The Social Construction of Protest: Print Media Coverage of the 2004 Republican National Convention and the 2011 Occupy Wall Street Protests in New York City

City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works

All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects

9-2018

Kirsten Christiansen The Graduate Center, City University of New York

How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know!

More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2950 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu

This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected]

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROTEST: PRINT MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION AND THE 2011 OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTS IN NEW YORK CITY

KIRSTEN CHRISTIANSEN

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York

2018

The Social Construction of Protest: Print Media Coverage of the 2004 Republican National Convention and the 2011 Occupy Wall Street Protests in New York City

Kirsten Christiansen

This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

______Date David Brotherton Chair of Examining Committee

______Date Deborah Koetzle Executive Officer

Supervisory Committee: David Brotherton Jayne Mooney David A. Green

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

iii

ABSTRACT

The Social Construction of Protest: Print Media Coverage of the 2004 Republican National

Convention and the 2011 Occupy Wall Street Protests in New York City

Kirsten Christiansen

Advisor Name: Dr. David Brotherton

Majoritarian democracies are founded on the idea that the governance of society will reflect the needs and desires of the majority of the people and that all citizens are given a voice. Public protest activity is one of the ways in which social movement organizations as claims-makers can reach an audience to attempt to convince a majority to effect social change. The mainstream news media can disseminate information about protest messages and activity beyond the local.

However, the mainstream news media filters information in its own way, influenced in part because of traditional news routines but also potentially by the increasing domination of media ownership by the economic elite. Drawing on the premises of free speech theory, social constructionism, and media framing, this research examines the way three large mainstream print news media sources in New York City framed public protest activity in two time periods – during the 2004 Republican National Convention (n = 211) and during the 2011 Occupy Wall

Street encampment in Zuccotti Park (n = 313). Using a modified frame structure based on Todd

Gitlin’s work on news coverage of Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s, articles were examined for their use of trivialization, marginalization, polarization, disparagement, and positive frames; for the overall construction of protest as normal, deviant, neutral, or mixed; and

iv for coverage of protest activity vs. protest message. Polarization was found to be the most common frame used, and the overall construction of protest was one of disruption and disorderliness. Protest activity was also more likely to be covered than protest message. While the effects of media framing on public opinion is unlikely to be simple or direct, these findings raise questions about how public knowledge of social justice issues is constructed and how this construction of knowledge could impact the functioning of democratic societies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My heartfelt thanks goes out to:

Dr. Brotherton for his patience

My mother Nona, my sister Lisa, and my stepfather Bob for their faith

Emily, Theresa, and Kirsten for their friendship, support, and kindness

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW First Amendment Law 8 Public Space 19 Social Constructionism and Social Problems 25 Media Framing and Public Protest 30

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 45 Content Analysis 48 Preliminary Content Analysis Structure 49 Frame Analysis Coding Structure 52 The 2004 Republican National Convention Articles 53 The 2011 Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park Articles 56

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Republican National Convention 2004 Quote Sources 59 Social Construction of Protesters and Protest 59 Headlines 63 Frames 64 Trivialization 65 Polarization 68 Marginalization 77 Disparagement 80

vii

Positive 82 Occupy Wall Street 2011 Quote Sources 84 Social Construction of Protesters and Protest 85 Headlines 88 Frames 91 Trivialization 92 Polarization 94 Marginalization 97 Disparagement 99 Positive 100

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 102 Limitations 106 Reliability and Validity 107 Theoretical Implications 107 Future Directions 109 Conclusion 112

APPENDIX

Republican National Convention Articles 119

Occupy Wall Street Articles 132

BIBLIOGRAPHY 152

viii

TABLES

Page Table 1. Article counts per print news media outlet. 48 Table 2. Percentage of direct quote sources by print news media outlet (RNC) 59 Table 3. Percentage of articles with descriptions of protest activity vs. protest message by print news media outlet (RNC) 61 Table 4. Percentage of articles depicting protesters as normal, deviant, neutral, or mixed by print news media outlet (RNC) 62 Table 5. Percentage of articles using selected frames by print news media source (RNC) 65 Table 6. Percentage of direct quote sources by print news media outlet (OWS) 85 Table 7. Percentage of articles with descriptions of protest activity vs. protest message by print news media outlet (OWS) 87 Table 8. Percentage of articles depicting protesters as normal, deviant, neutral, or mixed by print news media outlet (OWS) 88 Table 9. Percentage of articles using selected frames by print news media source (OWS) 92

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

I. Chapter 1: Introduction

The historical foundation of the United States is the struggle to have a voice that counts – to have a say in how society is structured, how its citizens are governed, how life should work. In

1775, Patrick Henry delivered a speech in Richmond, Virginia, calling upon Virginians to join the American Revolution, declaiming “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament,” noting that these pleas had fallen on deaf ears (The U.S. Constitution and Other Key American Writings, 2015). The Declaration of Independence of 1776 describes, as justification for the Revolution, that “[t]his history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States,” (ibid.). The American revolutionaries demanded independence in response to a government seen as dictating to its subjects, not listening to its citizens. The ability to “have your say” in the way your world functions and to have it matter, to have the ability to change things, has become a hallmark of freedom and independence throughout the world and throughout history.

The right to have an opinion goes beyond just “having” an opinion. In a country as large as the United States, opinions vary - widely, and sometimes wildly. These differing opinions will often conflict in ways that must be resolved – we can’t all live in the world we want but we all must live in the world together. The historical model of U.S. democracy – that of “majority rule”

– constructs a world where everyone has a chance to speak up for what they need or want, and the needs and wants of the majority become the status quo. Under this theory of governance, the key to getting the world you want is to convince the majority of your fellow citizens to want it

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen too, and the key to convincing a majority of your fellow citizens is to get your message out to them.

So, publicity becomes paramount. Whether you want to save the vaquita dolphins of

Mexico or you want to stop an oil pipeline from being built through your ancestral homelands, to accomplish your goal, you must let other people know that 1. A problem exists and 2. Something should (and can) be done about it. In contemporary society, there are a number of ways for claims-makers to get their message out to the appropriate public; when that message concerns a real or potential political injustice, a common method of gaining publicity is to engage in public protest.

Political messages occupy a special place in the free speech arena – they are consistently afforded the highest measure of protection against infringement. Taking to the streets to protest an injustice, to demand the authorities do something about it, is a time-honored tradition. But taking to the streets alone doesn’t guarantee that a political message will reach enough people to convince a majority of those people that a problem exists. Public political protest is time- and space-limited; on its own, the only audience you’ll reach will be the people who were in the right place at the right time. In order to reach beyond the local, you need an amplifier.

One excellent source of amplification is the mainstream news media (MSNM). Although the percentage of Americans who say they get their news at least in part from social media sites is increasing, a majority of Americans overall still get much of their news from mainstream television and print news sources. This is particularly true for Americans aged 50 and older – a group which makes up a third of the U.S. population (Mitchell, Gottfried, Barthel, & Shearer,

2016; U.S Census Bureau, 2016). Mainstream news media sources can therefore reach large

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen proportions of the American public easily and, because of a traditional reputation of being credible and objective sources of information1, can also be persuasive forums for political messages. Through the MSNM, individuals throughout the United States can gain a picture of what is happening in places they are not – and may not ever have been. The power of the MSNM to construct the “truth” about an event (or series of events) for a public that has not, or cannot, witness it personally makes it an important component in the functioning of a democratic society. However, there is a wealth of evidence that suggests mainstream news media are not neutral reporters of political information. As will be seen in this research, the ways in which journalists frame coverage of political events has the potential for constructing an image of these events in ways that advantage some groups more than others.

Public political protest often takes the form of challenges to the existing social order and status quo which frequently bring protesters into conflict with the state, and more directly with the primary agents of state social control, the police. This conflict, which by necessity must be spatially located and which primarily occurs in areas legally defined as public space, highlights the importance of spatial politics in the daily experience of social and political life of citizens in a democratic society. How we define the “proper” use of public space defines the boundaries within which we exercise our freedoms, and often the public understanding of what is “proper” is created out of depictions of “improper” behavior.

Policing and protest exist in an uneasy relationship – police are responsible for both maintaining the social order challenged by the protestors and protecting the protestors in the

1 According to a Pew Research poll conducted between February 22nd and March 24th, 70% of the sample stated they had “Some” to “A lot” of trust in national news organizations. Accessed at http://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the- news/pj_2018-06-18_fact-opinion_0-11/ on 9/8/18.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen exercise of their constitutionally protected rights. Within this relationship lies a fundamental conflict between liberty and social control. Democratic societies are built on the twin principles of freedom from governmental tyranny and the promise of individual liberty and yet the history of democratic governments suggests that none believes freedom can exist without limits. These limits can be imposed through access and movement restrictions as well as the planning and design of public space. The limitation of constitutionally protected rights – of speech and of assembly – must, however, require a higher standard of proof of its necessity.

Part of that proof may be constituted from the disruptive potential of public political protest. Minor or temporary disruptions to the flow of pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic or the unpleasantness of being presented with conflictual and sometimes provocative points of view may be justified due to the importance of free public debate. But if protest activity is constructed in mainstream news coverage as posing a disruptive power that goes beyond inconvenience and towards something more threatening, greater restrictions may become socially, and then legally, acceptable under the government’s substantial interest in maintaining public safety. A “moral panic” can ensue in which specific groups (however loosely defined) of protesters “become defined as a threat to societal values and interests” (Cohen 2002: 1), a threat which is then amplified by the frames used by mainstream news media sources to report on these groups, leading to public calls for an official response.

This process can be seen in action in legislation recently proposed by New York

Representative Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., entitled H.R. 6054 (Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018) which, while ostensibly applying more generally to anyone obstructing others’ free exercise of speech rights while disguised (excepting law enforcement), refers in its title to a specific group

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen of social movement actors while ignoring others2. This process could also be extended beyond the physical protest itself, as seen in a 2017 Oklahoma statute, signed into law by Governor Mary

Fallin, which will impose large fines on “conspirator” organizations if any attendee of a protest engages in trespass on or property damage to facilities designated as “critical infrastructure”

(Oklahoma House Bill 1123). This would make any organization involved in even planning a protest, however peaceful, a target if a single attendee crosses the legal line.

While it’s not certain that bills such as these will ultimately withstand Constitutional scrutiny, the existence of these bills does potentially have a chilling effect on organizers and attendees, both for the potential immediate consequences of violations for the protesters (e.g. arrest, time spent in jail awaiting arraignment) as well as the longer-term impacts for both protesters and organizations (e.g. time spent preparing and conducting legal challenges, legal and court costs). And protester arrests, if reported by the mainstream news media without context, could strengthen the construction of protesters as oppositional to society’s rules, leading to additional public calls for and approval of even more restrictive laws on public protest. The way the public reacts to protest will be at least influenced by the public’s definitions of protest, and for many people, that definition will be informed by the mainstream news media.

Mainstream news media sources can therefore function as amplifiers, not just for protesters, but also for the state, often through their law enforcement agents. Mainstream news media sources are also increasingly part of large corporations, owned and run by members of the

2 “Antifa” (short for anti-fascist) refers to individuals who share an ideologically-driven determination to publicly counter-protest and confront far-right groups and speakers; antifa and far-right protesters (and law enforcement) have clashed several times in recent months, with physical confrontations being common.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen financial and political elite – making the mainstream news media potentially very powerful claims-makers themselves.

Accordingly, this dissertation is a report of findings related to the representation of public political protest presented by three major New York City print news media sources during two major political protest periods – the 2004 Republican National Convention and the 2011 Occupy

Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park, to answer the following questions:

1. What are the dominant frames that mainstream print news media sources use when

reporting protest events?

2. Is the overall construction of protest positive or negative?

3. How might the ways mainstream news media sources frame protest play a role in the

defining of the “proper” exercise of civil liberties?

To answer these questions, a review of the relevant literature regarding four specific areas was conducted to lay the legal and social foundation for the research: free speech theory, law, and jurisprudence (with an emphasis on the development of the legal concept of “time, place, and manner restrictions” as applied to public protest activity); the social construction of public space and its appropriate use; social constructionism theory and the construction of social problems; and media framing theory (specifically related to news media reporting). Next, a frame structure was utilized to code for themes in print media articles related to public protest activity in New York City during the 2004 Republican National Convention and the 2011

Occupy Wall Street encampment in Lower Manhattan, focusing on the three largest3 print media

3 Largest is defined in terms of circulation. In 2012, the New York Times had a total circulation of 1,613,865; the New York Daily News had 530,440; and the New York Post had 522,868. All three were in the top ten nationwide in terms of circulation; the next highest circulation of a print news source in New York City in 2012 was Newsday

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen sources in New York City – the New York Times, the New York Daily News, and the New York

Post. This frame structure was a modified version of that developed by Todd Gitlin (1980) during his study of news media coverage of Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s. A mixed quantitative and qualitative analysis using frequencies and content analysis was then conducted to determine the dominant frames and social constructions of print news media reporting of public protest activity. Results from this analysis suggested that while positive or neutral framing of public protest is present in print news media reporting, it is more common for print news media to depict protest as oppositional to mainstream society and its norms.

Implications of this for the future of public political protest and protest policing were discussed.

(13th) with 392,989. Source: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/newspapers-stabilizing-but-still- threatened/newspapers-by-the-numbers/

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

II. Chapter 2: Literature Review

First Amendment Law

The right to public protest is codified in the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution4. The interpretation of the First Amendment by Supreme Court case law determines the legal scope of this freedom and as such is of crucial importance to understanding the relationship between police and protestors. Although the right of freedom of speech and assembly was explicitly guaranteed with the ratification of ten amendments in a Bill of Rights to the Constitution in 1791 (Jordan 2004), and the interpretation of the clause became a topic of discussion in the early 20th century during World War I and with the rise of labor unionization, free speech theory underwent its greatest construction during the social and political events of the 1960s. Before this time, Supreme Court decisions weighted heavily toward government and industry interests (Murphy 1981). In the 1960s, an explosion of social activity, particularly in the form of public political, artistic, and cultural expression and protest caused a re-examination of the traditionally held views of the scope and meaning of free speech and led to a broad liberalization of rules governing its restriction. This renewed interest in free speech issues also led to an expansion of speech concerns from the traditional focus on politically oriented speech acts to commercial, artistic, sexual, and scientific speech (Zinn 2005). In recent years, the United

States has undergone a new shift in the meaning of free speech, bringing the spotlight once more on political speech and leading to concerns among civil rights activists that the loosening of restrictions seen in the 1960s has been reversed in profound, if not necessarily obvious, ways.

4 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Free speech debate in the early history of the United States was predominantly conducted by lawmakers and prominent citizens and relied heavily on English common law. Most of that debate centered around the rights of the press (freedom of speech was primarily looked at as the right of lawmakers to speak freely in Congress – a right protected specifically in Article V of the

Articles of Confederation of 1781, a precursor to the U.S. Constitution) and most of those involved in deciding what press freedom meant held that the basic protection was the principle of

“no prior restraint” (Murphy 1981). Publication could not be restricted in advance (such as through the use of licensing laws or censorship boards as had been common in England)5 but punishment after the fact was allowed6 and, in fact, laws against “seditious libel” were common

(Kersch 2003). As the press became an increasingly important and powerful tool for early

American politicians in their debates and conflicts with each other over the form of a new government, a new theory of speech began to emerge – one that saw the freedom of expression as providing a “safety valve” (56) in a society that many feared could devolve into chaos in its infancy. This expansion of protection, however, included a dimension that can be seen throughout the historical development of free speech theory and jurisprudence and which could be considered the central contradiction of the First Amendment – those who sought protection for speech criticizing those in power frequently sought to restrict speech for their opposition once they themselves held power (ibid.). Early examples of this include the repeated drafting and passing of sedition laws, from the Sedition Act of 1798 through the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. More recently, this phenomenon can be seen in select provisions of the

5 As would become a pattern, exceptions were granted in times of war (Murphy 1981). 6 Punishment after the fact was not initially restricted to libel or slander, but could include speech that was “inflammatory and therefore dangerous” (Kersch 2003: 51), in essence punishing the potential for harm as well as actual harm. However, an increasing desire to reduce the number of lawsuits being brought before the courts led to stricter definitions for what constituted defamatory speech and what damages could be awarded.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

USA PATRIOT Act (Sekhon 20037) and the support for “hate speech” codes found among individuals who actively campaign for civil rights (Altman 1993).

The Supreme Court did not begin to play a role in the development of First Amendment law until 1803 when, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Court granted itself the power of judicial review. Even then, the Court restricted itself to the review of federal legislation until

Gitlow v. New York (1925), which incorporated the First Amendment under the Fourteenth and made states subject to the Constitution (Kersch 2003). These two decisions paved the way for the

Court to play its now predominant role in the formulation of free speech theory and jurisprudence.

It is important to recognize that the Supreme Court is not just a legal entity but also a political one; decisions made by Justices reflect not only the law but also the political and cultural climate surrounding them (Hall 2000). A review of the history of the Court finds the creation of tests for free speech cases that reflect the times out of which they were formed. In the rare speech cases heard by the Court during the 1800s, decisions generally favored the government, using the traditional “Bad Tendency” test. This test allowed restrictions on speech that “tended” to lead to illegal activity under the assumption that the government has an obligation “pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and morals” (Kersch

2003: 32). This test had historical precedent in English common law but was not explicitly stated in a U.S. legal arena until Patterson v. Colorado (1907). The speech in question in Patterson consisted of publications questioning the “motives and conduct” of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Patterson claimed protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including an argument

7 See also the website of the American Civil Liberties Union, specifically the Safe and Free section at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/index.html (accessed 11/30/08).

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen that the facts alleged in the publications were true. The Court held that the truth of the facts was irrelevant as “the main purpose of such constitutional provisions [found in the First and

Fourteenth Amendments] is ‘to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,’ and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare” (205 U.S. 454). Under the Bad Tendency test, the intent of the speaker was not necessarily at issue but rather the potential harm posed by the effect of speech on others.

The late 1800s and early 1900s was a time of great social unrest – rapid expansion of industrialization led to frequent conflicts between owners and workers. A political theory and system called communism appeared as a potential rival to the capitalist model predominant in the

United States. This “new” system in part grew out of Marxist theory which asserted that the modes of production and the organization of society created by capitalism (separating people into owners and workers, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) were a form of oppression of the majority by the minority, and advocated a workers’ revolution (Engels 1847). These ideas lent support to organizing efforts of trade unions to, if not seize the means of production, then to make demands on owners to improve the lives of workers. These “negotiations”, however, were often contentious, and sometimes spilled out into public spaces in the form of pickets and strikes which could become violent (AFL-CIO n.d.). Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842) established the legality of labor unions but the constitutionality of specific labor actions continued to be disputed8 subsequent to that decision, leading to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 which protected the rights of workers to organize, to collectively bargain, and to strike.

