In Tuesday’s newsletter, I wrote about how journalists have come under attack while covering the protests in Los Angeles. I wrote about how several, including an Australian TV reporter, were hit by law enforcement using “nonlethal” bullets.
But as one Poynter Report reader pointed out, is there such a thing as “nonlethal?” Any weapon can be deadly if a person is hit in just the right spot.
It feels like the phrase “nonlethal” is used by authorities to soften the weaponry. And while such weapons — rubber bullets, Tasers, pepper spray, tear gas — are meant to subdue individuals without causing death, they still can be dangerous and even deadly.
In some of the reporting that I’ve seen on the protests, it should be noted that The Washington Post, for example, doesn't use the word “nonlethal,” but instead uses the more proper term “less-lethal.”
In 2020, following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and subsequent protests, the Post published “A guide to the less-lethal weapons that law enforcement uses against protesters.”
On Tuesday, the Post’s Daniel Wu wrote, “Authorities in Los Angeles have used less-lethal weapons to disperse protesters. The weapons, which include tear gas, rubber bullets and balls of pepper spray, are part of most police departments’ options to respond to crowds without using lethal force. They can, however, lead to serious injury or death.”
Wu added, “The Los Angeles Police Department warned that its less-lethal munitions ‘may cause pain and discomfort’ when it declared unlawful assemblies over the weekend.”
Meanwhile, Post media reporters Scott Nover and Jeremy Barr reported on the continued attacks on journalists — not from protesters, but from law enforcement. CalMatters journalist Sergio Olmos told Nover and Barr that he has covered hundreds of protests in the past and has been hit many times by less-lethal rounds. Then he said he has never seen police so trigger-happy to use such force as he has this week in Los Angeles.
He told the Post, “It was the most amount of less-lethals I’ve seen used in a single day protest.”
Nover and Barr wrote, “Olmos isn’t alone. Estimates vary on how many journalists have been injured by police projectiles since the protests began — the Committee to Protect Journalists put the number at ‘more than 20,’ while another press freedom group, Reporters Without Borders, estimated at least 27. Social media platforms have become inundated with first-hand accounts of graphic injuries from less-lethal munitions.”
That story was published Tuesday, so it’s possible those numbers are even higher now.
It’s not clear which agency has been using the less-lethal force. Among the agencies working the protests are the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol, as well as the National Guard and, as of Tuesday, 700 Marines.
For more on less-lethal weapons, check out what the journalism studio Long Lead and contributor Lauren Rodriguez McRobbie did with their 2023 series: “The People vs. Rubber Bullets.”
Also, be sure to check out The Associated Press’ David Bauder with “With reporters shot and roughed up, advocates question whether those covering protests are targets.”
Speaking out
National Press Club president Mike Balsamo put out a statement Tuesday condemning attacks on the press covering the protests in LA.
Balsamo wrote, in part, “When police target journalists, they are targeting the public’s right to know. With protests continuing in Los Angeles, police must ensure that reporters can safely do their jobs — not obstruct them or place them in harm’s way. The public depends on their reporting to understand what is happening on the ground.”
Balsamo asked for three things:
- Stop targeting, detaining, or obstructing journalists.
- Guarantee that journalists can safely observe and report on public demonstrations.
- Investigate these incidents and hold those responsible accountable.
Balsamo went on to write, “Los Angeles officials must act now. The world is watching.”
Dr. What?
As I also mentioned in Tuesday’s newsletter, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported that Dr. Phil McGraw — best known simply as Dr. Phil — was involved in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that have led to the protests in LA.
The Los Angeles Times’ Mary McNamara wrote, “But nothing said ‘this is a made-for-TV event brought to you by the same reality-star-led administration that proposed making legal immigration into a television competition’ as the presence of Phil McGraw. Who, after being embedded with ICE officials during raids in Chicago earlier this year, spent some of this weekend kicking it with (border czar Tom) Homan in L.A.’s Homeland Security headquarters.”
A spokesman for McGraw says that, unlike Chicago, McGraw wasn’t embedded with ICE during the raids in LA. He was only with Homan. But still.
McNamara wrote, “Dr. Phil is, for the record, neither a journalist nor an immigration or domestic policy expert. He isn’t even a psychologist anymore, having let his license to practice (which he never held in California) lapse years ago. He is instead a television personality and outspoken Trump supporter who was on hand to … I honestly don’t know what. Provide psychological support to Homan as he threatened to arrest elected officials for allowing citizens to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech while using local law enforcement to prevent any violence or destruction of property that might occur? Offer Homan another platform on which he could explain why Trump is breaking his own vow to target only those undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crime?”
“Or maybe,” McNamara continued, “just provide a familiar face to help normalize rounding up people from their workplaces and off the street and sending in the National Guard when this doesn’t appear to be happening smoothly enough.”
Protest coverage
Things are constantly changing with the LA protests, but here is some of the noteworthy coverage to check out:
Aside from Fox, Republicans tend to distrust major outlets
For this item, I turn it over to my Poynter colleague, Angela Fu.
While Democrats trust and regularly get their news from a variety of major outlets, Republicans tend to distrust most sources, with one notable exception — Fox News.
That was the primary finding of a Pew Research Center study released Tuesday. To put together the study, researchers surveyed nearly 9,500 Americans and asked them about their opinions of 30 different outlets, including TV networks, legacy newspapers, public broadcasters, digital publications and right-wing podcasts. They then built an interactive tool showing how their findings break down by political affiliation and age.
Clicking through the tool reveals that 10 of the 30 outlets from Pew’s survey serve as regular sources of news for at least 25% of Democrats. However, just two outlets serve as regular sources for at least 25% of Republicans — Fox and ABC News.
Younger Americans, those between the ages of 18 and 29, were less likely to say they got their news from any of the outlets studied. No outlet saw more than 30% of that age group cite it as a major source of news. However, those 65 and older were much more likely to still get their news from mainstream outlets. Seven outlets were cited by more than 30% of seniors as being a major source of news.
Younger Americans were also more likely to turn to non-TV sources — particularly The New York Times — for their news, compared to older Americans.
The study also examined levels of trust and distrust for each outlet, with breakdowns by race and political affiliation. Among all adults, BBC and PBS saw high levels of trust compared to distrust. Breitbart and HuffPost saw the opposite. Just 5% of respondents said they trusted Breitbart, while 17% said they distrusted it. Meanwhile, 35% of respondents said they trusted the BBC, while 13% said they distrusted it.
Good Night, and Good Luck, and Good Ratings
