Let's start with accuracy: I am not aware of any news reports that reported as a matter of news that the death of George Floyd resulted from racism. This to separate and distinguish news from commentary, "media." But in this you appear not to make the distinction:

Even if it was a racist attack, which the evidence seems to be lacking in my opinion, would it have been better to simply label it as a murder in order to prevent the chaos that has ensued? Or, does the media’s responsibility to report accurately outweigh the possible consequences? — Pinprick

And both in news and commentary I prefer honesty and truth (I actually think they are necessary). In the news, the facts. In the commentary, fair interpretation of the facts. That is, accuracy.

As to your "evidence seems to be lacking," are you kidding?

And both in news and commentary I prefer honesty and truth (I actually think they are necessary). — tim wood

Regardless of the consequences? Not necessarily arguing, just wondering.

As to your "evidence seems to be lacking," are you kidding? — tim wood

The only evidence I’m aware of is that a white person needlessly killed a black person. I’m not willing to assume that every time an incident like this occurs it is racially motivated. Perhaps I’m naive, but I think that the type of person that would be motivated to kill someone strictly because of the color of their skin would have other signs that would point to the fact that they are racist; frequenting racist social networks, a history of making racist statements, a history of making discriminatory behaviors, a white hood in his closet, etc. But as I understand things, this is an isolated incident for this person. If there is evidence to the contrary, I’d be more than willing to change my mind.

I do not live in USA and do not know what the guidelines are for the police in restraining a person. But in most civilised countries in the world it would be entirely unacceptable for a policeperson to kneel on a person's neck. If the person is in custody then the police have an obligation to care for the well being of that person. If a police person acts outside the police guidelines then they do so as an individual and are personally responsible for any damage they cause.

It is completely unacceptable. I agree :100:

He apparently had 18 previous complaints, the exact nature of which to my knowledge have not been yet revealed but I suspect at least some were excessive force. He probably should not have been on the force. One has to question the role or duty of the other officers present as well.

Hel-lo civil law. Any guesses as to what the Floyd family and the city of Minneapolis will finally settle for. Compensatory probably not too much, but punitive?

I think that the media is partly to blame for the current state of affairs by labeling the murder an act of racism, with no evidence (at least that I’m aware of) other than the fact that the race of the murderer and victim were different. The question I have is whether or not the incident should have been labeled as racist. Even if it was a racist attack, which the evidence seems to be lacking in my opinion, would it have been better to simply label it as a murder in order to prevent the chaos that has ensued? Or, does the media’s responsibility to report accurately outweigh the possible consequences? — Pinprick

The media has its agenda: it always tries to engage the most significant possible audience for as long as possible. To achieve this goal, the media utilities various techniques and strategies: first, they select the so-called ‘brute’ fact to report. Then, the media frame this fact to be enveloped in the recognizable plot and to invoke the familiar narrative. Even if they do not label the chosen fact directly, they can easily integrate it into a favorable context. Further, the news should appear as the novel and extraordinal ‘breaking news’. A collective of professionals supports the current breaking news on-air and is ready to drop it at any time to start the next one. Often, a media platform promotes a clear partisan perspective. Yet, it is even much more effective in imposing a particular cluster of opinions and preferences when it looks like reporting the neutral, unbiased news.

He probably should not have been on the force. — prothero

Yeah, I’d say so. Don’t most jobs have a “3 strikes rule,” or something comparable? 18 complaints would be laughable under other circumstances. This is definitely more evidence of the officer’s bad character, but still not that he’s racist, unless those complaints are from predominantly black people. And yes, the other officers need to be held accountable for their inaction, or negligence, which resulted in death! I’m a mandatory reporter for any suspected instances of abuse or neglect for the client’s I serve, and as such face potential criminal charges for not performing this duty, should not doing so result in harm. Pardon my language, but how the fuck does this not apply to law enforcement?