8 And in fact, still is debated.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

In addition, U.S. involvement in the First World War caused a great deal of dissent among the broader citizenry. Increasing restrictions on anti-government and anti-war speech in the First World War period and the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Alien and

Sedition Acts in 1918 led to a backlash among free speech theorists that eventually was reflected in the decisions of the Supreme Court. An early indication of this re-examination of the guidelines under which speech could be restricted could be seen in the federal court case Masses

Publishing Co. v. Patten (244 F. 535 [S.D.N.Y 1917]). Federal Judge Learned Hand held that content itself did not justify restriction of speech but rather the key decision point rested on whether the speech would cause harm9.

In Schenck v. U.S. (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes created the “Clear and Present

Danger” test which allowed restrictions on speech only if the dangers posed by allowing the speech were readily apparent, realistic, and imminent (Kersch 2003). This more comprehensive model created by Holmes maintained the tone of the previous Bad Tendency test but required a greater level of proof that harm would result. It also maintained the historical exception to the protection of civil liberties in times of war (an exception that by its very prevalence in history suggests that it is more of a rule). Schenck was charged under the 1917 Espionage Act with printing and circulating material designed to “cause insubordination” and “obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States” (249 U.S. 47). The Court, while noting that the defendants did not deny that the tendency of the printed material may have been to encourage citizens to resist the draft, acknowledged that “the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints”10 and that under different circumstances the ideas

9 This was a standard slightly more restrictive than the Bad Tendency test. 10 This was not a complete reversal of Patterson as the Court affirmed that the prohibition of previous restraint “may have been the main purpose”.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen contained in the publications may have been constitutionally protected. But, the Court continued,

“[T]he character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done”11:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. (ibid.) The decision in Schenck led to a series of correspondence between Holmes and legal scholar Zecheriah Chafee, Jr. Chafee argued that the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the search for truth, that this search was indeed most important in times of crisis, and therefore any standard for restriction of speech required a direct link between the words and the harm (Ragan 1971). By the end of 1919, Holmes had come around to Chafee’s way of thinking as evidenced by his dissent in Abrams v. U.S. (1919). Holmes believed that Abrams’ conviction

(and that of four others) under the Espionage Act for the publication and distribution of anti-war leaflets should not have been upheld, arguing that the leaflets could not be held to constitute the appropriate level of intent necessary to justify an infringement of speech rights. Holmes concluded that “we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.” (250 U.S. 616).

The late 1930s and early 1940s brought an expansion of free speech rights as the country moved out of a war-time mentality and the Court created one of the most important conceptual

11 This opinion includes the famous “yelling fire in a theater” statement.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen foundations for modern free speech theory: the public forum doctrine. In 1937, Jersey City, New

Jersey, passed an ordinance forbidding the holding of meetings or passing of leaflets in public places without a permit from the Director of Public Safety. Though the phrase “public forum” does not appear anywhere in the decision, the ordinance was struck down by the Court in part due to the city government’s treatment of public spaces as governmental property, giving the city the power to exclude citizens in much the same sense as a private owner of property can exclude anyone he or she wants. Justice Owen Josephus Roberts, speaking for the majority in Hague v.

Committee for Industrial Organization (1939), stated:

“Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.” (307 U.S. 496)

The concept that certain places had for “time immemorial” been held as forums for public expression and debate and were therefore not subject to unreasonable governmental restrictions did not stand on its own for long. Justice Frank Murphy, in Chaplinsky v. State of New

Hampshire (1942), stated that “…it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances.” Speech in the public forum that is not part of the “exposition of ideas” and that has little value as “a step to truth” is not afforded the same

Constitutional protection. The decision in Chaplinsky created “categories” of speech and set the

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen test of any restriction of speech as dependent on the type of speech in question12. Speech included in any of the Chaplinsky categories (“the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words” [315 US 568]) was not protected. Speech that did not fall into these categories was protected, subject to a finding of harm (as under the Clear and Present

Danger test) or if the competing interest of the state was compelling (such as the state government’s interest in preserving the peace in Chaplinsky). Several years later, Cox v.

Louisiana (1965) and United States v. O’Brien (1968) further clarified the conditions required to justify government regulation of public speech. In Cox, Justice Arthur Joseph Goldberg, in the majority opinion, stated that “appropriate, limited discretion, under properly drawn statutes or ordinances, concerning the time, place, duration, or manner of use of the streets for public assemblies may be vested in administrative officials” if the statute or ordinance is “narrow and specific” enough so as to not restrict more speech than allowed under the First Amendment. In

O’Brien, Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion further cemented the conditions for time, place, and manner restrictions: “…a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” Time, place, and manner restrictions define the boundaries of governmental interference in free speech activity such as protest, including the types of requirements and restrictions law enforcement agencies can impose on planned protest activity, as well as strategic reactions to occurring protest activity, whether planned or not. By requiring

12 Since Chaplinsky, the Court has expanded the categorical approach, creating distinctions between speech and conduct, low-value and high-value speech, and public and non-public forums.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen the balancing of free speech rights with “important or substantial governmental interest”, this raises the question of how we define important and substantial. Designating public protest activity as violent or dangerous could therefore trigger greater restrictions which still meet the

Constitutional burden.

The Supreme Court has divided public forums in the Hague sense into three categories: the traditional public forum, the dedicated public forum and non-public forums (Mitchell 2003;

Stone 1987). Traditional public forums are those places that “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public”, such as public parks or street corners. Designated public forums are those places that may be made available by the government for the use of the public and for expressive activity, such as the use of public-school facilities for activities related but extracurricular to education). Non-public forums are government property which may be accessible to the public but not for public expressive purposes – as in the case of jails or airport terminals13. The Court has taken two general approaches to assessing what kind of forum any given space represents and therefore how much restriction of speech is allowable. In part, the

Court has looked at whether the space has traditionally been used as a space for speech. Those that have are treated as traditional public forums, regardless of their current use or ownership

(which may ignore the need for creation of new public forums as the built environment and social habits change14). Another approach that has been used by the Court is to look at whether the speech activity is compatible with the way in which the space is normally used – does the activity disrupt the function for which the space exists? This latter approach has the advantage of

13 Examples of the different types of forums were taken from http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13012 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums, 11/30/15 14 For example, shopping malls have become a prominent location of public activity in many communities. These spaces are unlikely to meet the requirement of historical precedent.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen weighing the First Amendment interest against the government interest before deciding what kind of forum a particular space represents but it increases the subjectivity and potential for bias involved in the decision (Stone 1987).

Content-based restrictions of high-value speech (speech outside the Chaplinsky guidelines) in the public forum are generally considered prima facie unconstitutional. Content- neutral restrictions are subject to different levels of scrutiny depending on the details of the case at issue. Geoffrey R. Stone (1987) designates three general levels of Supreme Court scrutiny for content-neutral restrictions: deferential review, intermediate review, and strict review. Under deferential review, the Court requires only that the state interest be “legitimate” and conducts little investigation of state claims of legitimacy and the possible lack of alternative solutions.

Intermediate review invokes a more diligent investigation of state claims and the actual impact of legislation, and requires the presentation of evidence of harm and a showing that the state interest is substantial. Strict review builds upon the scrutiny of intermediate review by requiring that the state interest be compelling rather than simply substantial. According to Stone, the predominant interest of the Court in free speech jurisprudence is protecting the “marketplace of ideas” - specifically prohibiting the quantitative reduction of public debate and protecting specific means of expression that differentially impact particular, historically unheard groups - and thus it applies higher scrutiny to restrictions that “significantly impair the ability of individuals to communicate their views to others” (Stone 1987).

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

The “marketplace of ideas” is a concept created by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in

Abrams v. U. S. (1919):

“…when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.” (250 U. S. 616) Holmes was strongly guided in the creation of this concept by his correspondence with legal scholar Zechariah Chafee, Jr. Chafee believed that the creation of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments had been driven in large part by a desire to restrict the power of government and that this restriction included the power of government in times of war; that the meaning of the First Amendment was the protection of speech as a means to truth and, as truth could only be found under conditions of constant challenge, political truth could only be found by constant challenge of the government (Ragan 1971). In Abrams, Holmes reminded the Court that the Constitution was “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” and warned his fellow

Justices against attempting to restrict the expression of opinions they might find loathsome unless those opinions “so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.” Allowing a diversity of opinions to reach a public audience, to Chafee and to Holmes, is the only way to ensure that the truth, somewhere within all those diverse opinions, will be heard and embraced.

Specific restrictions on speech in public forums which act as “channeling” devices (Stone

1987) by restricting the means of expression but not the expression itself are the previously mentioned “time, place, and manner restrictions”. These restrictions do not directly or necessarily act to reduce the quantity of public speech but impose regulations on when, where

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen and how particular expressive activities can occur. Prohibiting picketing at funerals (Phelps-

Roper v. Nixon [509 F.3d 480,488 (8th Circuit 2007)]), requiring permits for marches or rallies

(Gay Veterans Assn., Inc., v. American Legion – New York County [1985]), creating buffer zones around medical clinics (Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. [1994]), and prohibiting expressive activity in shopping malls (Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner [1972]) are examples of time, place and manner restrictions.

Public Space

Today, the very definition of “public” is undergoing dramatic change in the United

States and around the world, a change that has potentially profound implications for our definition and practice of free speech. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines public as

“accessible to or shared by all members of a community”. Common understanding of what is public is intertwined with its presumed opposite - what is private. Public space as a physical and metaphorical concept exists alongside our notions of community and ownership. In the ideal sense, public space is space for all while private space is restricted; public space is owned by the people collectively while private space is owned by people or small groups individually; public space is visible while private space is hidden; public space is open while private space is closed.

The definition of any given public space, of its purpose, will vary by individual but we generally believe that we can define it for ourselves, within the limits of the law and social norms – though these are frequently poorly defined.

The reality of public space is rarely this simple. First, the conceptual meaning attached to any space is socially constructed – it is continuously created by an interaction between nodes of

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen power, general cultural norms, and the day-to-day lived experiences of the people who use it

(Burkitt 2004). David Harvey states that “[h]ow a city looks and how its spaces are organized forms a material base upon which a range of possible sensations and social practices can be thought about, evaluated, and achieved” (1989: 66-7) and points out that, since the 1960s, the design of public spaces have been strongly influenced by economic forces – the encouragement of consumer behavior and the attraction of outside capital. Second, what we think of as public is often not the true opposite of private in practical terms. As Supreme Court jurisprudence demonstrates, not all public space is equal and even the most public of space, the traditional public forum, is not completely unrestricted and is not necessarily accessible at all times and to all people. The understanding of what it means when space is designated public or private is therefore not just semantic but affects the daily movements and activities of residents and visitors in any community. Public space also has a key role as political space in a democracy. In pre- democratic feudal systems, public matters were decided by kings, landowners, and the Church; as the Age of Enlightenment grew in 18th century Europe, these authorities began to lose their hold and the idea of a broader, more representative form of government gained power. This new form of government however, required citizens to have access to information and ideas so that they could make informed decisions about the use of collective power and resources. In addition, as society transitioned to a market economy, private individuals could no longer meet their needs on their own. What began as discussions held in private spaces, began to move out into more public ones, creating a “public sphere”, where individuals could debate the overlap between their own private authority and that of the state (Habermas 1964). In the United States, this public sphere eventually expanded into the constitutionally protected public forums discussed in the previous section.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

While Habermas’ concept of the public sphere was not synonymous with public space15, in keeping with the model of the “agora” of Athens, physical spaces are among the most common and most accessible sites for people to be exposed to new information and ideas

(Crawford 1995). So an understanding of the restrictions and exclusions inherent in the rules regarding public spaces is crucial to understanding the health of a democracy.

Susan Bickford (2000) argues that the built environment itself can and often does discourage democratic participation. She points out that cities are places where people are most likely to encounter strangers and people with different backgrounds and viewpoints. This exposure to difference can be invigorating and a stimulus to the public debate necessary for political participation in a democracy. It can also be disturbing and scary. As Harvey (2003) points out, “[c]almness and civility in urban history are the exception not the rule.” This fear of uncontrolled space can be seen in the increased focus on the detection and control of suspicious, disruptive, or potentially dangerous behavior in public. Davis (1998), writing about Los Angeles, describes the “erosion of the boundary between architecture and law enforcement”. After the

Watts riots in 1965, downtown Los Angeles underwent an extensive transformation designed primarily to protect the financial district – financial institutions moved away from the downtown core area and pedestrian pathways between that core and their new locations (in Bunker Hill) came under the control of the institutions’ security forces, restricting access to anyone who didn’t have a “legitimate” reason to be there. During the 1992 riots, these pathways were automatically electronically sealed off, successfully keeping rioters from entering the financial

15 Habermas’ public sphere existed in physical spaces more linked to private space – social organizations, private clubs – as well as literary spaces such as newspapers and journals (Bloch and Lamoreaux 2004; Habermas 1964).

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen district16. Strategies designed to promote “security” and the protection of economic interests can be difficult to protest – residents in public housing, subject to high levels of restriction on their freedom of movement, may hesitate to complain due to housing shortages. Davis also describes the creation of “social control districts” (383) which can criminalize legal behavior for particular groups of people, amounting to “status criminalization” (386).

The structure of public space is not merely a result of social processes but can also create determinate paths for social activity. Harvey (2005) reminds us that it is important to understand space “as dynamic and in motion, an active moment (rather than a passive frame) in the constitution of physical, ecological, social, and political-economic life.” The built environment, both in its architecture and in its civil and legal restrictions on activity, is therefore both the creation of the “spatial consciousness” of a society and a key driver of that consciousness.

Geographical knowledge of the world, or the “geographical imagination”

enables the individual to recognize the role of space and place in his own

biography, to relate to the spaces he sees around him, and to recognize how

transactions between individuals and between organizations are affected by the

space that separates them. It allows him to recognize the relationship which exists

between him and his neighborhood, his territory, or, to use the language of the

street gangs, his ‘turf’… It allows him also to fashion and use space creatively

and to appreciate the meaning of the spatial forms created by others. (Harvey

1973)

16 This reliance on private security to police ostensibly public spaces further restricts the public nature of those spaces and has potentially profound implications on democracy as a whole by transferring power away from governments which are, ideally, accountable and transparent (Barber 2003).

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Additionally, an individual’s personal geographical knowledge of the world – his or her mental map – directs his or her understanding of appropriate behavior, particularly in those spaces of the world that are shared.

Habermas’ (1964) public sphere was an area where the authority of the state was severely restricted. But democratic space is not anarchical space. Some rules of conduct and use are necessary especially when increasingly large numbers of people share a finite area. Populist notions of the appropriate use of space ignore the heterogeneity of definitions of “appropriate” – how cities control space can reveal which (and whose) definitions are being given primary consideration (Harvey 1989). As cultures come into greater contact and conflict and as human beings become increasingly ontologically insecure, control over public space, and particularly the behavior of people in public space, becomes a greater concern. This concern pre-dates the current War on Terror and in the contemporary United States can be traced most directly back to the crime waves of the 1980s and 1990s. In New York City, police responded to high levels of violent crime in the 1980s in part by focusing on public order offenses which directed police resources towards controlling an “inappropriate public” – the homeless, drug dealers and users, loitering teenagers, and political activists (Mitchell 2003). This “broken windows policing”

(Wilson & Kelling 1999) emphasized the reduction of what might seem minor disorder to ultimately reduce more serious crime. The restriction on the use of public space to only those who are “appropriate” is therefore somewhat ironically designed to preserve its public nature and to keep it from being co-opted by undesirable members of the population. But the designation of

“appropriate” and “inappropriate” is hardly scientific, or even consistent. Often, appropriateness is determined by the way people look and by the way they make others feel and not by anything specifically dangerous or illegal about their behavior (Mitchell 1995). However, as Harvey

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

(2003) states, “[t]he right to the city is not merely a right of access to what already exists, but a right to change it after our heart’s desire” – a statement in keeping with the Declaration of

Independence’s claim of the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

While the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of assembly more obviously touches upon the issue of the existence and availability of space, the right to free speech is no less a question of geographical definition. Speech cannot exist in a vacuum and political speech even less so. In order for an act to have an expressive component it requires both a speaker and a listener; this dialogic relationship requires a forum in which speakers can appear before audiences. And all audiences are not the same. In order for political speech to retain its democratic function, the audience present must be the appropriate targets of the expressive activity. The United States Supreme Court has generally upheld the use of time, place and manner restrictions on speech subject to the findings that the restrictions are content-neutral, that there is a significant government interest that requires the restriction, and that alternatives exist for the communication of the particular speech in question, which includes the existence of alternative space for expression (and alternative means to reach the appropriate audience). But all space is not equal – simply because protestors have the option of conducting their protest in an empty parking lot miles away from the intended target of the protest does not erase the constitutional question. Speech requires a forum and political speech requires a forum that includes a meaningful audience (Mitchell 2003b).

The overlap between public space and the public sphere, however, creates a particular tension for policies of law enforcement and order maintenance. Public spaces – streets, parks, plazas - are controlled and maintained by the public authority; the state (as representative of the people) creates and enforces the rules of public behavior. However, when that behavior falls

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen under the aegis of the First Amendment, it occurs in the public sphere, where public authority is required to be limited. The creation, definition, and maintenance of public forums and the designation of allowable restrictions within them, therefore, are key to the ability of citizens to engage in the democratic process, both as disseminators of political ideas and as receivers of alternative opinions. Whether we use the Holmesian metaphor of a “marketplace of ideas” or the

Madisonian ideal of a “government by discussion” (Sunstein 1995) in interpreting the First

Amendment, whether we define democracy as the will of the majority or use a more pluralistic vision that encompasses the acknowledgement of minority opinions, “[i]n a democracy it must be possible for the minority to become the majority” (Kohn 2004: 43). In order for any minority to have that chance, that minority must have the space to become visible – to educate and inform, and to convince others to join them, as well as the freedom to do so without fear of political pressure. It’s not that democracy can only occur in public. Many of the key elements of citizenship can and must occur in private. But citizens can only be fully represented politically in public because it is only in public that they can be seen – and it is only in specific public spaces that they can be seen by the relevant people.

Social Constructionism and Social Problems

As described in the previous sections, much of our understanding of key principles for a free society – private vs. public, appropriate vs. inappropriate – is socially constructed. Created in opposition to positivistic views of human activity – that there is an objective reality that can be described and interpreted by experts and that human behavior occurs in response to that objective reality – social constructionism is an epistemological theory that what we experience as “reality”

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen is subjective, based on meanings that we form through our interactions with others and our subsequent interpretations of those meanings within our situational context (Blumer 1969).

Social constructionism does not reject the idea that an objective reality exists but focuses instead on the way in which our understanding of reality is created (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Social constructionism looks at how ideas, or claims – such as the claim that American football players taking a knee in protest during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before games are unpatriotic – become known to the public, how counter-claims – such as the argument that NFL players are not protesting the anthem itself but rather the failure of the U.S. government to adequately address police brutality against black Americans – develop in response, and about how ideas survive to become the shared knowledge of society. In essence, social constructionism does not seek to determine the “true” reason for the NFL player protests (nor if the protests are even actually occurring at all), but rather studies the ways in which people come to believe what they believe about the existence, nature, and rightness (or wrongness) of such protests.

