protester, focused on "uplifting the voices of Gazans, of Palestinians facinggenocide."[50] She claims core elements in nearly all Gaza war protests include "grievances, demands, disruption, confrontation and spectacle," but that confrontation and spectacle are covered extensively by media outlets whereas grievances and demands are neglected.[50] She also claims official statements are much more commonly cited than those protesters.[50]
Specific examples
Brandon Truitt ofWBZ-TV (CBS News Boston) invoked the protest paradigm in an article titled "13 arrested, 4 Boston police officers hurt in violent pro-Palestinian protest," citing official statements but not statements by protesters, legitimizing police attempts at moving protesters out of the road by emphasizing how they needed to "allow emergency vehicles to pass," drawing attention to theOctober 7 attacks without mentioning stances of the protesters, and listing the full names, ages, and home cities of all 13 protesters arrested.[f][51] Penny Kmitt, also withWBZ-TV, wrote another article on the same incident also invoking the protest paradigm,[g][52] as didFox News reporter Adam Sabes.[h][53]
WABC-TV (ABC News) invoked the protest paradigm in an article titled "325 arrested after Pro-Palestinian protesters block major bridges,Holland Tunnel," disproportionately quoting city officials who delegitimized protester goals, emphasizing charges brought against protesters, and characterizing the protests in the context of the Israel fighting Hamas rather than mentioning criticisms actually held by the protesters.[i][54]
Daniel Marking ofForbes invoked the protest paradigm against Thunberg in an article titled "The Sad Tragedy Of Greta Thunberg," characterizing her climate activism as consisting of "simplistic answers" and "pithy slogans," implying heractivism against Israel during the Gaza genocide wasantisemitic, and using the "fall from grace" narrative to characterize her transition from climate activism to pro-Palestine activism.[j][61]
Nick Gillespie invoked the protest paradigm inReason against Thunberg, drawing attention to herautism diagnosis, downplaying her activism by emphasizing how she was "staying out of school on Fridays," and making sarcastic remarks about her "appearing like some child messiah in a science fiction novel."[k][62]
^USA Today:The park's carnival atmosphere, complete with balloons and bongos, has sometimes seemed to attract as many media and passersby as actual protesters. [...] Meanwhile, visitor Lewis is entertained — if not convinced — by Occupy Wall Street's message. Interrupting Steyert's harangue comparing the current U.S. movement torecent protests in Cairo, she tells him, "You can't equate a dictator who tortured people and shut down democracy with what's happening here." "They're not very specific in their demands, are they?" Lewis asks with a bemused smile. But on this sunny Sunday in New York, the protesters' earnestness is enough for her. [End of article.][15]
^Ginia Bellafante:"I've been waiting for this my whole life," Ms. Tikka, 37, told me. "This", presumably was the opportunity to air societal grievances as carnival. Occupy Wall Street, a diffuse and leaderless convocation of activists against greed, corporate influence, gross social inequality and other nasty byproducts of wayward capitalism not easily extinguishable by street theater, had hoped to see many thousands join its protest and encampment, which began Sept. 17. According to the group, 2,000 marched on the first day; news outlets estimated that the number was closer to several hundred. [...] One day, a trader on the floor of theNew York Stock Exchange, Adam Sarzen, a decade or so older than many of the protesters, came toZuccotti Park seemingly just to shake his head. "Look at these kids, sitting here with theirApple computers," he said. "Apple, one of the biggest monopolies in the world. It trades at $400 a share. Do they even know that?" [End of article.][16]
^Joanna Weiss:This is the problem with overstated expectations, and with confusing high emotion with effectiveness. The protesters' stated goal was to turn Wall Street intoTahrir Square, but too many Americans do have jobs to make anArab-Spring-style uprising even possible. It's hard to take a protest fully seriously when it looks more like a circus – some participants seem to have taken a chute straight fromBurning Man – and when it's organized by aCanadian magazine and acomputer-hacking group. (Also, organizers first declared that they would draw 20,000 protesters, but only 1,000 showed up. That's not a media conspiracy. It's math.) All of which explains why, when it comes to channeling liberal rage – or liberal sarcasm, which sometimes works just as well –Elizabeth Warren has a much better shot. Indeed, in a race that's getting national attention, she may have found the perfect medium for her corporate-accountability message.[17]