The media has its agenda: it always tries to engage the most significant possible audience for as long as possible. To achieve this goal, the media utilities various techniques and strategies: first, they select the so-called ‘brute’ fact to report. Then, the media frame this fact to be enveloped in the recognizable plot and to invoke the familiar narrative. Even if they do not label the chosen fact directly, they can easily integrate it into a favorable context. Further, the news should appear as the novel and extraordinal ‘breaking news’. A collective of professionals supports the current breaking news on-air and is ready to drop it at any time to start the next one. Often, a media platform promotes a clear partisan perspective. Yet, it is even much more effective in imposing a particular cluster of opinions and preferences when it looks like reporting the neutral, unbiased news. — Number2018

This is my view as well, but essentially I’m asking about the consequences of operating in this way, specifically considering all that has transpired with this incident. Thoughts?

Good call. Exposes, to my dismay, a point of view that isn't all that praiseworthy. I mean would there be no protests, no hurt, no call for justice, would people have looked the other way, if it had been a white cop killing, using excessive force, an unarmed white man? While I don't condone racism-motivated attacks, shouldn't the police be told in clear terms to tone down their "zeal" when making arrests in general and not just under "special" circumstances?

I’m asking about the consequences of operating in this way, specifically considering all that has transpired with this incident. Thoughts? — Pinprick

The media is just one of the factors of the entire dynamic. There is the double crisis of economy's shutdown and pandemic's effects as well as the continuous erosion of trust in traditional institutions. Since Trump was elected, there has been an escalation of the struggle around his presidency's legitimacy. We see the dramatic increase of the partisanship of the mainstream media. Probably, since the stakes are so high now, the leading media platforms are further diverging from the facts reporting. For example, yesterday CNN presented the unnecessary excess of power when peaceful protesters have been pushed away from the White House so that Trump could pose beside St. John Episcopal Church. According to the Fox News version, Trump has restored law and order by visiting the church that was set on fire during the previous night protests.
The singular event occurs in the US right now. Is that possible to obtain credible information about what is going on?

Good call. Exposes, to my dismay, a point of view that isn't all that praiseworthy. I mean would there be no protests, no hurt, no call for justice, would people have looked the other way, if it had been a white cop killing, using excessive force, an unarmed white man? While I don't condone racism-motivated attacks, shouldn't the police be told in clear terms to tone down their "zeal" when making arrests in general and not just under "special" circumstances?

There was the 2016 case of Tony Timpa, who was slain in much the same way as George Floyd. Charges were dismissed against the officers, who mocked him as he lay dying.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/us/dallas-police-body-cam-footage-captures-death/index.html

The kid was light-skinned, probably affluent, so probably not much of a symbol for any greater cause. The officers apparently received death threats, but there were no protests or rioting as far as I can tell.

This tends to be my view as well. It’s strange. You would think that outright murder by the very people charged with protecting us would warrant a public outcry in itself, but it seems the outcry is much greater if the murder is considered to be racially motivated. As if racism is worse than murder. Don’t get me wrong, racism is appalling, but there’s no coming back from death. I just think things would have played out much differently if this incident wasn’t construed as racially motivated. I think the hypersensitivity towards race actually contributes to the problem. It’s difficult for a nation to overcome racism when we are constantly being reminded of its existence, sometimes unnecessarily. When every negative interaction between people of different races is considered racism it only acts to embolden actual racists and enrage the oppressed. The blacks get a distorted view of the world where every white man is out to get them, which naturally makes them fearful and angry. Racists see the prevalence of racism, which is also a distorted perception, as normalizing their beliefs and actions, which naturally makes them express their beliefs through acts of racism. To me the media’s role in this is more fuel for the fire.

It’s strange. You would think that outright murder by the very people charged with protecting us would warrant a public outcry in itself, but it seems the outcry is much greater if the murder is considered to be racially motivated — Pinprick

To me the media’s role in this is more fuel for the fire. — Pinprick

The media role is to transcend and transform any possible struggle, any potential or actual conflict, to cover the entire field of all decisive events. The particular content of the unfolding event is less important. There is the singular paradoxical phenomenon of our days: the media, together with the neoliberal elite, compose vanguard of the struggle for the set of the most noblest aims. There are multiple effects of this situation: the elite and the media reinforce their power and influence, but they also advance the accelerating societal changes.