According to Berger and Luckmann (1966), how a person sees and behaves in their environment is based on assumptions made from “typifications” of people and objects. These typifications and assumptions are, in turn, built out of our social interactions – we group people into identifiable types and assume that the beliefs and behaviors that we see in members of these groups are typical of the group as a whole. Actions and beliefs that are manifested repeatedly become habitualized and habitualized actions and beliefs can become institutionalized.

Institutionalized actions and beliefs are experienced as objective reality. Knowledge within a particular institution, therefore, is “the sum total of ‘what everybody knows’…. It defines and constructs the roles to be played in the context of the institutions in question,” (Berger and

Luckmann 1966: 63). And what is known now shapes what can be known in the future – the

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen knowledge of the present frames and influences the creation of future knowledge by defining the outlines of what is reasonable, what is acceptable, and what is not.

Human beings respond to their social environment but this is not a passive process – the world we live in is created by what we do (Blumer 1969). Our behavior is a reaction to how we think others will react to us (the “looking-glass self” [Cooley 1983]) but we continuously process these assumptions through our own lenses – what we want, what we believe to be the available resources, and what we expect to be the results of our actions. When a group of people shares common definitions, they will engage in common actions but not all common action is based on consensus – people’s definitions can be different and yet still converge. When a difference in definitions becomes manifest, or when people interact in situations without shared or clear definitions, conflicts may occur. People’s definitions and meanings are also dynamic, which means our experience of reality will not only vary over groups but will also vary over time.

Social problems research specifically applies the social constructionist model to the study of how conditions and behaviors come to be defined as “problems” within society, problems which need to be addressed. Individuals or groups who define a particular condition or activity as a problem become claims-makers. They draw attention to the condition or activity and provide an explanation for why it is a problem that should be addressed, drawing on assumptions about the shared meanings and values of their society. They define the “type” of problem it is (e.g. medical, legal, etc.) which suggests both the institution(s) that is responsible for addressing the problem as well as a range of possible responses. Successful claims will engender a response; the response will either satisfy the claims-maker(s) at which point they will cease claims-making activities or move on to a new problem, or claims-making activity will continue until either a new, more satisfactory response is made or the claims-maker loses the ability to draw attention to

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen the problem. Within the study of social problems, the objective reality of the problem (does the problem actually exist) is less important than how people come to believe the problem exists; the reality of the problem is irrelevant to the study of its construction.

Becker (1973) focused on the construction of deviance – how individuals and behaviors become defined as outside societal norms. He rejected the view that deviance could be objectively defined as “breaking the rules” (that certain acts were inherently deviant), noting that this view ignores the subjective nature of “rules” as something created by people, ignores the question of who specifically in a group is allowed to make and enforce rules, ignores the way rules vary over time, and ignores how the rules are applied to some groups and not others, and at some times and not others. Rules are based on a belief in shared values though values do not become rules until a conflict occurs. Even then, a rule-breaking act only becomes defined as deviant if individuals he named “moral entrepreneurs” (ideologically driven crusaders) see a benefit for publicizing the act as deviant and demanding a response, and if those moral entrepreneurs have or gain the power to trigger a response. Becker also points out that once a rule becomes institutionalized, the response created to enforce the rule can become the reason for the continued existence of the rule, and can lead to claims-making activity on the part of those that benefit from the response to assert that the problem continues to exist.

One of the primary criticisms of social constructionism is that it is relativist – that because it refuses to evaluate the objective reality of claims it is at risk of creating a view of the world where nothing is real, where all definitions are equally valid (Best 1989). Critics question what the point of doing research is if there is no larger objective truth to be gained. Within social constructionism itself, there is a tension between strict constructionists and contextual constructionists (Best 1989). Strict constructionism does not deny the existence of an objective

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen reality but takes a decidedly agnostic view of it – our experience of reality is necessarily subjective and therefore we must treat all claims and counter-claims as equal; the only thing we can really study is how claims are made and responded to and how they survive or don’t when counter-claims are made. Contextual constructionism believes that claims can be evaluated (and should be if they contradict documented data) and that even if they are evaluated against data that is itself socially constructed (e.g. comparing fear of crime to reported crime rates), the comparison can “locate claims-making activity within its social context” (Best 1989: 247) and it is therefore a worthwhile exercise to examine how people come to believe what they believe even when faced with contradictory evidence. Strict constructionists, however, point out that this places the sociologist in the position of a “neutral expert” when sociologists are no less social actors than anyone else and therefore the claims of sociologists are social constructs as well.

Some social problems become what Cohen (2002) dubbed a “moral panic” – a moral entrepreneur identifies something as a problem which threatens important societal values; they bring the problem to the awareness of the larger public, and to state officials (often with some suggestion of the appropriate response); the public and state officials call for a response to be made to the problem; a response is made and the problem is either believed to have been addressed or the response satisfies the goals of the moral entrepreneur; public awareness of the issue fades; and the panic ends. The news media also contributes to the lifespan and scope of moral panics in their role as providers (and shapers) of information to the public. The “news” is driven to a great extent, and unsurprisingly, by what is new. If no new information is generated or discovered about a reputed social problem, press coverage will begin to decrease and eventually disappear, and with it public awareness.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Moral panics themselves tend to be temporary (but also tend to recur – though sometimes in a modified form). However, because they occur around putative threats to the very fabric of society itself, moral panics can have consequences that last long after the panic itself has ended, particularly when legislative bodies are involved in the response, but also in the sense that moral panics themselves add to the body of shared meanings and references of society – as Berger and

Luckmann (1966) pointed out, what is known now shapes what can be known in the future.

The status of the mainstream news media as amplifiers of claims-making activity, as well as claims-makers themselves, makes them crucial players in the framing of public political protest, the creation of shared meanings and interpretations of civil rights and public behavior, and the societal response(s) to protest messages and activity. News media coverage of public political protest is composed of claims and counter-claims and therefore is a conspicuous performance of the social construction of ideas. Because public political protest also pertains to a key provision in the U.S. Constitution, the social construction of protest has the potential for profound and long-term impacts on not only the social response to protest but also the legal response landscape within which protest can occur.

Media Framing and Public Protest

Social movements are one of “the vehicles of expression through which noninstitutionalized beliefs and practices achieve public exposure” (Wilson 1973). While a movement may have its origin in a small group of individuals becoming aware of or defining an issue as a problem, in order for the movement to continue and have any hope of succeeding the original core must find a way to reach out to others, both to increase awareness of the perceived

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen problem and to encourage participation by others in movement activities – to draw awareness to a problem and to encourage a response to the problem. In order to encourage people to participate, movements must develop public, conceptual understandings of relevant issues in ways that resonate with potential participants. Social movement organizations (SMOs) must align the framing of the relevant issue(s) with the knowledge and interests of individuals outside of the organization, the shared knowledge of the larger public. Frame alignment is defined by

Snow et al (1986) as “the linkage or conjunction of individual and SMO interpretive frameworks.” Frames allow individuals or groups “to locate, perceive, identify, and label”

(Goffman 1974: 21) events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions. SMOs must construct an understanding of an issue in a way that makes sense to outsiders and that engages them in some way (either by exposing them to information or by engaging them emotionally) to encourage those outsiders to support the organization’s activities or to take action themselves. Snow et al. (1986) list four processes SMOs can use to achieve frame alignment: bridging (using outreach efforts to link the movement to individuals who may share the movement’s beliefs but are not yet active), amplification (clarifying and highlighting issues that may be obscured by other actors, not necessarily deliberately), extension

(enlarging the movement’s frame to include other issues that are of importance to potential participants), or transformation (redefining issues from one frame in terms of another, such as by redefining an extant issue as a form of injustice in need of and capable of earning redress).

However, frame alignment processes are only effective if they reach their intended audience. Social movement organizations can engage in outreach in a variety of ways, attempting recruitment through mailings (direct and electronic), advertisements, and existing

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen social networks. Social movements can also attempt to spread awareness of an issue or cause through public demonstrations and the gaining of media attention.

Oliver and Myers (1999: 38) state, "The link between public events and the public sphere is the mass media." The gaining of public attention is fundamental to protest activity. Using news media sources is one way that SMOs can gain a large amount of public attention with proportionately less effort. In addition, the news media is how much of the potential audience for a movement will receive their information about it – while social movements may stage simultaneous events in various cities or countries, a large proportion of the audience will not be physically present at or nearby to movement events. Therefore, the overall narrative of movement ideology, activity, goals, etc., that reaches the public will be filtered through the media (Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke, & Roberts, 1978), which applies its own framing process to the information it presents. And while the news media is not a monolithic entity, smaller organizations often look to bigger ones for guidance – frames used by bigger, more respected news media will tend to permeate the news landscape (Gitlin 1980).

According to Wolfsfeld (1997: 55), “The struggle over media frames is primarily a battle for political legitimacy.” How effective the powerful are at controlling the narrative, and presenting their values and interests as society’s values and interests, depends on the strength of

“counterdefiners” – individuals and groups who challenge the dominant viewpoint (Hall et al.,

1978). Opposing media depictions of reality, however, is a difficult task. The news media’s image as objective, neutral sources of information, coupled with their standing as the primary, and sometimes only, source of information for members of the public gives them the ability to

“certify reality as reality” (Gitlin 1980: 2; italics in original). Challengers who succeed in getting

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen their message into the news are more likely to be from elite groups, can claim to be victims of genuine injustice or are subject to “unreasonable force” from law enforcement, express reform goals (as opposed to radical change and/or revolution), and/or engage in “reasonable” means of dissent (Wolfsfeld 1997). However, the legitimization of claims of injustice and the defining of activity as reasonable or unreasonable are conducted within the previously established framework – even the counterdefiners must work within the structure defined from the beginning by the powerful (Hall et al., 1978).

Much of the literature on mainstream media framing of social movements indicates that the media tend to portray movements and movement actors in ways that undermine them and support the status quo, which includes support for social control agents such as the police (Smith,

McCarthy, Phail, & Boguslaw 2001). The news media operates according to its particular set of values: events are more likely to be reported if they are counter to normal expectations or experience, involve people considered “elite”, contain drama or can be used to illustrate some fundamental truth of human nature, have a negative impact or consequence, and/or can be fit into already existing themes17 (Hall et al 1978). Of course, while the media like covering things that deviate from the norm – they’re interesting and exciting, dramatic and unusual – this focus on deviance also serves to define the boundaries of societal norms and values; talking about deviance is a way to support definitions of correct behavior (Cohen, 2002).

17 An example of this can be seen in the reporting of Black Lives Matter events, using the preexisting theme of “America’s race problem” in more supportive contexts, or “the entitlement society” in more negative ones.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Media images frequently focus on the protest itself, rather than the issues being protested, thus negating SMO frame alignment attempts. The symbolic meanings of protest activity, like the deeper social criticism offered by protest movements, are afforded little attention, particularly in "hard news" items (Hertog and McLeod 1995). The greater the potential for drama, the more likely an event will be covered - greater coverage is afforded to "conflictual" events (events which contain messages that generate political or social conflict; Oliver and Myers 1999), as well as those which include the presence of counter-demonstrators and police involvement

(Oliver and Maney 2000). Protesters are often portrayed as outsiders, at the least rule-breakers and at the worst criminals - violent, dangerous and unpredictable, both in appearance and in behavior (Cahill 2001; Hertog and McLeod 1995; Huspek 200418). Conflict between protesters and police is emphasized, with most of that emphasis being on the deviance of the protesters as opposed to a portrayal of police as being heavy-handed (and in some cases, heavy force by police is represented as justifiable due to said deviance of the protesters). These images can help shape public opinion toward movement activity in ways that can harm the ability of the movement to continue and to achieve its goals, as well as to reach its necessary audience, by muffling debate about societal issues or creating the impression that there is none, and by encouraging the audience to be wary of or even fear those that would speak out publicly – which can lead to greater legal restriction of public protest activity.

In his study of media coverage of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the 1960s,

Todd Gitlin (1980) examines the progression of media strategies for covering a social movement

18 Though Dillard (2002) suggest that protest organizers may have more influence in this respect than previously noted.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen at odds with the status quo. Gitlin states that media coverage was initially respectful but soon progressed to a strategy of using frames that presented the movement in a much less flattering light – trivializing the movement, presenting them as oppositional and extremist (polarization), emphasizing internal divisions and disagreements, marginalizing the movement as being outside the mainstream, and disparaging the movement’s effectiveness (including by undercounting participants in movement events). Later coverage increasingly relied on official sources, emphasized Communist influences and violence at events, and paid greater attention to right- wing opposition to the movement. By the mid-1960s, media coverage of SDS portrayed them as a trivial movement or portrayed them as deviant, in potentially dangerous ways. Both the trivialization of the movement and its portrayal as dangerous served, according to Gitlin, to frame the movement as a “deviant Other”, and may have influenced police reaction to demonstrators at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

Political activists stage rallies and demonstrations to communicate messages to outside agents, both individuals who may not be aware of particular issues and who would not come into contact with movement messages in their daily lives, and those who are in positions of power to effect change. These individuals can increase the resources available to a movement by increasing popular and financial support of a movement’s agenda and by encouraging or pushing through legislative or cultural change. The media can widen the audience for a movement’s message but how effective that message is and how much change it can produce is dependent on both the audience that a particular media source can reach and the picture that is painted of the movement and its members (Smith, McCarthy, Phail, & Boguslaw 2001). Political activists can access alternative media sources, particularly through the instantaneous and global reach of the

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Internet, but use of alternative media sources by themselves often achieves not much more than spreading the gospel of the movement to the already converted – preaching to the choir (Owens and Palmer 2003). Social movement organizations often face the necessity of utilizing more mainstream news media sources in order to reach those people who may not seek out movement messages on their own, either because of ideological differences, apathy, or ignorance. This necessity for mainstream news media coverage is complicated by the additional necessity for that coverage to be sympathetic to the movement and/or its issue(s). This gives rise to two related considerations: the mainstream news media makes decisions on the coverage it will give a movement and its activities based on its own needs, needs that may be “independent of and often contradictory to movement agendas” (Smith et al 2001) and thus movement strategies that are most likely to gain the attention of the mainstream news media may not be the strategies most likely to gain sympathy from either the media itself or the audience of that media (Owens and

Palmer 2003). These issues are even more likely to be a problem for movements that challenge the status quo (Smith et al 2001).

According to Foucault (Foucault & Gordon 1980), there is an inextricable relationship between the production of knowledge and the exercise of power. Power, however, is not a static force - political, social, and institutional power requires the continuous management of dynamic exchanges between people and organizations. Edy and Snidow (2011) point out that "…although journalism does not have direct, physical control of its audience, it can apply disciplinary mechanisms, setting the parameters of normal and deviant behavior, which serve to reinforce the institution as a source of social authority" (817). This need to establish its own authority, as well

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen as "news routines" which rely heavily on official sources, predisposes the mainstream media to legitimize the existing structure and to de-legitimize anything that threatens it.

It is, however, important to understand that these frames are not necessarily the result of some deliberate conspiracy by the press to support the powerful. The news media do not create news, they interpret it. Time pressures encourage reliance on “reliable” sources (official groups and larger organizations which have the resources to issue information at regular, scheduled intervals). The need to maintain an image of objectivity encourages reliance on “established” experts and authorities (who become established as experts by the dominant groups within society). The need to produce a specific, consistent amount of news is also more likely to be satisfied by large organizations that can support their own press departments and are therefore reliable sources of steady and sufficient amounts of information (van Dijk 1988). This allows the powerful to establish hegemony over the narrative – they create the definitions and constructions of deviance that the news media can then access to present information to the public. Gramsci

(1971) describes the ability of the dominant group to convince society to allow it to dictate social life as cultural hegemony – by making news gathering easier and more convenient for the news media, the dominant group encourages that news media to adopt their point of view.

The news media then applies its own processing to this received information – while good evidence of strong ideological biases in news reporting is lacking, news rooms are influenced by their own internal structure. Large media corporations, for example, are more likely to have a variety of specialized departments, which allows them to devote greater time to more topics, and to have more outside connections upon which to draw. Media organizations

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen also respond to their perceived audience – what they report and the language they use to report it is driven by who they think their readers are. And some of the news media’s goals can actually work against the powerful – the desire to be first with a story can lead to reporting conducted outside the normal time schedules of large and official groups, for example (Hall et al 1978).

According to Murdock (1981: 213), the form that reporting of public political activity takes is influenced by “routines and assumptions common to all newsmen”. The news media run on a set cycle – events that occur within a specific 24 hour period are more likely to be covered than those that occur over a longer period of time. This also means that the news media are more likely to cover the event proper and not the broader meaning of the event (i.e. the motivations and goals of protesters). The news media are commercial entities (supported largely by advertising revenue), which means they need to provide a product that people want to read

(which will expose them to ads) – one that situates new information, like challenges to the current political or social order, in familiar and dramatic contexts, casting protest as performance.

McCarthy, McPhail and Smith (1996) warn that there is the potential for two kinds of bias to operate in how the media responds to events: selection and description bias. Selection bias refers to the decisions media entities make regarding what to cover – what events are

“newsworthy”. Mainstream media outlets generally cover events that tap into issues already on the radar, issues that are important to the media itself, that are being covered by other media outlets, and that editors believe will be of interest to their readers (Hall et al 1978). This may lead to an emphasis on coverage of events such as the November 2015 attack in Paris, while suicide

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen bombings in Beirut the day before receives far less. And while conventional wisdom is that events that are irregular, infrequent, and important will be reported more reliably by the media, a survey of the research by Woolley (2000) suggests that this is not true. Research by Oliver and

Myers (1999) suggests that both size (the larger an event, the more likely it is to be covered) and location (events staged in more central locations, or locations where larger numbers of non- demonstrators are expected are more likely to be covered) influence media decisions.

Description bias refers to how events are covered when they are given coverage, which can be influenced by such considerations as the media outlet’s dependence on advertising revenue and access to official sources of information. In the context of protest activity, description bias might be seen in a tendency for a media outlet to focus on the activity of the event itself rather than on the message of the event, to focus on the logistics and physical existence of protest activity while giving little attention to the reasons the activity is occurring. In a 2001 study, Smith et al found that the presence of counter-demonstrators, arrests, and violence at a protest event led to more media focus on the event itself and less on the issues being raised by demonstrators. Boyle et al (2004), in a study of media coverage of protest events in

Wisconsin from 1960 to 1990, found that protest events that called for moderate reform or radical change of current economic or governmental systems were more likely to garner coverage that focused on the event itself as opposed to the issues than were those events supporting the existing system and that protestors were also less likely to be used as sources in the former types. In addition, media coverage of protest often neglects to use the target(s) of protest events as sources, often replacing these targets with police sources, even though the police may not be the direct opposition of protestors’ agendas.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Both types of bias can operate simultaneously, in various combinations and can overlap.

