Protests, riots and a changing media perspective on antifa

A couple months ago I wrote about the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York City in 2011, which I observed on the ground over two days, and made some points concerning protests this summer in Seattle. In both cases, police were kept out of the area by municipal leadership who acceded to political demands, thereby letting the groups form their own autonomous zones. In New York this led to assaults, rapes and other alleged crimes, which organizers channeled through their own justice and security groups largely to avoid negative press, though little was done about the problems, according to the many people who talked to me.

In Seattle, political leadership -- led by Democrat mayor Jenny Durkan -- celebrated the benign aspects of the protest, even calling it a "Summer of Love." At the same time, the Seattle police chief decried the growing turmoil, property damage and lawlessness. Nationally -- until several young men were shot and two killed -- the media largely focused on covering how the protest related to issues of social justice, with the "Summer of Love" theme added in, while seeking to pin any confrontation on law enforcement, "white supremacists" and, ultimately, Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, in Portland, apparently not receiving the national attention they sought over months of protests against an accommodating city government, protesters turned to attacking the federal building. Mostly peaceful during the day -- and thus feeding much of the media what they wanted to portray -- at night, the protest became violent, with protesters (usually different ones from the daytime) setting fires, throwing rocks, setting off explosive devices and injuring dozens of law enforcement officials who sought to protect the building. (A subsequent truce to remove the pressure on the federal building has only led to the violence moving elsewhere. Portland mayor, Ted Wheeler, who likes to blame Trump for his problems, and who even participated in protests against the federal building, said recently after a particularly bad night: "When you commit arson with an accelerant in an attempt to burn down a building that is occupied by people who you have intentionally trapped inside, you are not demonstrating, you are attempting to commit murder.")

During these early events in Seattle and Portland, one of the flash points in the media coverage became the publication by The New York Times of an op-ed column by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a decorated military veteran and Harvard Law School graduate, who argued that if city and states would not protect against rioters and roving looters, then the federal government should step in.

The publication of Cotton's piece -- whose position was supported by 58% of Americans polled at the time, and thus was no loony outlier -- led to New York Times news staff protesting their editorial colleagues for running the column at all, saying it made them feel unsafe. As a result, an apology was posted to the column online, the editorial page editor was removed, and other staff felt forced to resign.

Why do I bring this up now?

A couple reasons: Last week, the Seattle police chief, the first Black woman chief in the city's history, resigned in dismay about how political leadership was hampering community safety through its adoption of a "defund the police" movement, causing a spike in crime. Second, a recent story in The New York Times provided a glaring revelation about its news staff's original reaction to Sen. Cotton's op-ed. The words speak for themselves.

Here is a section of what The New York Times appended to Cotton's column. From an online "Editor's note," dated June 5:

"After publication, this essay met strong criticism from many readers (and many Times colleagues), prompting editors to review the piece and the editing process. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.

"The basic arguments advanced by Senator Cotton -- however objectionable people may find them -- represent a newsworthy part of the current debate. But given the life-and-death importance of the topic, the senator's influential position and the gravity of the steps he advocates, the essay should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny. Instead, the editing process was rushed and flawed, and senior editors were not sufficiently involved. While Sen. Cotton and his staff cooperated fully in our editing process, the Op-Ed should have been subject to further substantial revisions -- as is frequently the case with such essays -- or rejected.

"For example, the published piece presents as facts assertions about the role of 'cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa'; in fact, those allegations have not been substantiated and have been widely questioned. Editors should have sought further corroboration of those assertions, or removed them from the piece. ..."

Regarding the point about antifa. On Aug. 7, the Times's Nellie Bowles, in a news story recounting some of the devastation caused by protesters in Seattle, reported the following:

"Antifa, which stands for anti-fascist, is a radical, leaderless leftist political movement that uses armed, violent protest as a method to create what supporters say is a more just and equitable country. They have a strong presence in the Pacific Northwest, including the current protests in Portland."

The article went on to report how antifa had played a major role in the violence in Seattle. Its subhead: "What is it like when a city abandons a neighborhood and the police vanish? Business owners describe a harrowing experience of calling for help and being left all alone."

News is dynamic. It changes every day. The problem becomes when media seek to deny the facts in pursuit of a larger narrative, usually aligned with a "greater cause." This is a pathway for ideologues, not journalists. Unfortunately, it's increasingly tough to tell them apart.

The editor's note on Sen. Cotton's column should be revised.

Jon K. Rust is publisher of the Southeast Missourian.