Sometimes, journalists can’t challenge a protest’s ideals, so they poison the well before the first step. Last week, I talked about my experience at the “No Kings” rally in Boston—specifically, how I reconciled attending such a rally in spite of the democratic nature of our elections.
I wanted to build upon that by highlighting an example of dishonest framing, which seeks to undermine the message of the protest by failing to confront its basic principles head-on. The Boston Herald, long known for sensational political coverage, often positions civic demonstrations as partisan theater. This article by Joe Battenfield relies on discrediting the rally through emotional associations and delegitimizing civic participation.
Framing the villain
Note the verbiage used throughout the article when describing the backers of the march:
- “‘No Kings’ march funded by special interests”
- “a host of union hacks.”
- “The rally is backed by a slick marketing campaign”
This language is picked to turn coalition-building into corruption. At no point does Battenfield source his claims, provide financial data, or explain how this “orchestration” would invalidate the intent of the march. While a detailed by-the-numbers analysis would probably be overkill for this type of content, blatantly having no evidence at all is damaging to his argument.
Stacking adjectives
Battenfield employs a series of loaded adjectives for the sole purpose of moral coloration:
- “liberal”
- “left-wing”
- “professional protesters”
The author isn’t piecing thoughtful evidence together of a deeper conspiracy that unravels the movement, he’s telling the readers how to feel about the marchers themselves.
Guilt-by-association
Other unrelated groups and acts are woven in without connective tissue to mislead the reader into seeing a connection Battenfield himself strays away from making:
- “a surge in violence against police”
- “pro-Hamas protesters.”
By tying these subjects to the event, he side-steps creating a cohesive counter-argument in favor of hoping the reader’s negative feelings relating to those words cast the “No Kings” march in a negative light.
Discrediting via caricature
The article leans on unfounded stereotypes to make its point:
- “well-heeled suburbanites”
- “professional protesters”
The purpose of portraying the protesters this way is to undermine authenticity and moral legitimacy, implying comfortable distance and paid agitators, but there’s nothing to support it.
Weaponizing authority figures
Mayor Michelle Wu’s name is invoked not for insight, but for risk framing:
- “Wu has the most to lose if the rally incites violence.”
This line plants a strategic hedge: if any violence unfurls at the protest, Battenfield hopes readers will instinctively connect it to Mayor Wu, regardless of evidence or reason to believe it will happen in the first place.
Underlying strategy
This article is preemptive narrative control in the face of the potential largest protest in American history. By framing the event as
- inorganic
“slick, well-funded”
- elite
“well-heeled suburbanites”
- dangerous
“amidst a surge in violence”
- and hypocritical,
“Mayor Wu’s peaceful protest might explode”
Battenfield is priming readers to expect these ideas before there’s any evidence to confirm or deny them. Front-load the cynicism, make readers feel victimized in advance.
Don’t fall for it
When reading opinion pieces such as this, keep an eye out for:
- Lack of sourcing, abundance of adjectives
- Unrelated threats woven in
- Stereotypes in place of evidence
- Authority framed as risk
- Cynicism over factual reporting
Whether you support the protest or not, this is dishonest journalism. Civic participation is a right and a duty, not a PR stunt or a mark against organization. Portraying every mass action as a “special interest” operation and implying that only apathy is authentic poisons democracy by training readers to distrust the collective action that civic life depends on.
Leave a comment