A study by Ashley and Olson (1998) found that the mainstream media marginalized the women's movement by both ignoring it and by trivializing the participants and their message when it was covered. In addition to these types of bias, research has investigated claims of the existence of a

“liberal” or “conservative” bias in news reporting. The popular impression is that one or the other of these biases is in operation throughout the media, though which is considered to be in effect frequently depends on which side the individual considers themselves to be on. A number of media watchdog groups (with agendas of their own) investigate and report potential political bias in the media – Accuracy in Media (AIM) and Media Research Center on the right and

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Fox Watch (sponsored by MoveOn.org) on the left (Kelliher 2004). Project Censored, a media watchdog group which originated at Sonoma

State University in California, tracks issues and events that are either not reported or underreported in the mainstream news media. However, several academic studies of media bias have shown no empirical evidence of a consistent bias in any direction (Domke et al 1997;

Waldman and Devitt 1998). Additional studies have focused on the factors that predict whether an individual will perceive media bias (Lee 2005). Christen, Kannaovakun and Gunther (2002), in a study of individuals affiliated with the United Parcel Service and the Teamsters during a strike in 1997, found that individuals involved in a particular issue are more likely to see neutral news reporting as more favorable to the opposition side but this did not have an effect on the involved individuals’ perception of public opinion towards the issue.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

However, questions persist about the impact of the ideological positions and business interests of media owners on both the narratives reported by their news media outlets and, more broadly, on political society. “The dominant media are themselves members of the corporate- elite establishment”, points out Edward Herman (2001: 25). Owners of media outlets tend to be very wealthy individuals or large corporations - according to a Business Insider article, in 2012,

90% of American media was owned by only six corporations19. This adds another complicating layer to the Gramscian idea of cultural hegemony as transmitted by the news media – the pressure to adopt dominant group narratives is coming from both inside and outside the house.

David McKnight (2003) argues that the neo-liberal position of The Australian, driven by the emergent neo-liberal ideology of its owner, Rupert Murdoch, was one of the forces responsible for the Australian government’s shift toward market-based public policies in the 1970s and

1980s. And business interests of media owners as well play a role in what does, or does not, get reported – in 1994, Murdoch removed an entire channel from his company’s satellite service after the channel had reported information that upset the leaders of a country with whom he was trying to do business (Petley 2007). More recently, the acquisition of Nevada’s leading newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, by Sheldon Adelson has raised suspicions about the potential for use of the paper to advance his own political views and business interests, particularly in light of the secrecy surrounding the purchase and the reported clampdown on the paper reporting on its own sale.

19 General Electric, News Corporation, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 (accessed 3/7/2016)

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

The impact of this is potentially quite staggering. As Bagdikian (1989) pointed out,

“[n]either Caesar nor Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt nor any Pope, has commanded as much power to shape the information on which so many depend to make decisions about everything from whom to vote for to what to eat” (807). These large corporations not only own controlling interests in news outlets but their ownership of other media entities (including entertainment and academic organizations) gives them the ability to control access to a broad range of information – from fictional programming which presents an image of the world that may only bear a very passing resemblance to the real world20 and through to scientific information published in academic journals.

The power of the media companies to shape public opinion potentially allows them to exert influence over the decisions of elected lawmakers; however, it is probably more apt to describe this relationship as more “quid pro quo” than coercive. Positive coverage of the U. S. government during the 1980s and the deliberate underreporting of U. S. involvement in extra- national activities in other countries (which could have undermined the public’s confidence in the Reagan Administration) coincided with policies which loosened restrictions on monopolies, eased tax requirements, and reduced the regulatory power of the Federal Communications

Commission (Bagdikian 1992; Herman and Chomsky 1988).

Herman and Chomsky (1988) assert that the media, far from being the adversarial force keeping the government honest that the Founding Fathers expected when they included press

20 Which can lead to a distorted perception such as George Gerbner’s mean world syndrome. Studies of Gerbner and Larry Gross’ cultivation theory found that heavy viewers of television were more likely to view the world as a more dangerous place than lighter viewers (Morgan, Shanahan, and Signorielli 2009)

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen freedom in the First Amendment, actually is more likely to function as a propaganda machine for that government, and the large corporations that seek its favor. News media are encouraged to fit their reporting into narratives that support, and only very rarely question, the existing political and financial structure by pressure from shareholders (for publicly traded companies) and non- media owners (such as General Electric, which until 2013 owned NBC); pressure from advertisers; and news routines which preference sources of information that are reliable and scheduled which make information-gathering efforts easier. These narratives fit into what Hallin

(1986) calls the “Sphere of Legitimate Controversy”, where the rules of objective journalism apply. Objective journalism is intended to deflect the vast unelected power of corporate media structures into a journalistic ideology that is obligated to not take a stand on any issue. Hard news journalists are expected to be independent, objective, and balanced; to neither favor one side of an issue or another. In practice, this leads hard news journalists to preference official sources (since they are not allowed to decide for themselves what’s important) and to avoid any interpretation or analysis of the information they present.

The Sphere of Legitimate Controversy defines the boundaries between the things we all ostensibly agree on (the shared norms and values of the dominant culture) and those things that are “unworthy of being heard” (Hallin 1986: 117). Reports that question the status quo are allowed but only in isolation – their presence provides the media with the appearance of neutrality but their separation from the dominant narrative allows them to “soon become forgotten bits of flotsam and jetsam in the great tides of information that hourly and daily inundate the public” (Bagdikian 1992, p.49).

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

“A crucial dimension for understanding the reaction to deviance both by the public as a whole and by agents of social control, is the nature of the information that is received about the behavior in question” (Cohen, 2002: 7). When behavior is defined as deviant, particularly if that deviance is further defined as a threat, the public is likely to support greater restrictions on behavior (as well as restrictions on broader ranges of behavior, Cohen 2002), including behavior that is constitutionally protected and that is essential to the functioning of a democratic society.

The acceptance of time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech activity suggests that, from a legal standpoint, the acceptability of public protest activity, while absolute in the abstract, is negotiated in the actual. Given the news media’s positioning as the primary (and sometimes only) vehicle for the transmission of information to large segments of the population, it is imperative that the manner of that transmission be examined.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

III. Chapter Three: Methodology

Given the importance of mainstream news media sources for disseminating political protest messages and for presenting impressions of public protest activity which could potentially affect public opinion on the protest management tactics of law enforcement, it is necessary to examine how mainstream news media sources present the activities of protesters and police to their audiences. The research presented below analyzes the content of articles published in the three primary print news media sources in New York City (the New York Daily

News, the New York Post, and the New York Times) during two periods of increased public protest: the 2004 Republican National Convention (RNC) and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) encampment in Zuccotti Park in 2011.

The three print news media sources selected were chosen based on circulation; these three are the newspapers that reach the greatest number of people in New York City. The New

York Times is a broadsheet, the New York Daily News and the New York Post are both tabloids.

Tabloid newspapers are physically smaller than broadsheets, which provides less space for in- depth news content, and tend to focus on more sensationalistic topics (Gossel 2014). Tabloid newspapers feature more and larger pictures, are more likely to feature bold, large-font headlines

(with greater emphasis on attention-grabbing phrases than on complete descriptive sentences), and are more likely to use colloquial language (Gonzalez Diez, Puebla Martinez, Birkner, &

Perez Cuadrado, 2015)21.

21 Hall et al (1978) have pointed out that the choice of language is related to the type of audience the newspaper believes it is addressing; the use of colloquial language makes the viewpoint of the dominant class more accessible to those in the non-dominant classes.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Scholarly studies of the political biases of these three print news media sources is almost non-existent, with the New York Times being the only one included in any scholarly research

(Groseclose and Milyo 2005; Tan and Weaver 2010)22. In addition, online bias tracker websites suffer problems of bias attribution in their own right. However, studies that have looked at the

New York Times generally suggest that it editorially leans left on the political spectrum. A check of two online media bias tracker sites23 provides similar findings of “center-left” and “left- leaning”. These two websites rate the New York Daily News as “center-left” and “left”, while the Post received ratings of “center-right” and “right”. The editorial tendencies of newspapers could potentially matter a great deal - editors make the decisions about what topics will be covered, what stories make it to print, and write the headlines for those stories24 (see page 46 for a discussion of the unique importance of headlines). As such, the political bias of a particular news media source could influence the way political topics, like protest, are covered.

Articles related to the RNC protests and the OWS encampment were collected by entering a series of specific search terms25 into Lexis-Nexis. RNC related articles were examined for a period including the two weeks prior to the start of the convention, the four days of the

22 As far as could be determined from a search using EBSCOHost. 23 The two sites accessed were Media Bias/Fact Checker (http://mediabiasfactchecker.com) and All Sides (http://allsides.com). MBFC is run by an independent, non-media affiliated individual (Dave van Zandt) and All Sides uses crowd-sourced ratings that are averaged. It is impossible to ascertain whether the sites’ own biases; they claim to be neutral/center. 24 See http://work.chron.com/duties-responsibilities-editors-13679.html (accessed 7/23/17) and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lets-stop-arguing-with-headlines-that-the-writer-didnt- write/article/2555508 (accessed 7/23/17). 25 For the RNC protests, the search term “Republican National Convention” was initially used. To capture further articles related to protest activity during the specified time period that didn’t specifically name the RNC the additional search terms “protest NOT Republican National Convention” and “demonstration OR demonstrator NOT protest NOT Republican National Convention” were used. For the OWS encampment, the search term “Occupy” was initially used. A secondary search was then conducted using “protest NOT Occupy”.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen convention, and the week following the end of the convention, covering the period from August

16, 2004 to September 8, 2004. OWS related articles were examined for a period including the week prior to the beginning of the movement26, the approximately 60 days of the existence of the

OWS camp in Zuccotti Park, and the two weeks following the eviction of protesters from the park, covering the period from September 10, 2011 to November 29, 2011. All articles were examined for relevance to the current study (see specific sections for a discussion of the filtering process unique to each time period).

The current study is focused on the depiction of protest activity in “hard” news reporting, so all articles were filtered for newspaper section or designation. Articles designated as editiorial/opinion, gossip, sports, or entertainment/culture were removed. In addition, articles written by designated, regular columnists of each media source and articles designated as “news analysis” were removed27. Articles that consisted only of quotes, or joke items from late night talk shows were removed as well. Articles published in politics and business/finance sections were retained for both time periods, as these were considered relevant to the protest activity that was occurring28. This produced 524 total articles – 211 articles related to protests related to the

Republican National Convention and 313 related to the Occupy Wall Street encampment.

26 As dated on the Occupy Wall Street web site: http://occupywallst.org/about/ 27 News columnists are not expected to maintain objectivity in their reporting and therefore would be read differently by a general reader than an article presented as “hard” news. Andrew Rosenthal, Op/Ed editor of the New York Times, wrote in 2009, “…columnists are not only free to express their personal opinions, that is the primary part of their job. We pay them to have strong opinions and to express them sharply and with great style.” (Accessed via http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22pubed.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 on 8/28/15.) Likewise, news analysis brings more subjectivity into the text, as the writer(s) interprets the information being presented rather than just reporting it. 28 One particular theme emerged from the filtering process which was not included in the main analysis – the use of “Occupy” as a meme. A meme is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture” (see http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/meme). For example, an article on school reform contained the phrase “Occupy the

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Table 1. Article counts per print news media outlet.

2004 Republican National 2011 Occupy Wall Street Convention

New York Times 99 123

New York Daily News 67 82

New York Post 45 108

Content Analysis

Krippendorff (2004: 18) defines content analysis as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use.” As a methodological approach, content analysis has many advantages: it is unobtrusive, it can be used to analyze large amounts of unstructured data, and it is context sensitive. The present research utilized a directed content analysis approach, drawing on the coding categories developed by Gitlin (1980) to identify themes in news coverage of protest and/or protest activity and to operationalize frames. Hsieh and Shannon (2005: 1281) describe the goal of a directed analysis as “to validate or extend conceptually a theoretical framework or theory.” The advantage of this is the ability to draw on established coding categories which have evolved from and been applied to other data. However, they also warn that starting from existing theory can

classroom!” This use of Occupy imagery has continued to the present, though to a lesser extent, and presents an interesting area for future study.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen introduce bias into the results; specifically, the use of a predetermined framing structure may limit the results to only the frames already included.

Preliminary Content Analysis Structure29

In order to determine the relative amount of space devoted to verbatim quotes30 from the two main groups of claims-makers (officials and protesters) as well as quotes from the audience for the claims-makers’ messages, quotes were coded into one of three categories: official statements, protest statements, and audience statements. Official statements are statements made by members of the government (including candidates for political office), legal representatives of the government, or law enforcement. Protester statements are statements made by anyone affiliated with or participating in protest activity. Audience statements are statements made by anyone who is a witness to or is affected by the protest activity who is neither participating in nor affiliated with the activity, nor is a member of either the government or law enforcement nor operating on behalf of government or law enforcement. While not necessarily the primary and direct target of any specific protest activity, these audience sources are an indirect target for the purposes of frame alignment.

29 Coding for both the preliminary and the framing content analysis was conducted manually by the author. 30 Paraphrases and interpretations of claims-maker statements were not included in this part of the analysis due to the difficulty in clearly defining measures for categorization. As pointed out by Hallin, in his 1986 study of news media coverage of the Vietnam War, “[c]oding of this sort of measure involves considerable personal judgment that cannot be fully spelled out.” (113) Instead, all content that was not direct verbatim quotes was collected as data for the frame analysis.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Articles were then assessed for bias in reporting activity over message. Articles were coded as activity only, message only, or both activity and message.

 Activity only: article described the existence and action(s) of specific protest

activity (i.e. marching, chanting, sitting, blocking traffic, etc.) without mention of

the reason for the protest (beyond superficial mentions of protest group name or

location) and without including content of signs or chants nor direct quotes from

protesters.

 Message only: article described reasons for the existence of protest activity during

the relevant time period in a general sense and/or motivations and goals of protest

groups or individuals, such as through interviews with or profiles of protesters.

 Both activity and message: article included descriptions of protest activity as

defined above and the reasons, motivations, and goals of the protest being

reported and/or the protesters involved.

The overall social construction of protesters and/or protest activity was coded as either all normal (i.e. described in a positive or “ordinary citizen” manner), all deviant (i.e. disruptive, dangerous, criminal, violent, and/or weird), mixed, or neutral.

 All normal: protesters were described in terms that socially constructed them as

“ordinary citizens”, exercising their rights, doing something good. Activity was

described in terms that socially constructed it as good for the country, helpful,

constructive, or at the least, an understandable reaction to events occurring at or

around that time.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

 All deviant: protesters and protest activity was described as disruptive, dangerous,

criminal, violent, and/or weird.

 Mixed: article contained a mix of normal and deviant constructions; some people

or events were described using normal terms as defined above while others were

described as deviant as defined above31.

 Neutral: article reported on protesters and protest activity but did not characterize

anyone or anything in either manner described above.

In his 1988 book, News as Discourse, van Dijk proposed a theory of the structure of news discourse which described headlines as one of the key features of a news item for signaling both what the item is about and what is most important in the item. In addition, van Dijk found that readers were more likely to remember the headline and lead32 of a news item, and that loss of recall of further details was pronounced and rapid, making the information about and impression presented of events in headlines of particularly crucial importance. For this reason, a brief analysis of headlines of the selected articles was also conducted for social construction of protesters and/or protest activity. Because headlines are too short to convey the same information, the coding of headlines was restricted to positive/neutral and deviant.

31 Several of the articles selected for this research contained descriptions of multiple protest events, sometimes over multiple days. So it was not uncommon for one event reported in an article to be described in positive terms while another reported in the same article was described as deviant. 32 The lead is usually, though not always, the first one or two sentences of a news item. The lead describes the main topic of the item.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Frame Analysis Coding Structure

Finally, a deeper content analysis was conducted using a modified version of Gitlin's frame structure (1980). This analysis went beyond the general preliminary analysis of the overall social construction of protesters and/or protest activity in news articles to look at the specific frames used within the article content. This deeper analysis is focused on specific text in each article, examining how the specific words and phrases used construct protesters and/or protest activity in specific ways. Gitlin’s structure was chosen for two reasons:

1. Gitlin’s study of news media coverage of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in

the 1960s was among the first to apply the concept of framing to news reporting of

social movements and protest and,

2. Students for a Democratic Society in many ways parallels the protest movements and

groups involved in the events related to the 2004 Republican National Convention

and the 2011 Occupy Wall Street encampment – anti-war, pro-labor (though not

necessarily pro-union), concerned about economic inequality, and focused on creating

and maintaining true participatory democracy both within the movement and

eventually in society. The messages and themes of all of these groups, therefore,

would present a potentially similar challenge to the norms and assumed reality of

American society.

This original frame structure focused on frames of trivialization, polarization, emphasizing internal divisions, marginalization, and disparagement (including undercounting participants and ineffectiveness of the movement). This research uses a modified version of this

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen structure, which focuses on trivialization, polarization, marginalization, and disparagement of effectiveness33, and adds an additional frame for positive coverage:

 Trivialization: protesters and/or protest events held up as objects of comedy, mockery, and/or ridicule  Polarization: any group or activity characterized as highly oppositional to societal norms such as manners or laws and/or extremist in their views or actions  Marginalization: any group or activity described in ways that suggested they did not reflect the opinions, feelings, or perspectives of the majority of U.S. citizens – or the majority of protesters/protest groups but characterized as merely a minority opinion group and not as extremists  Disparagement: any group or activity characterized as ineffective, too small to be consequential, or incompetent (without humor)  Positive: articles that contained statements supportive of protesters, protest messages, and/or protest activity

Articles were coded for the existence of any of the five selected frames – articles could therefore be coded as having more than one of the five frames. Quotes from the articles are presented to support frame coding decisions.

The 2004 Republican National Convention Articles

Republican National Convention (RNC) related articles were considered to contain content related to protest activity if the text included descriptions of protest activity or protest messages related to the RNC itself, or which took advantage of the timing (see below); or reports

33 While reporting on internal divisions was part of the coverage of Occupy Wall Street, the events during the Republican National Convention were so diverse and diffused over a large number of sometimes weakly (or not at all) affiliated groups that internal activity was rarely discussed so this frame was dropped in order to maintain a consistent structure for both time periods. In addition, due to the lack of consistency in reporting on attendance at events in both time periods, as well as the difficulty in ascertaining accurate numbers years after the events, the disparagement frame was modified to focus solely on ineffectiveness of the movement.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen of specific events, plans for events, statements by protestors or protest groups, or statements by official sources regarding individual activists or events either occurring or planned. Protest activity surrounding the Republican National Convention ranged from marches and demonstrations to artistic and cultural expressions. All types of public protest activity taking place in the New York metropolitan area were included in the analysis if the activity was either anti-war, anti-convention, anti-Bush administration, anti-Republican, or if the activity was planned to use the high-profile setting of the convention as a means of attracting greater publicity. Specifically regarding the latter, employees of the New York City Police Department and the Fire Department of New York were engaged, prior to and during the time period specified, in contract discussions with the city and had been involved in picketing. Articles covering this activity were included due to the ongoing discussion of whether union members would continue to engage in protests during the convention as a means of attracting greater attention for their situation.