Right. So do you think the media should at least be held partly responsible for what’s now occurring? Should the media’s methods change?

So do you think the media should at least be held partly responsible for what’s now occurring? Should the media’s methods change? — Pinprick

All in all, I completely understand your perspective. Yet, I think that we cannot change the media. When you write: “the media is partly to blame for the current state of affairs,” you probably underestimate the role of the media in the construction of our social reality. It continuously exercises the excess of dominating creative power, and performs in a machinic, automotive mode, without personal human intentions. Therefore, the media is always entirely to blame for the state of affairs. Practically, we could try to understand how the media functions and to regulate our own degree of involvement and engagement.

Yet, I think that we cannot change the media. — Number2018

Why not? I wasn’t around to witness first hand the “Walter Kronkite” style of reporting, but from what I understand media has changed since that time period. So why couldn’t it change again?

When you write: “the media is partly to blame for the current state of affairs,” you probably underestimate the role of the media in the construction of our social reality. — Number2018

Yeah, I was being conservative.

It continuously exercises the excess of dominating creative power, and performs in a machinic, automotive mode, without personal human intentions. — Number2018

Aren’t humans completely in control of what gets covered/reported, and how? If so, then their intentions are reflected in what we are consuming. People choose the topics discussed and the specific wording used, and they do so for their own personal motivations.

Therefore, the media is always entirely to blame for the state of affairs. Practically, we could try to understand how the media functions and to regulate our own degree of involvement and engagement. — Number2018

Well, maybe, but I at least like to think we should have some personal accountability for our actions too. Maybe that’s what your last sentence is getting at, but I agree that the public should be educated, somehow, on precisely the media’s intentions, accuracy of reporting, etc. But also having media outlets clearly labeled as opinion programming would help. There is a certain air of authority and accuracy that goes along with the term “news” that has now become misleading. Objectivity cannot seem to be found, and this results in the public being burdened with the need to seek out varying opinions and draw their own conclusions. But the problem with this is that the vast majority of the public are not capable of doing this and escaping their echo chambers. So we have a nation divided against itself. I suppose we’ll see if it can stand for much longer.

Aren’t humans completely in control of what gets covered/reported, and how? — Pinprick

To answer this, I would like to get back to your OP.

Regarding the recent murder of George Floyd, the media appeared to be very quick to label the murder as the result of racism. — Pinprick

Indeed, the media was swift. Likely, it is possible to represent what happened using the following scheme, dividing it into steps:
1) Selection 2) Prioritizing 3) The way of covering/reporting (labelling) 4) Maintaining the created momentum
5) Back-Referencing, so that all previous steps, all that was constructed looks as a set of real facts.
Probably, the selection was made on the base of the corporate policy, as well as aspiration to advance and to shape particular political agenda. The policy is debated and renovated by the small group of big bosses, and it is entirely out of public awareness. So, most likely, the decisions to choose the scene of a murder as the breaking news was made by a small group, following the corporate policy of a few of the biggest media platforms, and the rest of them just followed it. 3) “Labeling the murder as an act of racism, with no evidence” – the critical point! Note that without this ‘labeling,’ there would not be “the breaking news,” so that 1) and 2) would become pointless. We may think, that steps 1) and 2) at list provide an evidence of existence of a group of responsible humans. Unfortunately, this stereotyped narrative – about racist evil white cop (Step 5) had already existed and in-formed steps 1) and 2). There is the shortcut circuit of what was previously constructed and the earliest stages of selection/reporting/covering. So, all the process has been almost automatized. Probably, the vast majority of the media personal do their jobs with a high degree of self-awareness, intentionality, and motivation. Yet, they retain the same patterns and schemes of narrating, expressing, reporting, covering, selecting, editing, etc. To verify it, you could watch various programs of a few mainstream media platforms for a while. That is why I think that the media performs automatically.

having media outlets clearly labeled as opinion programming would help. There is a certain air of authority and accuracy that goes along with the term “news” that has now become misleading. — Pinprick

There is the radical approach to the media that I appreciate:
https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=1302
Niklas Luhmann proposed that the media constitutes an autopoietic system with its own independent
self-referential programs and quolities.