^Caitlin McFall:[Start of article.] More than a dozen U.S. cities — still reeling from a grim night of violent riots — have implemented nighttime curfews in an effort to mitigate the worst of what they have seen in the days following the death of George Floyd, a black Minneapolis man who died in police custody after a white officer kneeled on his neck for more than 8 minutes in a moment caught on cellphone video. More than 1,000 people were arrested Saturday night alone after peaceful demonstrations turned into violent — and in some cases deadly — riots. Meanwhile, some 5,000 National Guard members have been deployed in at least 15 states in a desperate bid to stem the mayhem, chaos and wreckage. Attorney General William Barr said in a statement Sunday that as the rioting spreads in cities across the country, "voices of peaceful and legitimate protests have been hijacked by violent radical elements" and that they are working to "pursue their own separate, violent, and extremist agenda. It is time to stop watching the violence and to confront and stop it. The continued violence and destruction of property endangers the lives and livelihoods of others, and interferes with the rights of peaceful protesters, as well as all other citizens," Barr said. Barr said the violence "instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups" in connection with the rioting is "domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly".[46]
^Peter Jamison, Marissa J. Lang, and Fenit Nirappil:[Start of article.] The crowd swarming the fence north of the White House turned its attention from the rows of riot police on the other side of the barrier to one of their own. A young man had scaled the street sign at 16th and H streets last Tuesday night and was trying to tear it down. [...] The scene, replayed in different forms throughout the night, captured the warring impulses that gripped the nation’s capital early last week as demonstrations over the death of George Floyd gathered steam. For 48 hours, Washington teetered on the brink. After a night of riots and looting, followed by the use of tear gas by federal law enforcement officers to disperse demonstrators at Lafayette Square on June 1, the city looked like it was ready to descend into the kind of civil unrest last seen in 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.[47]
^Brandon Truitt:Atwood is also charged with assault and battery on a police officer and destruction of property. All 13 are scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in Boston Municipal Court. Police said four officers were taken to hospitals with what they called "non-life threatening injuries." "No arrestees required medical attention," investigators said. "We are extremely grateful for the work of the Boston Police in keeping the city safe and in supporting the right to peacefully protest," Mayor Michelle Wu said in a statement. "Boston will not tolerate violence, and we categorically condemn those who came into our community to attack our police officers. The individuals who engaged in these attacks must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." Tuesday marked two years since theHamas-led terrorist attack on Israel that led to war in Gaza. [End of article.][51]
^Penny Kmitt:All seven protesters were charged with anarchy, which is a felony in Massachusetts, and inciting a riot. Carrig-Braun, El Khatib, Hatch, MacIntyre and Smith also face charges of assault and battery on a police officer. Pettigrew and Weikel were also charged with interfering with a police officer. The six suspects who were previously arraigned on Wednesday will face upgraded charges of anarchy at a later date. According to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office, the suspects were charged with anarchy due to "violent imagery and rhetoric used in promotional media" for the rally on Oct. 7. "This organizing material promoted violence against police and presented an immediate threat to public safety which, combined with the actions of the individuals arrested, provided clear justification for the enhanced charges," said James Borghesani, Chief of Communications for the Suffolk DA.[52]