Quote sources were preliminarily classified into the following categories:

 Claims-makers o city officials o law enforcement o protesters o civil rights and legal organizations o media personnel34 o judges o lawyers representing individual protesters and/or protest groups

34 This category included reporters from other media sources, including television and online, as well as producers and management personnel for these sources.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

o lawyers representing the city  Audience o witnesses/bystanders o RNC delegates/attendees o RNC/Republican officials o DNC/Democratic officials

City officials include any person working for a city agency, excluding law enforcement personnel. Protesters include any person participating in a protest event or who was, at the time, speaking on behalf of any protest group (excluding legal representation), independent of any specific protest event or activity. Civil rights and legal organizations include groups such as the

New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild. Witnesses/bystanders included business owners and/or employees in areas affected by protest activity (predominantly in the immediate area around Madison Square Garden), residents in those same areas, and people who happened to be in the area at the time of an event (tourists, commuters, etc.). RNC/Republican officials and DNC/Democratic officials included members of the RNC and DNC in a general sense (predominantly those involved in the planning and implementation of the convention) and federally elected officials, such as members of the House or Senate or the Bush administration

(including the President himself). These sources were then collapsed into the three primary categories: official claims-makers (made up of city officials, city lawyers, and law enforcement), protest claims-makers (protesters and protest lawyers), and audience (witnesses/bystanders, RNC delegates/attendees and RNC/Republican officials)35.

35 Civil rights and legal organizations, media personnel, judges, and DNC/Democratic officials were excluded from this analysis of quote sources. While each of these groups can be a claims-maker in their own right, this research was primarily focused on the relative positions of official entities which manage the direct, contemporaneous

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

The 2011 Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park Articles

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) related articles were considered to contain content related to protest activity if the text included:

1. descriptions of protest activity or protest messages related to the OWS

movement;

2. reports of specific events, plans for events, statements by protesters or protest

groups, or statements by official sources regarding individual activists or events

either occurring or planned;

3. references to OWS in discussions of political or financial issues.

Reporting of Occupy Wall Street protest activity was primarily focused on the encampment created in Zuccotti Park, which lasted from September 17, 2011 to the early morning hours of

November 15, 2011. However, both shortly before, during, and after that time period, activity also included marches and demonstrations at a variety of locations throughout New York City, and these generated similar, affiliated activity in other parts of the U.S. as well as in London.

Coverage of non-New York City activity was included in the analysis because, first, it was generally described as being inspired by what was happening in New York, as being an indication of the larger influence of the movement, and, second, because events in both New

York City and elsewhere were reported as influencing each other (both actions by protesters and by law enforcement).

permissions and restrictions on protest activity, protest entities which plan and carry out protest activity, and the audience for the protest activity.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Quote sources were preliminarily classified into the following categories:

 Claims-makers o city officials o law enforcement o protesters o judges o lawyers representing individual protesters and/or protest groups o lawyers representing the city  Audience o witnesses/bystanders

City officials include any person working for a city agency, excluding law enforcement personnel. Protesters include any person participating in a protest event or who was, at the time, speaking on behalf of any protest group (excluding legal representation), independent of any specific protest event or activity. Witnesses/bystanders included business owners and/or employees in areas affected by protest activity (predominantly in the immediate area around

Zuccotti Park and the Wall Street area), residents in those same areas, and people who happened to be in the area at the time of an event (tourists, commuters, etc.). These sources were then collapsed into the three primary categories: official claims-makers (made up of city officials, city attorneys, and law enforcement), protest claims-makers (protesters and protester attorneys), and audience (witnesses/bystanders)36.

36 Again, judges were not included in this analysis of quote sources; see previous footnote.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

IV. Chapter Four: Results

The results of the analyses described in the previous chapter are presented below, starting with the Republican National Convention in 2004 and then moving to the 2011 Occupy Wall

Street encampment period. In each time period, preliminary content analysis results are presented first, providing information on relative space given to quotes from claims-makers and audience members, the overall impression of protesters created by news content as well as in article headlines (including the use of words with positive, negative, or neutral connotations), followed by the results of the more extensive frame analysis.

Republican National Convention 2004

Quote Sources

The 211 articles included 963 relevant quotes. Official claims-makers accounted for

24.09% of all quotes compared to 47.14% for protest claims-makers. 14.02% of the quotes came from members of the audience. Overall, verbatim quotes from protest claims-makers outnumbered those from official sources by a ratio of nearly 2:1 in all three newspapers. While previous research has shown a tendency towards media to favor "status quo" sources, these data suggest that New York City print media, regardless of the conservative or liberal editorial policy generally seen at any individual medium, was much more likely to quote the words of protesters, and those that represented them, in their own words than those persons representing the government. This may, possibly, be due to greater access – the city was involved in civil and legal litigation related to the police union and RNC protests which would have made them less likely to comment whereas protest sources may have been more eager to talk to the press as a

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen way to publicize their message and therefore available at a reporter's convenience. Many of the protest events, in addition, were occurring geographically near the Convention itself, where a large number of media personnel were already located. In other words, if a reporter was looking for a quick quote from a protester or a slogan from a protest sign, all they had to do was look around where they were already standing.

Table 2. Percentage of direct quote sources by print news media outlet (RNC)

Total New York New York Post New York Times Daily News

City 24.09 23.90 25.66 23.75 Officials

Protest 47.14 52.21 42.11 46.01 Sources

Audience 14.02 15.07 13.82 13.54

Social Construction of Protesters and Protest

Activity only was reported in 42.1% of all articles, message only 1.9% of the time, and both activity and message were included in 38.9% of all 211 articles. Thirty-four articles

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen included neither a description of any specific protest activity or message (16.1%)37. All three sources were similar in the number of articles that included descriptions of protest activity only, with both the New York Post and the New York Times (44.4% and 45.5% respectively) being slightly more likely to do so than the New York Daily News (38.8%). The New York Post was the only source to not have any articles that reported message only, though neither of the other two did it very often (4.5% of New York Daily News articles reported message only and 1% of

New York Times articles did so). Both the Daily News and the Times were far more likely to include descriptions of both activity and message (46.3% and 39.4% respectively) than the New

York Post (26.7%). And the Post was far more likely to report on protest without describing either any specific activity or message (28.9% compared to 10.4% for the Daily News and 14.1% for the Times). This parallels somewhat Gitlin’s (1980) finding that the political content of protest, including the messages on signs used in protest events, was rarely a focus in news coverage of the events. Since the news media draws its power from a reputation of objectivity, coverage of protest activity is inherently safer than coverage of messages that might appear to give publicity (and therefore support, if only inadvertently) to calls for changes in the status quo.

The Daily News bucked this trend – not only was it the source most likely to report on protest messages without activity, it was also the only source to be more likely to report both activity and message than activity alone. This may be due to its standing as a left-leaning tabloid newspaper. While the Times guards its reputation as New York City’s “newspaper of record” by adhering to the rules of objective journalism, the Daily News is perhaps far more likely to be drawn to provocative messages demanding major political change; due to its more liberal

37 These articles were primarily focused on reporting the existence of actual or potential traffic disruption (vehicular, pedestrian, or on public transportation).

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen editorial reputation, the Daily News is also less likely to worry that publication of protest aims and goals might serve as publicity for left causes than the more right-leaning Post.

Table 3. Percentage of articles with descriptions of protest activity vs. protest message by print news media outlet (RNC)

New York Daily New York Post New York Times News

Activity Only 38.8 44.4 45.5

Message Only 4.5 0 1

Both 46.3 26.7 39.4

Neither 10.4 28.9 14.1

The social construction of protesters overall was normal in 13.3% of all articles, deviant in 29.9% and neutral in 34.6%. 22.3% of articles presented mixed impressions – with some groups or individual being presented in one way while others were presented in another; this mix could be any combination of the three basic categories. The New York Post is notable for not having a single article that constructed protesters or protest activity as solely normal. Among the other categories, the Daily News was more likely to construct protesters as being solely deviant

(41.8% of the time) than the Post (28.9%) or the Times (22.2%). Neutral-only portrayals of

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen protesters were found more often in the New York Post (46.2%) than in the New York Times

(33.3%), and least often in the Daily News (28.4). Mixed impressions were found at a generally similar rate across all three sources. These results do contain some surprises – though it is not surprising that the Daily News would be more likely to gravitate towards more sensationalistic coverage of protesters and/or protest activity than the Times, by focusing on aspects that are strange or out of the ordinary, it is unexpected that they would do so more often than the Post. It is also unexpected that the right-leaning tabloid Post would be more likely to provide neutral- only coverage than the other left-leaning newspapers. However, the Post was also the only source to not have any positive-only coverage, which is in keeping with its center-right editorial reputation. And the similarities in the rates for mixed coverage is in line with the rules of objective journalism – objectivity requires that a newspaper not present coverage that is favorable to any particular side in a political debate or conflict.

Table 4. Percentage of articles depicting protesters as normal, deviant, neutral, or mixed by print news media outlet (RNC)

New York Daily New York Times News New York Post

Normal 17.9 0 16.2

Deviant 41.8 28.9 22.2

Neutral 28.4 46.7 33.3

Mixed 11.9 24.4 28.3

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Headlines

Because the protests in 2004 were attached to the Republican National Convention, not every article selected was primarily about protest – in some cases, the article was primarily about the Convention itself, about political concerns or persons related to the existing administration or the election campaigns of both the Republicans and Democrats. These articles were eliminated from this analysis as their headlines referred to the primary topic and did not reference protest at all.

Headlines that socially construct protesters as deviant were more common overall (63.85% of the time), though this pattern was truer of the New York Daily News (69.57%) and the New

York Post (69.70%) than of the New York Times (54.90%). While the word count analysis found positive/neutral nouns used more often to describe protest participants and protest activity than negative (see Figure 4), the phrasing in the article headlines often served to highlight the defiant, disruptive, annoying, and/or violent nature of protest:

 New York Daily News

o “Moonlight Rally Irks Mike’s Block” o “Judge’s KO Won’t Stop Protesters” o “Protesters Attack Detective, Kick Him in Head”  New York Post

o “Cops Drill to Rein In Rally Rowdies” o “149 Busted in Pedal Pests’ Tour de Farce” o “GOP Bash – Protesters Jam Streets As Convention Kicks Off”  New York Times

o “Past Arrests Could Play a Role in Prosecution of Protesters” o “A Week to Go, and Protesters Wonder: Keep It Legal or Go for the Park?”

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

o “Activist Defies Ban on Housing Protesters”

Frames

The most common negative frame used by all three sources was polarization (44.5% of all articles). Positive framing occurred only 5.7% of the time and positive only framing an even smaller 2.4% of the time.

Both the New York Daily News and the New York Times are similar to the overall pattern. Of the negative frames, both were much more likely to use polarization, although the

Daily News (46.3%) used it more often than the Times (38.4%). Positive framing also did not occur very often, with the Daily News using it 7.5% of the time and the Times 6.1%. In addition, both showed a similar drop-off in positive only framing to the overall pattern, with the Times dropping to 1%. The Post was less likely to use positive framing (2.2%) at all and had no articles that were positive only.

The finding that polarization is the most common negative frame is in line with Gitlin’s results that negative media coverage of protest relies more heavily on framing that constructs it as oppositional to the mainstream, as extremist, as potentially (or actually) dangerous. This kind of frame discredits protest activity and de-legitimates its message of injustice and change, which protects the status quo and maintains a construction of a society comprised by consensus rather than conflict.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Table 5. Percentage of articles using selected frames by print news media source (RNC)

Overall NYDN NYP NYT

Trivialization 6.6 10.4 4.4 5.1

Polarization 44.5 46.3 55.6 38.4

Marginalization 4.7 4.5 2.2 6.1

Disparagement 6.2 3 4.4 9.1

Positive 5.7 7.5 2.2 6.1

Positive Only 2.4 5.97 0 1

Trivialization

Trivialization is operationalized as coverage in which protesters and/or protest events are held up as objects of comedy, mockery, and/or ridicule. Content related to the trivialization frame is presented below for each of the three news media sources, beginning with the New

York Daily News and ending with the New York Times.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

New York Daily News

“The madness has begun", stated one article, describing completed and planned demonstrations as "zany" and "cheeky" (this last referring to a demonstration by AIDS advocacy group ACT-UP in which participants took off their clothes). Activities included "wacky and daring civil disobedience". Mayor Bloomberg responded to ACT-UP's naked demonstration by placing it in the context of New York City's reputation as an anything-goes kind of town: "Of course, we had seven naked people on Eighth Avenue. What's the question?" Another described activists who stole a flag off the Brooklyn Bridge as either "skilled climbers or crazy".

Protesters were also depicted as being childish. In an article describing the Critical Mass event on Friday (August 27), participants were described as "turning the car-free streets into their own private playgrounds". An activist who was arrested inside Madison Square Garden was described as an “Ivy League agitator and rich kid".

The title of one article parodied a common protest refrain from the gay rights movement:

"They're Nude, Rude - Get Used to It". Another article made fun of a vegan protester being held at Pier 57: "When the chow came, it wasn't up to [his] standards".

New York Post

Protesters who dropped a banner down the side of the Plaza Hotel were described as

"[k]ooks" in the title on one article, while the Critical Mass event was described as the "Tour de

Farce" in another. Rudy Guiliani "advised [the delegates] not to get unnerved by the protests, quipping, 'I used to get three a day.' "

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

New York Times

In one article highlighting a group of protesters who travelled in to the city together (from

Austin, TX), the individual who rented the vehicle for the trip was quoted as saying (after taking the first driving shift), "If anyone needs me, I'll be drunk", and explained that only 6 of the 11 travelers were available to drive as "[t]wo of the other five were drunk, two too tenderfoot and the fifth unlicensed". One member of the group was described as "a carpenter, artist, deep thinker and borderline narcoleptic" and another was "disappointed in a comfortable bed" upon his arrival due to a desire for the "full activist experience".

While the Daily News depicted some protesters as childish, the Times graduated a few to at least adolescent status. An article about a pro-Bush protest group described their eventually- fruitless search for an anti-Bush event to protest: "After picking up some chocolate chip cookies at the farmer's market in Union Square, the Protest Warriors were on the way", and described their headquarters as being stocked with "provocative protest signs and several cases of canned domestic beer".

One delegate found himself in the middle of a notable protest event: "There he was in

Chelsea with scores of lesbians protesting the war in Iraq with inflatable phallus-like missiles".

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Polarization

Polarization is operationalized as coverage in which any group or activity was characterized as highly oppositional to societal norms such as manners or laws and/or extremist in their views or actions. Content related to the polarization frame is presented below for each of the three news media sources, beginning with the New York Daily News and ending with the

New York Times.

New York Daily News

One article quoted police as anticipating up to “1,000 arrests a day”38 and implied that people who are disruptive are repeat offenders. Another article described the court system

“opening extra courtrooms to handle the flood of arrests expected” (increasing from the normal 2 courtrooms to 8, four for day and four for night) while “[m]ost routine court matters will be postponed during the Aug. 30 – Sep. 2 convention… to free up personnel for the 1,000 daily arrests cops have predicted”. Sanitation crews were described as on “stand-by duty” to clean up after “several hundred thousand demonstrators will stage a march and rally”.

A common theme in many of the articles (and not confined to the Daily News) was a differentiation between disruptive demonstrators and peaceful protesters. Also common was the juxtaposition of “potential terrorists and unruly protesters”, “traffic-snarling protests and the possibility of terrorism”, “terror attacks and other forms of unrest” – which served to both distinguish between and inextricably connect protest and terrorism. In some cases, it was

38 This figure was cited in articles in both the Daily News and the Times.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen somewhat more subtle – one article from an early edition on Tuesday which described the day as

“the day cops expected disruptive protests and direct action” was primarily a feature on the

NYPD’s Bomb Squad office. Protesters were described as “spit[ting] venom”. NYPD sources were frequently quoted as anticipating trouble: “Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the

NYPD is bracing for more trouble tomorrow, when President Bush makes his acceptance speech.”

Many articles pointed out the intention of participants in protest events to be arrested and to break rules, such as rallying in Central Park (“activists vow to descend on the park anyway”,

“protesters may not stay to their scripted routes or assigned spots”) even after a judge had upheld the city’s decision to refuse a permit. One article in particular warned that “[f]ifty of the country’s leading anarchists are expected to be in the city”, describing them as “hard-core extremists with histories of violent and disruptive tactics, according to [unnamed] police intelligence sources”. One of these people was described as a “Black Panther from Boston…, convicted in the 1980s of conspiracy to overthrow the government, and with arrests for bank robbery and transporting firearms” and stated this person was “observed training younger militants in weapons use”. This same article went on to describe each of the 50 as having up to

50 followers, leaving the reader to do the alarming math (2500 potentially violent anarchists about to invade Manhattan!), without being overly specific as to what “up to 50” really means.

Also mentioned in other articles was a group called “the Black Bloc, a free-floating group of violent anarchists”. United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an umbrella organization for a variety of protest groups, was described in another article as not exactly “encourag[ing] people to assemble at the park – but they were still handing out leaflets yesterday explaining how to avoid arrest there”.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Police were described as asking protest leaders to “publicly shun anarchists and other agitators bent on igniting chaos” but “[i]nstead, [the leaders] obfuscate on this point” and police are “disappointed nonviolent protest leaders haven’t taken more steps to purge their ranks of troublemakers”, although UFPJ is quoted as stating “We don’t know of any group that is planning to disrupt the march in any way”. This article also repeated the “50 leading anarchists” warning and stated that “[c]ops are on guard for people blocking buses or even throwing bricks or Molotov cocktails”, describing the threat as coming from “fringe elements”.

Arrests and traffic disruptions were described in specific detail (“At least 264 riders were arrested”; “Cops had arrested nearly 300 people as of late yesterday afternoon and more than 800 since Thursday.”; “Tuesday’s mayhem, when nearly 1,200 demonstrators were arrested around

Manhattan”), with one article pointing out that “[f]ifteen bus lines had to be rerouted – all to accommodate the 250,000 anti-war demonstrators who are expected to march past Madison

Square Garden today to voice their outrage”. Another article highlighted an upcoming event as

“not expected to impede foot or vehicle traffic”, as if this was a notable feature. It’s important to note that most of the arrests reported were for misdemeanor offenses (predominantly disorderly conduct), although this is not necessarily highlighted – several articles mention the number of arrests and yet wait until further in to the article to mention the relative minor nature of the offenses cited in the majority of cases.

One article reported that a golf course in the Bronx had been “vandalized with anti-Bush messages” causing “extensive damage” within its description of protest activity, implying that the vandalism and the protests were part of one larger whole. Another article described the upcoming protests as the “mayhem to come”, citing “[t]he unpredictable nature of the protests…

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen and the specter of possible violence [which] has authorities worried and anticipating all sorts of trouble” and warning “the wildest anarchy may come Tuesday, courtesy of A31”39.

