It was a story which had all the hallmarks of one that could go viral, but which also, interestingly, could just as easily ended up dying on the vine but for the framing of the narrative.
Shortly before Christmas, a “nonwhite” (to use journalism professor Corey Hutchins’ term in his December 27 Colorado media newsletter) reporter was attacked on the Western Slope by a man who shouted “This is Trump’s America now!”
Coverage at the time didn’t really catch fire because of Christmas, but after the holiday the Associated Press (AP) picked up the story, and then it sold like hotcakes. It’s hard to tell, but I can’t help but wonder if the story got a nudge to help it along.
Nonetheless, national it went. Watching this story unfold has been an interesting lesson in how progressive media narratives are set up and how they evolve. Besides one of the best lefty press headlines ever, Hutchins gave a run down on the coverage of the story when it was new. He later returned to it again in his January 10 newsletter.
Setting the narrative
The initial narrative by many in the media was, as you might imagine, centered on Trump and racism. Incidentally, if you ever wonder at the narrative a reporter is working with, just look at the “context” they include. It’s usually indicative. A CBS story mentioned Trump’s deportation plan and dislike of the media. Hutchins himself, in the December newsletter, added quotes from a survey which, according to the survey authors, appears to show that “… intolerance towards the press has a face — a predominantly white, male and Republican-voting face.”
There was more, but you get the point. Despite claims ranging from grounded to highly speculative (the survey claims being especially extraordinary here despite having no backing that either the authors or Hutchins could or would share), the march forward continued. According to the narrative, Trump and the things he has said provides the atmosphere–almost the impetus?–for attacks like this. He has awakened the latent racism that lies at the heart of America, especially those beating in the chests of white, male, Republican voters.
The problem is that, like most narratives, this one is overly simple and one-dimensional. Later stories point to the attacker, a former Marine, as having a history of mental health issues. In other words, the story had several potential different frames on which to hang details. Yes, Trump and his dislike of the media are themes, but so are veterans and mental health issues, none of them more obvious or important than the other.
It is not at all surprising that the left-leaning media went straight for the Trump narrative from the jump, but what happens to such narratives after new information comes to light? We could argue about the rightness or fairness of leading with Trump (a reasonable argument can be made about including Trump as context, depending on how it’s done), but with the added information about the assailant, is it justifiable to stay there? Is there no obligation to now go back and revisit (and perhaps correct) the story?
Hutchins, to his credit, circled around to touch on this in his later newsletter. He relates an interview with the victim. Quoting that newsletter: “In our [between Hutchins and the victim] conversation, we talked about … what he thought of some of the media coverage so far, including mine. Some of it, he said, felt over-politicized. ‘In my own personal style of journalism, I would mention that the statement was made — ‘this is Trump’s America’ — but it would never make it to my headline,’ he said. ‘It’s one of the things I’ve disagreed with in the reporting on this.’”
Revisiting wrong reporting
I want to be careful to flesh out exactly what I mean. When I say revisiting narratives, I’m not just limiting myself to addressing and revealing new facts. I also mean the paradigms that reporters apply to a story, the context that they, and then other media outlets apply–what 9New’s Kyle Clark glibly called “analysis” during a recent interview with Jon Caldara.
Read widely, and you’ll soon see exactly what I mean. The narratives from different news outlets will be different for the same set of facts. So it’s worth asking: how many times does a news outlet revisit its earlier framing?
I’ll offer you another example, from the recent Jon Caldara and Kyle Clark sitdown. Caldara asks Clark whether or not they (9News) will revisit earlier coverage that downplayed claims around Venezuelan gangs in Aurora, given new information about the actual significance of their presence. Clark neatly deflects to a discussion hinging on a reporter’s careful semantics: is it wrong reporting if Clark says “City officials say there are no Venezuelan gangs” as opposed to “There are no Venezuelan gangs?” Technically no, if you are as careful at parsing your words as Clark is, you’re never wrong.
Zoom out beyond the grammar, however. What has been the left-leaning media’s repeated narrative (including that of 9News) on the topic? One of them is easily that attention about these gangs is harmful to the other Venezuelan migrants living there. You’re going to harm the people living there by amplifying the problem.
But let’s try a different perspective. How many news outlets, including 9News, have delved into the equally plausible narrative of migrants themselves being harmed by gangs? How many have delved into it to the same depth and with the same frequency as they did narratives about gang coverage being harmful?
The chosen narrative is just as important as the facts because we as humans all too often start from the conceptual framework and pick and choose our facts to fit it.
In the interest of fairness and full coverage, journalists and media outlets should foster the discipline of checking and then rechecking their narratives as stories mature. Not doing so is at best a lazy practice, and at worst is journalistic malpractice.
Cory Gaines is a regular contributor to Complete Colorado. He lives in Sterling on Colorado’s Eastern Plains and also writes at the Colorado Accountability Project substack.