Objectivity cannot seem to be found, and this results in the public being burdened with the need to seek out varying opinions and draw their own conclusions. — Pinprick

According to Luhmann, objectivity never existed in the world of social reality.

3) “Labeling the murder as an act of racism, with no evidence” – the critical point! Note that without this ‘labeling,’ there would not be “the breaking news,” so that 1) and 2) would become pointless. — Number2018

I think I disagree here. Why would video evidence of a cop blatantly killing a person unprovoked not qualify as breaking news? The addition of racism into the equation adds drama and sensationalism, but isn’t needed to further the media’s agenda.

We may think, that steps 1) and 2) at list provide an evidence of existence of a group of responsible humans. Unfortunately, this stereotyped narrative – about racist evil white cop (Step 5) had already existed and in-formed steps 1) and 2). — Number2018

But people are not powerless or forced to repeat the stereotype. The people involved in the first two steps could have chosen otherwise. Therefore they are still responsible for doing so.

I think I disagree here. Why would video evidence of a cop blatantly killing a person unprovoked not qualify as breaking news? The addition of racism into the equation adds drama and sensationalism, but isn’t needed to further the media’s agenda. — Pinprick

people are not powerless or forced to repeat the stereotype. The people involved in the first two steps could have chosen otherwise. Therefore they are still responsible for doing so. — Pinprick

Most likely, you would not ask the New York Stock Exchange broker to make decisions according
to some moral or religious system of values. They have to be effective and make money. Similarly, people who made the critical decision of the addition of racism, could not decide differently, considering all their business environment. Anyway, thank you for the productive dialogue!:smile:

I think that the media is partly to blame for the current state of affairs by labeling the murder an act of racism, with no evidence (at least that I’m aware of) other than the fact that the race of the murderer and victim were different. — Pinprick

I blame the media for a lot, but a little bit of recent history first:

The critical event on May 25 was captured on video by bystanders and was posted on social media. The community in which the event occurred reacted swiftly with an impromptu march and demonstration, labeling the death of George Floyd as a racist murder by the police. The media I follow picked up on the demonstrations and the rhetoric used.

News media, social media, interpersonal networks and demonstrations produced a feedback loop. Within 48 hours (on May 27) looting and arson were in progress.

Indeed, the media was swift. Likely, it is possible to represent what happened using the following scheme, dividing it into steps:
1) Selection 2) Prioritizing 3) The way of covering/reporting (labelling) 4) Maintaining the created momentum
5) Back-Referencing, so that all previous steps, all that was constructed looks as a set of real facts.
Probably, the selection was made on the base of the corporate policy, as well as aspiration to advance and to shape particular political agenda. The policy is debated and renovated by the small group of big bosses, and it is entirely out of public awareness. — Number2018

Indeed.

I get most of my news from Minnesota Public Radio, here in Minneapolis. MPR was very much social-justice-forward in their treatment of Floyd's death. Several call-in shows were reserved for black callers; white listeners were invited to not call -- just listen. Their reporters accepted the narrative that police regularly murdered black people -- citing some cases in the Twin Cities and cases in other cities over a few years time.

Does the Minnesota black community have reason to complain? Certainly. Disparities in wealth, housing, opportunities, environment, education, and so on are readily visible. They report a history of negative interactions with the police.

FBI statistics show that the incidences of police killing citizens is correlated with violence in the communities being policed. Minority police are as likely to be involved in deaths of citizens as majority police. Whatever the racial make up, very peaceable communities sustain fewer police-citizen deaths than violent communities. This does not excuse suffocating George Floyd, of course.

Poor people all have good reason to resist the powers-that-be -- usually personified in the police force. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be operate at great distance from the victims of their economic predations, and aren't easily targeted.

I get most of my news from Minnesota Public Radio, here in Minneapolis. MPR was very much social-justice-forward in their treatment of Floyd's death. Several call-in shows were reserved for black callers; white listeners were invited to not call -- just listen. Their reporters accepted the narrative that police regularly murdered black people -- citing some cases in the Twin Cities and cases in other cities over a few years time. — Bitter Crank

Do you think that Minnesota Public Radio reporting was decisive factor in forming the
nationwide narrative?
Also, do you remember the initial media coverage of the Ferguson events of August 9,10 2014?
It could be interesting to compare to understand if the media's approach has changed.