Demonstrations were routinely described as potential trouble, ranging from simple disruptions to everyday activity (traffic, for example) to a risk of actual physical violence which could threaten persons and property. Mayor Bloomberg himself was warned against the damage to his image from “[o]ne mishandled terror scare, or one protest gone awry”. In an article describing the large march on the Sunday before the convention, the reporter noted that several hundred demonstrators did go to the park, heedless of the ban (although it was noted that they were peaceful, and mainly in scattered small groups, and were not stopped by the police).

Protesters were met by “an army of riot-ready cops, wielding batons and a new weapon to round up the rowdy: giant nets”. One “protest gone awry” involved a permit-less march which was (graciously, it was implied) allowed by police – while attempting to stop some of the marchers from “breaking through a police barricade”, a police officer “was pulled off his scooter and kicked repeatedly in the head”. Another articles also described the incident: “The angry attacker then pummeled him repeatedly while dozens of people looked on”.

Repeating the warning about the “50 leading anarchists”, an article further spotlighted 35 anarchists “who have made direct threats of violence against the city or participated in extreme civil disobedience in other parts of the country”, pointing out that some of the sneaky anarchists might wear light-colored clothing instead of their traditional black “to avoid suspicion”.

39 A31 is a reference to the A31 Action Coalition, a group of individuals specifically targeting the date August 31 for civil disobedience activity.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Even police officers engaged in protests over contract talks with the city were described as waking Bloomberg’s neighbors (but not disturbing him) during one late night rally.

New York Post

One article, titled “Finest Brace for Anarchy” repeatedly referred to “radicals” and

“radical” protest activity, detailing alleged plans to puncture delegate shuttle bus tires and

“disrupt subways”, including listing specific people expected to be in the city and their arrest history (the description of one included “says she’s a witch”). This article also stated that the

NYPD had warned “McDonald’s and Starbucks that they could be anarchist targets”. A later article details these business’s efforts to “[shore] up defenses against anarchist attacks during the

Republican convention”.

Articles repeatedly warned protesters who might be planning to “disrupt” the Convention that “[t]he NYPD is ready for you”. A particularly strongly worded article referenced anonymous police sources warning that “extremists with ties to the 1970s radical Weather Underground have recently been released from prison and are in New York preparing to wreak havoc”. These extremists are described as “trained in kidnapping techniques, bombmaking [SIC] and building improvised munitions”, although the article does state the belief that these individuals were not participating directly but “orchestrating operations”. The article goes on to state that “[t]he

NYPD is tracking five extremist groups”40, though this information was taken from “a manual obtained by The Post titled ‘Executive Resource Handbook on Radical Groups’” which serves to

40 Including the Earth Liberation Front. This is the only mention of ELF during the time period covered by the analysis and there is no indication that any ELF activity took place in activity during or around the convention period.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen link extremist groups to potential RNC protest activity without actually providing any direct connection at all. The conclusion of the article is a list of various individuals and randomly selected historical activity associated with the Weather Underground, with the caveat that “[t]he

NYPD has not identified these former members as ‘people of interest’ ”. Another article describes police as afraid that “some protesters might hang around after the convention to disrupt other events” while others described the possible intention of protesters to break specific rules

(such as gathering in Central Park without a permit after the big march on Sunday).

An article about the potential impact on Broadway theaters, quotes an anonymous theater executive as saying “[t]ruthfully, I think we’re more concerned about protesters right now than we are about terrorists”. Restaurant owners were quoted as hoping that protests didn’t disrupt business (“I hope the demonstrations won’t scare people away”).

A few articles described protesters as “mostly peaceful” but then proceeded to describe multiple exceptions to that peacefulness, including one reporting that “demonstrations grew demonic” (describing one protester as “crazed” and asserting “mayhem broke out”). A few articles claimed that the protests were making America less safe and “diluting America’s ability to defend itself at home during a critical period”; one described President Bush himself as

“[accusing] critics of the Iraqi war - including the mass of protesters who have descended on

New York City this week - of jeopardizing the safety of American soldiers abroad”. Several articles described an incident at the end of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign march on Monday (August 30), which resulted in a police officer being injured; the officer, described as a hero cop41 who was “stomped by protesters at an illegal march” while going to the

41 He reportedly saved the life of another police officer before he was even a member of the force.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen aid of a fellow (reported in some articles as female) officer. The alleged perpetrator of this incident was subsequently described as an individual “already in trouble with the law – for allegedly going wild just eight months ago at a group home where he previously lived”.

After the convention was over, the NYPD “unveiled an arsenal of weapons – including

Mace, jagged sticks and razors – seized from demonstrators.” Many articles also praised the

“zero tolerance” policy of the NYPD which ensures that “New Yorkers can be safe.”

New York Times

The Times warned its readers about “what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests”. The FBI was reported to be "urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads" with the concern primarily being the future potential of "injuries to convention participants, injuries to citizens, injuries to police and first responders".

The author of a Beacon Hill Institute study42 on the economic impact of the Democratic

National Convention held in Boston earlier in the year was quoted as saying "[t]he wild card is the threat of terrorism, and there is a wild card around protests". There were fears that New York

City would see a repeat of 1968 Chicago "when violent protests over the Vietnam War and racial strife marred the Democratic convention there".

42 The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, MA, studied the economic impact of the Democratic National Convention held in Boston in July of 2004.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

There was a common tendency to group protesters into two camps: those that were peaceful and those that weren’t, and to juxtapose protest and terrorism. A news feature on New

Yorkers offering travelling protesters the hospitality of their homes touched upon the uncertainty of such welcoming behavior: "The popular image of protesters as wild-eyed, window-smashing anarchists is an unfair stereotype, but still, the world is full of crazy people". Prior to the convention, "[t]he New York City Police Department rolled, flew, marched and trotted out demonstrations of its arsenal… against violent protesters, civil disobedience and the threat of terrorism". The police were hedging their bets: “while repeating over and over their expectations for a mostly peaceful week, chiefs are preparing for the worst". One NYPD source was quoted as saying “[p]rotesters are not, oftentimes, violent" while another article asked "[w]hy not give protesters a break, too, at least those who do not feel obligated to kick in every Starbucks front window that they see?" Sometimes the conflation of protest with terrorism came from the top:

"Verbal harassment of delegates on the streets and at their convention functions continued, leading Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to draw parallels between the protesters and terrorists".

Commisioner Raymond Kelly explained at a press conference that “ ‘[d]isruptive elements'… had planned to shut down the financial district, crash delegate parties and interfere with the convention itself, but they 'were thwarted at every turn in their plans to disrupt the city’ “.

Some of the protests were reported as turning violent, though the NYPD was on top of the situation. “[A] day of planned civil disobedience erupted into clashes with police officers and led to the arrests of more than 900 people" according to one article while another stated that

"protests veered from the benign to the chaotic". The goal of the NYPD during the convention period was reportedly to "prevent chaos" & "control the protests". Police were "closely watching

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen suspected troublemakers. Officers moved in swiftly at the slightest flare-up of lawbreaking and managed to contain demonstrations large and small with little violence".

Republicans planned to capitalize on disruption "by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president".

Even the federal authorities were involved, investigating potential threats against the delegates and working to prevent violence prior to the convention even starting. "The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation and is demanding records regarding Internet postings by critics of the Bush administration that list the names of Republican delegates and urge protesters to give them an unwelcome reception in New York City" according to one article43, with the concern being the prospect “that delegates could be harassed or become victims of identity theft" as well as “possible violations of federal criminal code barring efforts to intimidate, threaten or coerce voters", while another reported that “federal officers have begun an aggressive effort to prevent what they say could be violence by demonstrators at the convention this week and at other major political events". This proactive approach was not limited to protesters already in

New York City. The FBI "has questioned at least several dozen would-be protesters about whether they knew of any plans for violent demonstrations, and it has directed agents nationwide to identify possible criminal plots".

To some attending the convention, the protests were more an exercise in negation and anger than any expression of a political message. One delegate felt that "[m]ost of the protesters don't seem to be strongly for Kerry-Edwards. They're just against a lot of things." Some of the

43 The article quoted several protest and civil liberties groups’ assertions that this information is publicly available and therefore was perfectly legal for people to share with others.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

"delegates engaged in shoving matches with protesters" while one “was punched by a protester who ran by".

Central Park was a focal point of a great deal of pre-convention activity, as protest groups fought for permission to gather in Central Park. Although permission was ultimately denied, "the leader of one group said she would be in the park, and [an]other group began handing out flyers spelling out legal ways to gather there". The city was prepared should protesters ignore the court ruling denying a permit to rally in the Park: "[a] police helicopter hovered overhead, and many park visitors said they had the uncomfortable feeling they were being watched" as "law enforcement officials are girding for protesters expected to descend on Central Park, many of them in defiance of bans on political rallies on the Great Lawn".

Some of the protest events were sanctioned and some weren’t. A notable unsanctioned event was the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign march on Monday (August 30).

During that march, an officer was reported as being assaulted. The suspect was arrested the following day and "was charged with second-degree assault, attempted second-degree assault and obstructing governmental administration".

Marginalization

Marginalization is operationalized as coverage in which any group or activity was described in ways that suggested the group or activity did not reflect the opinions, feelings, or perspectives of the majority of U.S. citizens – or the majority of protesters/protest groups but in which the group or activity was characterized as merely a minority opinion group and not as extremist. Content related to the marginalization frame is presented below for each of the three

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen news media sources, beginning with the New York Daily News and ending with the New York

Times.

New York Daily News

Groups with a younger face were dismissed as "mostly made up of college kids". Race and class was used to differentiate protesters from the general public, with a mention of protesters at one meeting being "almost exclusively white" and one specific participant (accused of assaulting a police officer) was labelled an "Ivy-league agitator and rich kid"44.

One enterprising reporter went undercover among the "anarchists", meeting such people as a "dreadlocked punk painter and her slacker beau" and others with "monikers like Brush,

Willow and Skate".

New York Post

The Post insisted the protesters weren't not part of the mainstream, labeling them a

"radical protest movement".

44 This quote also appears under Trivialization as it serves as both – belittling the individual as a kid while distinguishing him from the general public by his education and wealth.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

New York Times

One of the Times' police experts, Miami Police Department Chief John Timoney explained that "in many cases the violence can be attributed to a small, hardcore band that moves from city to city, instigating violence", expressing the common belief that the biggest problems were caused by non-New Yorkers. The Times also described the "protest landscape, ranging from established groups like Planned Parenthood and the AFL-CIO to anarchists bent on undoing the country's corporate structure", as "disparate and fragmented". One article suggested that "the lack of a unified message among a series of large and small groups, with varying tactics has complicated their efforts to gain coverage" while another summed things up by highlighting the "two major themes" which emerged "as protest organizers scrambled through their last week of preparations": "the leadership of the protest effort is deeply fractured, and the many groups flooding New York's streets are poorly coordinated and under no central control." Again, there was the implication that the protesters and the Democrats were divided, with a quote from the

DNC chairman, Terry McAuliffe, that "[w]e have no connection to any of the protesters." One article was particularly direct, quoting John Podesta (former chief of staff for President Bill

Clinton)45: "I think the public knows that the people who get really agitated and at times violent are kind of out of the mainstream and aren't really operating in the context of a political debate."

The Times also highlighted the NYPD’s contention that most of the trouble was caused by non-New Yorkers. In one article, NYPD Commisioner Raymond Kelly was quoted as stating,

“many of those arrested are from out of town and are veterans of other demonstrations in cities with much smaller police departments. In the past, a few got arrested and most got away after

45 Podesta was the president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization in Washington, D.C., at the time of the convention (and still is). Podesta founded the CAP in 2003.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen breaking laws. Here, they are being surprised by the fact that the opposite holds true”. A later article pointed out that, of the 1,735 arrests reported where the arrestee had identification, “1,135 were from outside New York State”.

Disparagement

Disparagement is operationalized as coverage in which any group or activity was characterized as ineffective, too small to be consequential, or incompetent (without humor).

Content related to the disparagement frame is presented below for each of the three news media sources, beginning with the New York Daily News and ending with the New York Times.

New York Daily News

The umbrella group United for Peace and Justice came in for quite a bit of disparagement, including criticism of "the whining of" the group's head, Leslie Cagan, over the use of Central Park for a rally. Some protest events were also depicted as ineffective, with few people participating or causing little disruption. In an article on one of the few right-wing protest groups covered by the news media during this period, the group was reported to having held a counter-demonstration outside the offices of United for Peace and Justice "[b]ut they could muster only a dozen picketers."

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

New York Post

Post reporters did not believe that protesters were effective in their efforts, claiming

"[t]hey failed - largely due to their own obstinence, bad faith or incompetence."

New York Times

Protesters were described as ineffective. Those that managed to get inside Madison

Square Garden during President Bush's speech were "immediately grabbed and hustled out, their shouts drowned out in chants of 'Four more years!' " and, perhaps worse, failed to even register on the ostensible target of their activity: "[t]he president paused and grinned and the audience drowned out the interlopers... He did not acknowledge them." Some protesters were described as hypocrites ("some of the protesters were not so fastidious about their ideology, with anti-Bush diners spotted at more than a few of the expensive restaurants on the [New York City’s tourism bureau’s] list, protesting only when the food did not come quickly enough") and cheap, with a waiter describing the difference between "a party of seven protesters" who "ordered only a single entree of sliced filet" and another group of delegates the next night who "were nice people, and they tipped"). But even with big demonstrations like the march on Sunday, overall, the protesters failed to create much impact: "for all the anger of the demonstrations, they have barely interrupted the convention narrative, and have drawn relatively little news coverage."

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Positive

Positive framing is operationalized as coverage that contained statements supportive of protesters, protest messages, and/or protest activity. Content related to positive framing is presented below for each of the three news media sources, beginning with the New York Daily

News and ending with the New York Times.

New York Daily News

The Daily News published a positive portrayal of Leslie Cagan (the head of UFPJ), describing her as "highly regarded" and in large part responsible for the creation of a "coherent anti-war movement". Protesters were portrayed as wanting to "peacefully show their opposition".

New York Post

Support for the use of Central Park for a protest rally was also reported, with the results of a survey indicating that "widespread agreement that demonstrators have a right to assemble in

Central Park, with 71 percent suggesting rolling out the green carpet to protesters."

New York Times

The Critical Mass protest by Time's Up on Friday (August 27) was described as "an anti-

Republican, pro-environment display of bike power". A broader impression of protesters was on offer, with one article pointing out that "while protesters were initially feared as a disruption,

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen they undoubtedly provided an economic boost as well. People with anti-Bush placards filtered through the city all week, eating in restaurants and drinking at bars."

A feature article presented the anti-war group Code Pink as cohesive and effective

("[w]hat unites them is their female focus on peace and justice, she said, but part of what has made them effective is their campy sense of humor"), and able to get across their message "with a combination of wiles, determination and a sense of humor." The founders of Codepink

“are seasoned advocates who may have pulled off the protest coup of the

convention: While thousands of demonstrators chanted on the streets, drawing

only glancing attention from the Republicans, their members were inside Madison

Square Garden night after night, unfurling banners and baring slogans, forcing

even the president to take notice."

Times articles were much more likely to address issues of both local and federal police overreach. Articles addressed federal law enforcement activity prior to the time period of the convention, reporting on the questioning of "known" activists around the country by FBI agents.

The Times also reported on the reaction of Democratic federal lawmakers to this pre-emptive investigation:

"Several Democratic lawmakers called on Tuesday for a Justice

Department investigation into the Federal Bureau of Investigation's questioning of

would-be demonstrators about possible violence at the political convention,

saying the questioning may have violated the First Amendment."

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

One article quoted from a letter sent by these lawmakers ("the F.B.I. inquiries appeared to represent 'systematic political harassment and intimidation of legitimate antiwar protesters' ").

The Times expressed an anti-marginalization frame in some cases, pointing out, for example, that Critical Mass bike rides were common in more than 300 cities around the world.

Occupy Wall Street 2011

Quote Sources

The 313 articles included 1936 relevant quotes. Official claims-makers accounted for

24.85% of all quotes compared to 46.7% for protest claims-makers. 11.78% of the quotes came from members of the audience.

Overall, verbatim quotes from protest claims-makers again outnumbered those from official sources by a ratio of about 2:1 in all three newspapers. This pattern fits with what was seen in 200446, and again this is probably due, at least in part, to the easy access the news media had to protesters. While there were marches and protest events at places outside Zuccotti Park, the nature of the protest (an occupation) guaranteed that there would be protest claims-makers in one specific place at all hours.

46 Two data points, however, are not enough to conclude that this is a trend in New York print media.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Table 6. Percentage of direct quote sources by print news media outlet (OWS)

Total New York New York New York Daily Post Times News

City Sources 24.85 21.94 23.19 27.57

Protest Sources 46.70 60.76 51.09 35.99

Audience 11.78 6.96 16.81 10.96 Sources

Social Construction of Protesters and Protest

Activity only was reported in 33.75% (N = 108) of all articles, message only 6.56% of the time (N = 21), and both activity and message were included in 42.81% of all articles (N = 137).

47 articles included neither a description of any specific protest activity or message (14.69%).

All three sources were similar in the amount of articles that included descriptions of protest activity only, with the New York Post (39.81%) being slightly more likely to do so than the

Daily News (31.71%) and the New York Times (30%). Articles that included only descriptions of protest message occurred much less often – the New York Times was the most likely to do so

(12.31%) while the Post (1.85%) and the Daily News (3.66%) did so much less often. The Times and the Daily News were more likely to include descriptions of both activity and message in the same article than either alone – the Times did this in 47.69% of its articles and the Daily News

45.12% of the time. The Post included both less often than descriptions of activity alone

(35.19%). The Post was however far more likely to report on protest without describing either

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen any specific activity or message (23.15% compared to 4.88% for the Daily News and 4.62% for the Times). Again, this parallels the finding from the 2004 period that protest message is uncommon as a focus in news coverage, although in this time period message only reporting did appear in all three sources47. This may be due to the greater perceived uniformity of the protest messages during the Occupy Wall Street encampment compared to the protests that occurred in

2004. While the protests in 2004 covered a variety of areas related to the war in Iraq, the platform positions of President Bush and the Republican party (such as those related to abortion rights and AIDS), environmental concerns, and income inequality (to name a few), and were carried out by hundreds of different protest groups, the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011 were primarily about the negative effects of capitalism, which presented a much narrower position for the news media to introduce to a mass audience, and were carried out by a more physically coherent group of people. In addition, Occupy Wall Street was very successful at popularizing message phrases (such as “We Are the 99%”), as well as the concept of “occupying” political, social, and cultural ideas (and not just physical locations) as a means of protest. The Occupy

Wall Street messages and slogans were also picked up and adopted across the country and around the world, further broadening the familiarity of these ideas and providing the news media with protest messages that required little introduction.

