Skip Navigation

How to Sniff Out ‘Copaganda’: When the Police and the Media Manipulate Our News

www.teenvogue.com

How to Sniff Out ‘Copaganda’: When the Police and the Media Manipulate Our News

archive.is link

I wrote the book Copaganda based on my years of being a civil rights lawyer and public defender representing the most vulnerable people in our society. I watched as the police and the news media distorted how we think about our collective safety. Copaganda makes us afraid of the most powerless people, helps us ignore far greater harms committed by people with money and power, and always pushes on us the idea that our fears can be solved by more money for police, prosecution, and prisons. Based on the evidence, this idea of more investment in the punishment bureaucracy making us safer is like climate science denial.

This excerpt is adapted from an important part of the book on how by selectively choosing which stories to tell, and then telling those stories in high volume, the news can induce people into fear-based panics that have no connection to what is happening in the world. It's how public polling can show people thinking crime is up when it is down year after year, and how so many well-meaning people are led to falsely believe that marginalized people themselves want more money on surveillance and punishment as the primary solutions to make their lives better.

22 comments
  • If you've ever watched an episode of Law & Order, you've watched pro-police propaganda.

  • You can tell a cop is lying when you see them move their lips.

  • First off, that's not a pub I'd have expected to see this in, but media literacy being taught to teens (if they listen) is a very necessary thing.

    Still, the situation is more complex than this story distills it down to. One major problem is cops love talking to reporters if they think they've gotten something right, and shut the fuck up when errors are pointed out. Which, OK, that's what we've got investigative journalism for.

    But you can't FOIA on deadline, and the editor would still rather have something local for tonight from the beat reporter -- whatever it may be -- than running 10 more inches of wire.

    And the funding just isn't there for monthlong investigations unless you get to the highest firmament of journalism.

    At the newsroom level, there's no malice aforethought. Think Hanlon. These are people trying to do their jobs and working with what they're given with limited time available, under the perennial rule that "if it bleeds, it leads."

    Perhaps at the corporate level, there's some larger thing at play. But there's no fucking way Mike Reed is micromanaging every lead editor at Gannett into providing stories sympathetic to cops. (I mean, first of all, that would suggest some level of interest in news.)

    This is not to say there's nothing to see here, keep on moving. It is a problem, and there are unethical journalists out there (the cop reporter at my first paper was sleeping with a source and we all knew it), but this is a societal problem, not a journalism one.

    To frame it as such is disingenuous. Now, as for broadcasting? Not my wheelhouse, but they're in the entertainment business, not news. Of course they're going to have different standards.

22 comments