^Adam Sabes:According to Boston.com, the initial protest was organized by localStudents for Justice in Palestine chapters, which coincided with the two-year mark of theOct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack by Hamas. The protest was intended to "flood downtown for Palestine." According to the report, people yelled "F--- you, Nazis" and "BPD is KKK" as they refused to leave the area. A court officer clears the area outside of a courtroom, Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025, at Boston Municipal Court, where arraignments were held for people arrested at a pro-Palestinian rally in Boston. In a statement, Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu said that those who engaged in attacks on police will be prosecuted to the "fullest extent of the law." "We are extremely grateful for the work of the Boston Police in keeping the city safe and in supporting the right to peacefully protest. Boston will not tolerate violence, and we categorically condemn those who came into our community to attack our police officers. The individuals who engaged in these attacks must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Wu said.[53]
^WABC-TV:The protesters were calling on Israel to end its war on Hamas. Tens of thousands of people in Gaza have died since the war began and Israel is now beginning a more targeted approach to destroying Hamas. MayorEric Adams spoke out after the protests and said the right to protest does not give people the right to block bridges and tunnels. "The goal is to peacefully protest without doing major disruption to the city, some people are not just driving to and from, across our bridges to go to their place of employment, some of them are dealing with some real emergency type issues," Adams said. "I have been extremely clear, it gives us all pain to see innocent lives being lost right now, we need to do whatever is possible to end anything that is going to take the lives of innocent people, but Hamas must be destroyed, they are a terrorist organization." Adams called for every hostage to be released and to find a peaceful resolution across the globe. "Not just what is going on in the Middle East, but what is going on in Ukraine, and parts of the continent of Africa, there is no place for war and innocent people losing their lives," Adams said.[54]
^Daniel Markind:That all changed after October 7, 2023, when Greta found a more important cause – to her, that is – hatred of Israel. So determined was she to seek to destroy the Jewish state that she travelled to the Swedish city of Malmo to participate in mass demonstrations demanding a young Israeli singer be banned from participating in the annual Eurovision song contest. Miss Thunberg insisted that her voice be heard in opposition to the Israeli singer, yet she remained silent as Hezbollah rockets set fire to thousands of acres in northern Israel. For the first time, the environment was less important to Greta than world politics. "How dare you," indeed. [...] As the recent European parliamentary elections show, many Europeans are tiring of the green agenda. With costs rising and a feeling that the burdens of combating climate change are disproportionately shared, environmental activists now are fighting a rear-guard action to maintain momentum in combatting climate change. One thing that people have clearly realized is that environmental issues and energy transition are difficult subjects. They do not lend themselves to simplistic answers or pithy slogans.[61]
^Nick Gillespie:[Start of article.] Appearing like some child messiah in a science fiction novel, the 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has just delivered what is arguably the fiercest jeremiad in America since Jonathan Edwards uncorked "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in 1741. Speaking at the United Nations, Thunberg, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and started protesting climate change in 2017 by staying out of school on Fridays, told the audience that it was responsible for destroying her life and that of the planet.[62]
^abcdeHerman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam (1988).Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.ISBN9780099533115.
^abWeiss, Joanna (2011-09-27)."The right way to get heard".The Boston Globe. Retrieved2025-10-09 – via Massachusetts Nurses Association.
^abSmith, Robert (2021). "Black Lives Matter".Encyclopedia of African-American Politics, Third Edition. New York: Facts on File. pp. 122–126.ISBN978-1-4381-9939-9.
^Banks, Chloe (November 2, 2018). "Disciplining Black activism: post-racial rhetoric, public memory and decorum in news media framing of the Black Lives Matter movement".Continuum.32 (6):709–720.doi:10.1080/10304312.2018.1525920.ISSN1030-4312.S2CID150199510.
^Hennessey, Kathleen; LeBlanc, Steve (June 4, 2020)."8:46: A number becomes a potent symbol of police brutality".Associated Press.Archived from the original on June 9, 2020. RetrievedJune 9, 2020.But the timestamps cited in the document's description of the incident, much of which is caught on video, indicate a different tally. Using those, Chauvin had his knee on Floyd for 7 minutes, 46 seconds, including 1 minute, 53 seconds after Floyd appeared to stop breathing.
.jpg)