47 In the case of the New York Daily News, the percentage of message only reporting declined somewhat, from 4.48% in 2004.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Table 7. Percentage of articles with descriptions of protest activity vs. protest message by print news media outlet (OWS)

New York Daily New York Post New York Times News

Activity Only 31.71 39.81 30.00

Message Only 3.66 1.85 12.31

Both 45.12 35.19 47.69

Neither 4.88 23.15 4.62

The social construction of protesters overall was normal in 4.12% of all articles, deviant in 27.16% and neutral in 39.62%. 29.1% of articles presented mixed constructions – with some groups or individuals being presented as normal while others were presented as deviant. All three sources included at least one article which presented protesters as solely normal – with the Times leading the way (8.13%), and the Post just clocking in with 1 (0.9%). Both the Times and the

Daily News were more likely to present neutral only constructions of protesters (43.9% of the time for both) than any of the other categories, while the Post was more likely to present deviant only impressions (38% of the time). The finding that the Daily News and the Times were more likely to use neutral or mixed constructions while the Post was more likely to use deviant constructions, and that none of the media sources was that likely to use constructions that were

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen supportive of protesters and/or protest activity, is again in keeping with the rules of objective journalism and the editorial leanings of each paper.

Table 8. Percentage of articles depicting protesters as normal, deviant, neutral, or mixed by print news media outlet (OWS)

New York Daily New York Post New York Times News

Normal 2.40 0.90 8.13

Deviant 23.2 38.00 20.33

Neutral 43.90 31.50 43.90

Mixed 30.50 29.60 27.64

Headlines

Unlike in 2004, the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011 were far more likely to be the main focus of the selected articles; however, there were a smaller percentage of articles that focused on issues that were being raised by OWS (student loan debt, banking fees, millionaires’ taxes, etc.). As with the 2004 analysis, these articles were eliminated as their headlines referred to the primary topic and did not reference protest at all.

Headlines that socially construct protesters as deviant were only slightly more common overall (51.76% of the time). The source least likely to paint a deviant impression of protest was

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen the New York Times (35.77%), with the New York Daily News slightly more likely (56.58%), and the New York Post much more likely (75%). The phrasing in New York Times article headlines tended to be far more neutral in general than that seen in the New York Post, while the

New York Daily News utilized both strategies in roughly equal measure:

 New York Times

o “As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge Around Globe” o “Wall Street Protest Spurs Online Dialogue on Inequity” o “Oakland Police Clash with Fringe Protesters”  New York Post

o “It’s Brawl Street! Peaceful Protest Suddenly Violent” o “Angry Protests Around the World” o “Criminal Occupation; Thieves Preying on Fellow Protesters”  New York Daily News

o “NYPD Backs Nightsticks, Spray vs. ‘Anarchists’ ” o “Beat Goes On, and Gets on Some Nerves” o “From Zuccotti, to World”

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

The different phrasing used by the three sources is particularly clear when comparing the headlines on the day after the eviction from Zuccotti Park, with the Times taking a more measured approach to the event, and the Post and Daily News using more dramatic language:

 New York Times

o London Protesters Identify with New York Counterparts and Worry of Similar Fate o Beyond Seizing Parks, New Paths to Influence o Across U.S., Demonstrators Face Arrests and Evictions o Jolted, Wall St. Protesters Face Challenge For Future: Ousted by Police, Then Allowed to Return  New York Post

o Conditions Just ‘Offal’ o Battle Line in Albany o Inside Story of Mike Finally Had to Act o City Basking in Evict-ory!; Ousted Horde Loses Court Challenge; 220 Arrested Amid Weapons & Filth; Judge Reopens Park But Bans Tents  New York Daily News

o The NYPD’s Night of Shock & Awe o Sleepless in Zuccotti Park; Occupy Wall St. Campsite Cleared Out; Protesters Back – Without Their Tents o EMT Hurt in Park ‘Anarchy’ One of the Real 99%, Ma Protests

Again, these results parallel those seen in the above analyses, with the more left-leaning papers using more positive/neutral phrasing in article text and in headlines than the right-leaning source, and with the tabloids using more deviant phrasing than the broadsheet.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Frames

A near majority of the 313 articles used polarization framing, at least to some degree

(48.75% of all articles). Positive framing occurred only 5% of the time and positive only framing an even smaller 1.56% of the time.

The findings for each individual source follows the overall pattern. Polarization was the most common frame found, with both the New York Times and the New York Post employing it in slightly more than 50% of their articles (50.41% and 53.70% respectively). The New York

Daily News used it less often, employing it in 43.92% of articles. Positive framing also did not occur very often, with the Daily News using it 1.22% of the time and the Times 12.2%. The Post had no articles that used positive framing.

Polarization remains the most common negative frame used by all three news media sources. However, there was greater use of marginalization and disparagement frames in all three sources in the 2011 articles48, as well an increase in the use of trivialization framing in both the

New York Post and the New York Times49. Again, this could be a function of the more concentrated nature of the Occupy Wall Street protests – with fewer events, groups, and messages to report on, the news media has more time to look at the smaller details of the protesters and/or protest activity instead of giving attention to only its most visible and/or dramatic aspects. The Occupy Wall Street protests were also concentrated over a longer period of time. While protest activity related to the 2004 Republican National Convention occurred over several days (and more sporadically over a period of a few weeks), each individual event

48 Disparagement showed the greatest increase when comparing 2004 to 2011. 49 The Post had the largest increase from 2004 to 2011. The use of trivialization was less common for the Daily News in 2011 than in 2004.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen occurred during a limited time period and none occurred over multiple days. The extended nature of Occupy Wall Street means that much of the protest activity was fairly mundane – people camping out in an urban park, displaying signs, beating drums, and holding meetings. It is far easier to mock or dismiss people engaged in these kinds of activities than it is to characterize them as a dangerous or subversive threat to society.

Table 9. Percentage of articles using selected frames by print news media source (OWS)

Overall NYDN NYP NYT

Trivialization 10.63 6.1 19.44 6.50

Polarization 48.75 43.92 53.7 50.41

Marginalization 9.38 8.54 10.19 9.75

Disparagement 24.38 25.61 29.63 20.33

Positive 5.00 1.22 0 12.20

Positive Only 1.56 1.22 0 3.25

Trivialization

New York Daily News

The title of one article took a play on the word dummies, referring to the protesters (with their constant drum accompaniment) as “drummies”. Other articles referenced the “festival-like

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen atmosphere” of the protests, including mention of a “handful of bongo-playing students”. As the occupation went on, and the temperature started to decrease, “tempers have frayed and the

Kumbayah unity has been tested”.

New York Post

Articles in the Post referred to OWS participants as “loopy lefties” and “wacky”, and referenced the “carnival atmosphere” of protest events. One article referred to participants who worked during the week and participated in protest activity during their off time as “weekend warrior add-ons”, while another described one participant as a “middle-aged flower child” who had “gotten even more hippie” since joining the protest. Some protesters brought their children with them to which the Post responded “Readin’, writin’ – and revolution!” When protesters who were preparing and serving food for the camp became frustrated by the number of homeless and ex-incarcerated in the camp, the Post warned that “legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals”. An article reported on the concern over sexually transmitted diseases from protesters “after getting their freak on in ‘60s-style hookups with crusty strangers”. One group of marchers, looking for City Hall, were mocked for getting lost as

“wrong-way protesters” and another pair of protesters who were sleeping in hotels instead of the camp were ridiculed (“Hell no, we won’t go – unless we get good down pillows”).When protesters appeared to have a plan to stay in Zuccotti Park until 2025 (likely a typo), the Post laughed that the group “won’t be learning much” as “Radical Economics 101” was on the agenda every Sunday for all 14 years.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

New York Times

The New York Times highlighted the unconventional nature of some of the protesters

(“A man named Hero was here. So was Germ.”) and described the protest as having taken on

“aspects of a medieval carnival”.

Polarization

New York Daily News

A great deal of the focus of many articles was on clashes between protesters and police which became violent and led to injuries – “a march against social inequality turned violent”,

“tensions became especially high”, “one demonstrator was charged with assaulting a police officer, causing a shoulder injury”. Incidents in the later stages of the occupation included one where “a demonstrator hurled a star-shaped piece of glass” at an officer, resulting in a cut to his hand (and 20 stitches), and several officers being “doused in the face with a liquid that police believe was vinegar”. Additional focus was placed on the financial burden the protests were putting on the city, with estimates eventually reaching “10 million in overtime” for the police alone. The largest focus, however, was the impact of the protests on the surrounding neighborhood, both on the people who lived there and the businesses in the area. Neighbors complained about the “incessant daily drumming” which was reported as “not only annoying to residents, passersby and many of the protesters” but “could actually be harmful”. Protesters were accused of “answering nature’s call” in doorways. Crime was an increasing concern with the

Daily News reporting “[t]here were some parts of Zuccotti Park that even the protesters won’t go a night” an dCity officials claimed that the decision to finally clear the park was the result of

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

“reports of lawlessness and the injury of an Emergency Medical Service worker trying to assist a mentally ill man” as well as a desire to “maintain safety and hygiene”.

New York Post

The Post also highlighted the cost to the city of the protests, particularly the cost of police overtime (“$3 million per month”), as well as the violence and injury associated with protest activity – one march to Times Square resulted in a “melee” which “sent two officers to the hospital for minor injuries to their head and foot”. One article reported on results from a survey conducted on OWS protesters which found that “98 percent said they would support civil disobedience and 31 percent would turn to violence to achieve their goals”. An additional concern was that the need to police the protest activity and the camp was drawing “special crime- fighting units away from the hot zones where they’re needed” and mentioned an “NYPD boss” who was “troubled by the resulting slowdown in stop-and-frisks” which was leading to “fewer thugs… going to jail”.

The greatest focus of Post articles, however, was on the conditions within the park and the surrounding area. “Neighbors of Zuccoti Park… are fed up with the protesters’ repeated failure to follow through on promises to address quality of life issues from the protests” such as

“noise, public urination and overall ruckus”. There was “rising concern about sanitation in the overwhelmed park” which was described as smelling “like an open sewer – with people urinating and defecating in public”. “Rodents have descended onto the once-clean park” as a result of “the squalor that has accumulated after the anti-greed demonstrators set up camp”. A health expert report seeing “at least 15 violations of the city’s health code” including “inadequate hand

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen washing, the No. 1 culprit for food-borne illnesses in restaurants” among protesters involved in food prep and service at the park. Violence and crime was also reported inside the park, including a “rash of sex attacks, thefts and vandalism”, though police were concerned that most of the incidents were not being reported, such as a sexual assault that was “not reported to cops for days”. Area businesses were hard hit – one business was forced to fire staff “because the weeks-long Occupy Wall Street protest chased away way too many customers”. Business owners reported “being threatened by thuggish protesters”, and finding “vile graffiti scrawled by protesters” in restrooms. The mayor’s decision to finally clear Zuccotti Park came “after learning about a rancid outbreak of scabies, lice and lung ailments among protesters”.

New York Times

The Times reported on area business owners problems, including property damage (“the sink was broken and fell to the floor”), increasing rates of “theft of soap and toilet paper”, as well as the disappearance of a laptop computer from an area art gallery, and aggressive behavior

“when they were told that only paying customers could use their bathrooms”. Residents “said they felt menaced by the protesters and sickened by the unsanitary conditions in parts of the park” and they “feared that the violence and deaths that have occurred at other Occupy sites would unfold at Zuccotti, too” (such as an apparent suicide, two drug overdoses, and a shooting near a camp that was linked to the protests).

Health and sanitation issues were highlighted at several Occupy camps throughout the

U.S. and in London, problems that were apparently so bad that “[e]ven some camping in the park

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen have grown concerned in recent weeks with the living quarters” and leading to fears that

“contagions may not be confined to the park population.

Noise in the area of Zuccotti Park, particularly the “daily drumming sessions” was reported to “jangle nerves, scare young children, disrupt homework and make working at home impossible”. In a neighborhood already bombarded with construction noise from the World

Trade Center site, “noise from Occupy Wall Street was like salt on a wound”.

Members of the Bloomberg administration made “periodic visits to the park” and monitored “protesters’ meetings streamed live on the Internet” leading to a determination “that the protest was becoming ever more unruly, unsafe and ungovernable” and the park was “an increasingly lawless and unmanageable campground in the pulsing heart of the financial district”. Finally, “an emergency medical worker was allegedly assaulted by a man whom the police were trying to take into custody at the park” which the Times reported was the final straw that prompted the city to clear the park.

Marginalization

New York Daily News

The initial action that began what would become the occupation of Zuccotti Park – a call for a march on Wall Street from the magazine Adbusters – “seemed to fall far short of the organizers’ goal of 20,000 protesters” though they had worried “how many people – or if anyone – would actually show up” at all beforehand. After the clearing out of the Park in November, the Daily

News wondered “whether the two-month-old movement could regain momentum” after such a

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

“demoralizing defeat” though participants reportedly hoped the clearing out would “breathe new life into a cause that had begun to sputter”.

New York Post

After the “predominantly young marchers” were moved away from Wall Street during the initial march in September, the protesters “seemed confused about whether they would set up a permanent camp in the public space” of Zuccotti Park. One event in Union Square, protesting police-brutality “barely attracted 50 participants”, a “lackluster showing” in the eyes of the Post.

A planned day of massive protest activity which took place after Zuccotti Park was cleared was a bust – protesters “ultimately failed to accomplish their goals” and police “outmatched the lawless mob at every turn”. Presence in the park was maintained but “[t]he Occupiers’ ranks have been dramatically thinned… and so has their enthusiasm for the anti-greed cause”. “Only a couple of hundred protesters loitered aimlessly in the park after some participated in an uneventful march.”

New York Times

Early in the protests, the Times felt it was “unclear if the current protests would lead to a lasting movement”. Once the occupation of Zuccotti Park had been ended, the Times wondered

“With their outposts gone, will the movement wither?” “Still, questions endure about whether, without Zuccotti Park, the movement might lose momentum or drift into irrelevancy”.

Participation in events following the clearing out of the park was lessened – “turnout of protesters on the trains was scant” and far from closing Wall Street, “[t]he stock exchange opened for trading as usual at 9:30 a.m.”.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Disparagement

New York Daily News

One of the primary criticisms of the Occupy Wall Street movement, particularly during the occupation of Zuccotti Park was the lack of a clear message. Protesters were described as full of “passionate civic demonstration, ambiguous social angst and single-minded hatred for Big

Money”. Protests were “nebulous”, “ragtag”, and suffering from “ideological disorganization”.

There were frequent reports of dissension in the ranks as well – about the need for specific demands, with meetings “marred in bickering and struggles to reach consensus on issues”, as well as the appropriate amount of drumming (“drumming has been one of the sorest points of the protest, controversial even among the demonstrators”).

New York Post

The use of the term “ragtag” was a popular one for the Post as well as the Daily News, with the group labelled “amorphous” and “predominantly young”. Protesters were described as eating “like kings… while your family of four may have been forced to resort to Hamburger

Helper” and as “selfish” for disrupting the commutes “for the working stiffs whose jobs they claim to be protecting”. The Post criticized the protesters for not noticing that a fellow protester

“had stopped breathing or that his lips had turned blue” – luckily “an alert passer-by” summoned medical attention. Factions within the protest developed – “reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters [by the finance committee] is fraying tempers” with some members “threatening to splinter off”.

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

New York Times

The Times was a little gentler on the protesters than the other two sources but even they felt the protesters “seem organized and, at times, uninformed”. Video taken during activity near the end of the occupation “clearly showed tension and conflict within the protesters’ ranks”.

Positive

New York Daily News

Individual participants were described as “[e]nthusiastic and committed” as well as educated (“hold degrees in psychology and communications”). “In other words, this is a revolution of fairness and decency, a return to long-forgotten basic values of humanity and solidarity, and a long overdue goodbye to what Pope John Paul II called ‘savage capitalism’ “.

New York Post

There were no positive impressions of protesters in Post articles.

New York Times

Participants were drawn to the protests “first out of curiosity and then a sense of kinship”. “The online conversation about Occupy Wall Street grew steadily on social media platforms in recent weeks and increased among users abroad in the last week as… global demonstrations

100

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen approached”. The issues highlighted by OWS were described as reflective of concerns by many in the country – in fact, “[a]lmost half of the public thinks the sentiment at the root of the Occupy movement generally reflects the views of most Americans” and OWS “has already succeeded in shifting the country’s political discourse”.

101

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

V. Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion

If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed. – Mark Twain

The overall takeaway of the analyses conducted is that not much changes in the reporting of protest over time, nor has it changed much from the findings of previous studies on the same topic, though few strong patterns emerged from this data. Polarization continues to be the most common negative news frame. Protest activity is more likely to be reported than protest message.

The data provide limited support for the existence of ideological bias in protest reporting; however, overall the patterns were very similar from one news media source to another. Even though there exists a view of these three newspapers as being different, both in style and ideology, all three are competing for readers in the New York City market. As Murdock (1981) points out, rather than encouraging news media to create novel products, competition tends to lead them to attempt to create more marketable versions of the same product.

One surprising finding did emerge in contrast to that seen in previous research – the heavy emphasis on protesters as claims-makers for the news media. Protester sources were far more common than official ones in both 2004 and 2011. While previous research indicates a reliance on official sources, this data suggests that New York City print media, regardless of the conservative or liberal editorial policy generally seen at any individual source, was much more likely to present the words of protesters, and those that represented them, than those of persons representing the city and/or the government. This may, possibly, be due to a greater access – city and official sources may have been less available during the Convention period or perhaps less

102

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen willing to speak about ongoing civil and legal situations whereas protest sources may have been more eager to talk to the press as a way to publicize their message and therefore available at a reporter's convenience. In addition, as the 2011 actions were a physical occupation of a particular location, protesters were frequently easier to access – there were protesters in a specific, known location at all hours of the day and night.

Articles which focused on protest messages without describing protest activity were rare in both 2004 and 2011. Both the Daily News and the Times were similarly likely to report both message and activity as they were to report activity only in 2004; in 2011 articles in the Daily

News and the Times were more likely to report both activity and message than just activity alone. The Post was more likely to report activity only in both time periods. One qualification, however, should be made about the depth of the coverage of protest messages – much of the coverage was fairly superficial, with a focus on sign messages or slogans chanted at events.

Much rarer were articles whose dominant focus was a more in-depth description of the messages and goals of protesters, with the New York Times being more likely in both time periods to include this (though still only a small percentage of the time).

In both time periods, positive framing was rare for all three print media sources. These results give some support to the existence of a “bias” with the generally considered most conservative source (the Post) focusing more on negative characterizations and activity divorced from message, and the generally considered most liberal (the Times) more likely to publish protest messages and construct protest negatively less often and positively more often.

The analysis of headlines for the selected news articles showed a shift in the likelihood of the three sources to use phrasing that constructs protesters and protest activity as deviant rather than

103

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen neutral or positive. All three sources were more likely to do so in 2004 (although the Times was only just over 50/50) but by 2011 distinct differences emerged – the Times, in its coverage of

Occupy Wall Street was more likely to present neutral or positive phrasing in headlines, the

Daily News was still more likely to use deviant phrasing but much less so than in its coverage of the RNC protests, and the Post had actually increased its use of deviant phrasing. Without a broader investigation of each source’s more general circumstances over the period between 2004 and 2011 (including editorial and/or ownership changes or shifts), it is unclear why these changes occurred.