MPR might have had a significant effect on the narrative followed by the US pubic radio audience, since the event was here, and they covered it thoroughly. So might stations like WAMU (Washington, D.C.), and stations in New York, Boston, LA, and so on. WAMU's "1A" program is carried by a lot of stations.

It would be interesting to compare media hours of coverage, how long Ferguson, MO occupied the Number One topic list, how much coverage was live reporting, and so forth. It was fairly heavy, as I remember. I don't have any of those stats.

IF a particular newspaper, website, or radio station originated a unique and particularly inflammatory story, one might be able to follow how the story spread and influenced audiences. But the cable and broadcast networks--even a few overseas news teams--and major newspapers were all covering the same story in a generally similar way--video of people demonstrating, close-ups of signs, footage of fires, tear gas--all that.

One group that could have had a more significant impact on an internet audience was "Unicorn Riot" -- a small operation. Their coverage tends to be "man in the street" interviews in the middle of uproar. For instance, they were live-streaming at the Wednesday night arson and looting scene in the Longfellow neighborhood where I live. The reporter/anchor was in the middle of the crowd with a mic and a camera offering anyone who wanted the opportunity to speak.

It was thanks to their coverage that I decided to go over to Lake and 27th (near where I live) at 2:00 a.m. to see how bad it was -- it was very bad and also a three-ring circus. Unicorn Riot isn't a slick operation, but I give them credit for going to events like the anti-oil pipeline demonstrations at the Standing Rock Reservation, and giving an up-close-and-persona on-the-ground picture of what is happening.

But the cable and broadcast networks--even a few overseas news teams--and major newspapers were all covering the same story in a generally similar way--video of people demonstrating, close-ups of signs, footage of fires, tear gas--all that. — Bitter Crank

This is a kind of media resonance effect, when various media platforms start covering the same story
in a similar way. One of the theories (of Niklas Luhmann) explains this phenomenon so that the media usually retains particular modes and patterns of covering, reporting and narrating.
Do you have any other thoughts? Do different media platforms try to support particular agenda?

Professional journalists share common training. Networks and stations offer economical programming formats which the public is familiar with. The public consumes programming because it is moderately interesting and not very demanding. All media have at least one common agenda: making money by selling advertising displayed during shows. The more audience, the more one can charge for the ads.

Do media have other agendas? Fox News apparently does, (I haven't watched a network news broadcast for several years.). By and large, though, I think they are mostly about earning revenue, and that agenda drives what they do.

Most likely, you would not ask the New York Stock Exchange broker to make decisions according
to some moral or religious system of values. — Number2018

To some extent I would. I would expect him to be honest, fair, law abiding, etc. Also if his actions had the potential to cause serious harm to others, I would expect him to make a different choice.

They have to be effective and make money. — Number2018

But this doesn’t exempt them from upholding a reasonable manner of ethics. They are free to make as much money as possible as long as they abide by certain rules or ethics.

The critical event on May 25 was captured on video by bystanders and was posted on social media. The community in which the event occurred reacted swiftly with an impromptu march and demonstration, labeling the death of George Floyd as a racist murder by the police. The media I follow picked up on the demonstrations and the rhetoric used. — Bitter Crank

Ahh, well then that presents a different set of circumstances.... Perhaps the media then should have made it clear that this set of people considered the death as a racist murder, and that they were just reporting their opinion, not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it? Maybe it’s too much to ask in a business where the immediacy of the reporting of the event is so important to the bottom line to be able to make moral judgements in such a short amount of time?

Regarding the recent murder of George Floyd, the media appeared to be very quick to label the murder as the result of racism. — Pinprick

Actually, you did not accept my attempts to explain what happened. It is OK. Yet, after all, what is your own version (explanation)?

the media is partly to blame for the current state of affairs by labeling the murder an act of racism, with no evidence — Pinprick

Why did the media label the murder as an act of racism?