Headlines are abbreviated and truncated summaries of the main topic so by definition details will inevitably be left out. An example of this can be found in the reporting of an incident in an

Occupy Wall Street camp in Oakland, CA – an example that is interesting for the uniformity of the impression created by both the Times and the Post50. The New York Times’ headline for the incident report reads “Outrage over Veteran Injured at ‘Occupy’ Protest” while the New York

Post printed “Iraq Vet is Injured in Oakland Riot”. While distinct for their characterization of what happened (“protest” versus “riot”), each leaves out crucial information – specifically, the veteran was one of the protesters, and he was injured by the police. These omissions leave vague the issue of responsibility for not just the general violence implied but for the specific violence that caused an actual physical harm. As the framing of protest in all three sources is most likely to be neutral at best and deviant/polarized at worst, this vagueness would have a strong potential to lead to an assumption on the part of the reader that the veteran was injured by the actions of protesters.

50 The Daily News did not reference the incident at all in a headline.

104

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

It is somewhat difficult to directly compare the coverage in 2004 and that in 2011 – protest activity during the Republican National Convention was much more spread out, with both large and sometimes very small events taking place, than what was occurring in 2011, while the time period for protest activity in 2004 was much more compressed than in 2011. However, both time periods encompass protest activity with a wide range of messages (though mostly connected by a general theme).

Protest coverage in both time periods focused a great deal of attention on the disruptive aspect of protest. Traffic disruptions were discussed both in advance (for pre-publicized events) and after the fact. Disruptions to business were a strong focus in articles in all three media sources, though coverage in 2004 gave somewhat equal attention (depending on source) to the disruption caused by the Convention itself. In addition, the more static location and extended time period of Occupy Wall Street led to frequent discussions of the inconveniencing of residents of the neighborhood.

Evidence from the articles examined do show a strong tendency for neutral characterizations of protesters and protest activity and for a moderate, though superficial, focus on protest messages. However, a dominant focus of protest coverage in both time periods was the interaction between law enforcement and protesters; there was a strong emphasis on the need to maintain order. Though allegations of excessive force and/or overzealous enforcement were discussed during the time periods examined, police in both time periods were ultimately praised for their “success” in keeping protest activity from getting out of control (and for acting swiftly and effectively when it threatened to) in all three sources, with the strongest support coming from the New York Post.

105

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

It is common during large scale protest events for law enforcement to claim that “outsiders” are most responsible for the major problems that occur, and indeed, this claim was made during both time periods, and all three media sources dutifully reported it with varying degrees of credulity. This is in keeping with a reliance on “official” claims-makers for regular, authoritative information, which leads to a reluctance to question the information received from those claims- makers. As Herman and Chomsky (1988) note, “[i]t is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they tell whoppers.” (22)

Limitations

While a strong effort was made to capture the full population of articles during the selected time periods, it is likely that some were missed. In addition, print media sources will often print multiple editions in a single day – in the case of the New York Daily News, several articles were printed in more than one edition, with text variations (some of which were quite substantial). A specific edition was chosen with the intention of capturing the version with the largest circulation but it is difficult to verify this for past time periods. All three sources also offer an online version of their papers and in some cases what was presented online differed from the printed text.

106

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Reliability and Validity

All coding and analysis was conducted by a single researcher. A second analyst would be useful to verify the results found here; an analysis using computer software could also help to verify the coding decisions.

Content analysis offers a powerful tool for analyzing text. However, it can suffer from problems of validity. Content is coded using categories defined by the researcher and therefore the results are in many ways in the “eye of the beholder” (Semler 2001). For example, some of content that was coded in this analysis as disparaging of protesters and/or protest activity may, in fact, represent a conscious or unconscious attempt at marginalization on the part of the writers themselves instead, and may have had that effect on the reader as well. Structured interviews with the journalists represented here, as well as experimental designs looking at the effect of the phrasings used in these articles on general readers, would improve the validity of the results found here.

Theoretical Implications

The theory of social constructionism posits that our understanding of reality is a dynamic process, built through ongoing interactions with people and institutions in our society. As such, things that are today defined as problems may be seen as neutral or even normal aspects of the world tomorrow (and vice versa). There is a potential optimism in this view, one which dovetails with a view of democracy as the rule of the majority – however harmful an idea may be

(subjectively or objectively), if we can shape our shared meanings in a different direction, we can create a better world. However, the power to shape shared meanings is not evenly

107

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen distributed. Individuals and organizations with the most political and financial resources have the most power to influence our epistemology. When this is coupled with the increasing tendency of mainstream media outlets to be owned by wealthy individuals and large corporations, the political and financial elite can not only wield the most authority but also control the biggest loudspeaker.

Mainstream news values and routines have traditionally contributed to the elite hold on successful claims-making activity - the reliance on official sources because of their perceived authority and their ability to routinize the delivery of information, and the insistence on

“objectivity” with its concomitant requirement for civility and balanced coverage of “both sides” of an issue. This may explain the stability of the use of particular negative frames - the changing ownership structure of the news preserves the traditional relationship between the press and the status quo. The risk is that this relationship will now begin to deepen further.

While the research on the effects of media coverage on public opinion is mixed, there is evidence to suggest that the interests and objectives of the general public in large part tend to coincide with those of the elite (Gilens and Page 2014), which may support the conclusion that political and financial elites have a disproportionate influence on the social construction of knowledge and belief. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that legislators are also paying attention to how the news media describe the world (Sevanans 2017), particularly when media coverage aligns with their own agendas (Green-Pedersen and Stubager 2010).

This research suggests that negative claims about protest activity are stable and common in mainstream news media coverage. Prior research suggests that this framing of protest could contribute to a shared view of the world favorable to the passage of laws which increasingly

108

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen restrict and repress public political protest activity through a broadening of what constitutes a

“substantial government interest” in maintaining public safety. While social constructionist theories have always acknowledged the role of power in the success of some claims in the face of others (and vice versa), there has been decidedly less focus in the research on how the type of success (the nature of the response to claims-making activity) influences the level and type of power needed for future claims to succeed. Successful claims may, in some circumstances, profoundly alter the playing field for all new claims.

Because public political protest activity is protected under the U.S. Constitution, response to claims about the nature of protest will likely involve institutional processes that are not easy to alter, requiring future claims about the legitimacy of specific kinds of protest activity to draw on greater, and possibly different, resources in order to engender a new response. The stability of news frames found in this research provides evidence of the difficulty counter-claims face in gaining a foothold in the dominant narrative. The increasing monopolization of the media by a minority of large and wealthy conglomerates, and the codification into law of meanings favorable to greater time, place, and manner restrictions of speech rights in the interest of public safety make it imperative that we study not just the way in which knowledge is constructed but that we also examine, in detail, how the response to claims alters the way in which knowledge can be constructed.

Future Directions

In keeping with the theoretical implications discussed above, future research should examine both mainstream and alternative sources of news coverage of a wider variety of social

109

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen movement activity (including that which supports the status quo), to interrogate both whether the construction of protest remains stable over the continuum of public political activism and to identify social definitions under which these constructions may change. What is the relationship between the level of alignment between media and elite interests and the frames that are used? In situational contexts where laws are created which place new or additional restrictions on protest activity, is there a relationship between these restrictions and the social construction of protest seen in news media coverage?

This research focused primarily on the ways mainstream print news media sources frame and portray public political protest events and participants during two specific large-scale events.

Additional analysis should be made of the framing and portrayal of law enforcement activity related to these same events, both that directed at protesters and that directed (or at least directly impacting) the news media itself. A subsequent comparison of the two analyses would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of mainstream news media reporting – both on the information provided to the public about what protest is and how it is conducted, and how the public assesses the acceptability of particular law enforcement strategies for responding to protest. It would also provide a greater understanding of how public activity which supports the status quo is framed.

As noted above, much of the message coverage was of chants, slogan, and signs. It would be interesting to examine the articles which presented message information to see how often this content is superficial in nature as opposed to a more detailed examination of what these slogans and chants mean.

110

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

The framing structure used relied heavily on that developed by Gitlin (1980) which focused on the negative frames media used in coverage of Students for a Democratic Society.

Though the structure was modified to allow for the inclusion of a frame for positive coverage, the focus here is still primarily on negative constructions of political protest activity. An analysis that expands on types of positive coverage would be particularly useful to explore the balance between positive and negative coverage.

Additional analysis of the match between information presented in the headlines and leads of articles and that found in the larger body of text for articles related to these two time periods should also be done, in keeping with the example mentioned above. According to van

Dijk (1988), headlines and leads are a distinct category from the Main Event body of text because while they usually serve to summarize the main topic of the article, they may not do so when reporting is biased. Since research has found that the headlines and leads of news items are much more likely to be recalled and retained over time, it is crucial to determine when and where this bias occurs.

And finally, the two events analyzed here drew protest participants who were predominantly (though not exclusively) white. Recently, large-scale protests have occurred in both the United States and Canada, which have focused much more heavily on the experiences of people and communities of color. It is particularly relevant now, as the United States is more and more confronted with issues of race and racism, to explore the framing of protest when the participants are predominantly black, such as with the Black Lives Matter movement, or indigenous/aboriginal, as with the NoDAPL protests in North Dakota. Likewise, an examination of news coverage of right-wing protest activity (such as the “Unite the Right” protests in

Charlotteville, Virginia in August 2017 and the Patriot Prayer protests in Portland Oregon, in

111

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

August of 2018) would further expand our understanding of the relationship between news frames and political ideology.

Conclusion

Overall, while the three main print news media sources in New York City did extensively cover protest activity during the 2004 Republican National Convention and the 2011 Occupy

Wall Street occupation of Zuccotti Park, much of their coverage focused on the interaction between law enforcement and protesters, as well as the potential and actual disruption and disorder created by protest activity, while providing a minimal and predominantly superficial explanation of the messages and motivations behind it. Rather than being a necessary component of a healthy and functioning democracy, protest is defined in the dominant narrative as pathological – as a criminal and violent act, as disruptive to social order and the lives of

“ordinary” citizens51, as a symptom of a disease in the body politic. While more “liberal” news media sources, such as the New York Times, are more likely to provide impressions of protest that are less often negative, sometimes even positive, and to provide greater reporting of protest messages, as well as some discussion of the legitimacy of and meaning behind those messages, none of the three sources avoided the dominant narratives of disruptive protest and the police as guardians of order.

In a study of the effect of news media framing on attitudes towards Ku Klux Klan (KKK) speeches and rallies, Nelson et al. (1997) found that exposure to news reports that framed the

51 These “ordinary” citizens include major corporations such as Starbucks and McDonald’s, something that is heavily ironic in light of Occupy’s anti-corporate stance, but which makes sense in light of each of these sources being part of major corporations themselves.

112

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen activity as a free speech issue were associated with greater tolerance for allowing KKK activities to occur, while exposure to a frame which emphasized the potential for disorder and/or violence was associated with lower tolerance. This result was stable over both television and electronic print media. What this suggests, then, is that the tendency for public protest activity to be characterized in news reports by its potential or actual disruption and disorder, and by the need for a law enforcement presence to maintain order, is a journalistic decision which may be contributing to lower tolerance for these activities – and conversely, a greater tolerance for restrictions on these activities. Nelson et al. further suggest that when frames involve values that are generally considered of equally high importance – such as those of civil liberties and security

– individual opinions are “often ambivalent and unstable” (569) which may increase the potential effect of framing on how individuals perceive activities which relate to those values.

Davis and Silver (2004) suggest that people do not think of liberty as an abstract concept which is absolute but instead as a value to be weighed against other values. Therefore, whether it is true or not that an increase in one necessitates a decrease in the other, realistically, people’s decision-making regarding what should be done to safeguard liberty and security will often be guided by that negotiation. In a study of the willingness of citizens to give up civil liberties to increase security, conducted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the researchers found that individuals who perceived a high level of threat showed less support for civil liberties overall – particularly amongst individuals with high levels of trust in the government. While the context of their study was terrorism, this further supports a hypothesis that when the public perceives protest activity as threatening, they may become more tolerant of restrictions on civil liberties.

113

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

And there are possible implications that go beyond the public’s willingness to accept restrictions on 1st Amendment activities. In a study of the effect of racial cues on support for more punitive crime policies, Hurwitz and Peffley (2005) found that individuals who held negative stereotypes about African Americans were more likely to support building new prisons to reduce violent crime (over developing anti-poverty programs) when prompted with the term

“inner-city”. This suggests that when a group is linked with negative behaviors or activities generally, people are likely to be more supportive of greater restrictions not just proactively

(time, place, and manner restrictions) but also in response to specific behaviors or activities – if protesters become associated with violence and disorder, people may have greater tolerance of more repressive law enforcement responses to specific rallies, marches, or occupations.

This may be particularly true when the narrative of protest is framed as a problem created by “outsiders”. Jackson (2007) suggests that the repeated characterizations of terrorism and terrorists as sophisticated, imminent, and foreign, helped create an environment in which torture became an acceptable response – acceptable to political elites, to U.S. troops, and to the general public. While this is not a suggestion that the general public would support torturing protesters, it does support a hypothesis that the framing of protest as being the work of professional agitators from “other” places could increase tolerance for repressive law enforcement responses to protest.

One possible argument against the idea that news media sources deliberately frame information and content in ways designed to influence public opinion in specific ways lies in their inability to precisely control their audience. News media can activate particular narrative frames, but the impact of this is filtered through each reader’s personal knowledge and values.

114

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

While news organizations probably have a reasonably good sense of their audience52, and while the lack of precision therefore wouldn’t negate the possibility that they might try to influence public opinion in this way, the lack of value and knowledge homogeneity in the audience of any news source could mitigate the outcome.

More broadly, questions about the effect of the language that news media sources use are not solely academic – debate currently rages in journalistic circles themselves about what role the media may have played in the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency. Some journalists and media critics have pointed to the use of the terms “alt-right” and “populist” to describe people and/or groups who espouse racist, xenophobic, homophobic, and misogynistic views, as key to the “normalization” of these attitudes into the mainstream, making Trump a more acceptable candidate to conservative voters than he might otherwise have been. Others reject the idea that the use of any specific term has that much power, and warn of the dangers of focusing on words over ideas53. And part of the problem may stem from the pressure in hard news media to maintain objectivity – and to therefore simply describe events and not label them; this reasoning is behind the reluctance of the New York Times to refer to certain military interrogation tactics as “torture” until August 7, 201454. However, the insistence on not appearing to pass judgment or pick a side is not necessarily synonymous with actual objectivity,

52 Hall et al (1978) pointed out that different newspapers used different language (slang and idiom), which frequently reflected the common speech of their assumed audience, indicating a generalized knowledge of the broader social class and educational background of their readers. 53 In a December 3, 2016, article, New York Times’ Public Editor Liz Spayd stated, “Many commenters are convinced that if The Times uses words like ‘populist,’ or if it fails to call Trump a ‘liar’ with sufficient frequency, the public will be duped into thinking he’s a legitimate occupant of the White House. As if that battle will be won over a dictionary.” Accessed at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/public-editor/alt-right-stephen-bannon-liz- spayd-public-editor.html. 54 From an article written by Executive Editor Dean Baquet: “[F]rom now on, The Times will use the word ‘torture’ to describe incidents in which we know for sure that interrogators inflicted pain on a prisoner in an effort to get information.” Accessed 12/3/16 at http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/08/07/the-executive-editor-on- the-word-torture/?smid=tw-share&_r=0.

115

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen and as studies such as those referenced above suggest, the language that journalists use does matter, and the decision to simply “describe” both sides ignores questions of what is actually true55.

There is potential for a more frightening implication to the findings of this research. The assumption made here is that the United States is fundamentally a country “of the people by the people for the people” (The U. S. Constitution and Other Key American Writings 2015) and therefore functions as a majoritarian democracy – the needs and wishes of the majority of the people will be heard and responded to by the government. The findings here support the hypothesis that the mainstream news media – which offer one of the most direct connections to a majority of the American public – is as imperfect a vehicle for social movement messages today as it was in the 1960s, limiting the usefulness of these sources for the “marketplace of ideas”, both because of the superficial and often nonexistent reporting of movement messages and the construction of protest as disruptive and disorderly. But what if the assumption is wrong? What if the United States is not a majoritarian democracy?

Research by Gilens and Page (2014) suggests that the traditional view of American governance is, in fact, incorrect. In part, this is due to the very structure of the system – a concern that “majority rule” could lead to the oppression of the minority (a meaningful threat for men who had all personally been part of a political minority themselves) led the Founding

Fathers to install safeguards, including the separation of political power over three branches of government and the establishment of a federalist system granting power to the States. The United

55 The ideas about the difference between describing and labelling was taken from a Twitter thread written by Eric Umansky (@ericuman) on December 3, 2016.

116

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

States was, however, designed to be a representative democracy56, if not a direct one. More worryingly then, are Gilens and Page’s findings that, over 1,779 policy issues examined, the positions of economic elites and business-oriented interest groups had the largest independent impact on policy decisions (either for or against a proposed policy change) while average citizens had no independent impact. This suggests that the driving force behind American governmental decision-making is a small number of economically powerful people. While

Gilens and Page acknowledge that federal policy-making lines up with public opinion much of the time – the public usually gets what it says it wants – they point out that “[w]hen a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose” (576).

They also warn that this alignment between federal policy and public opinion could be the result of economic elite influence on the public – if economic elites can influence both governmental policy AND public opinion, then what appears to be a tendency towards majoritarian policy- making is really just an illusion. This sets up the mainstream news media, increasingly owned by the economic elite, to not just be a biased source of information about social movement activity and protest but to be true constructors of public opinion, an institution that doesn’t help citizens become informed democratic participants but rather channels how the majority of them think.

With large news organizations in large urban centers, like the three examined here57, the potential for protest groups to get their message out to a massive audience is there; however, this

56 It is important to note that this representativeness was not originally extended to all people but rather was primarily the privilege of white men with property. See https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_ 13.html. 57 And in particular, the New York Times. According to the Pew Research Group, the Times has the third largest national circulation figures among newspapers with Monday-Friday coverage, the largest circulation figures for Sunday newspapers, and was second in the world in U.S. digital traffic in January 2015. Accessed at http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/newspapers-fact-sheet/, April 4, 2016.

117

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen examination shows the limits to the use of mainstream corporate media sources for this goal. The good news is that it is easier than ever to access alternative news media sources and information from non-corporate entities. The good news is that it is becoming more and more common to hear debates about the role of the news media, about bias, about the effect of corporate influence on news reporting, and not just in academic circles. The bad news is that the multiplicity of information sources is as likely to lead people to select and depend on particular sources that reflect back their existing points of view (potentially compounding the news media’s potential to influence public opinion58), as it is to expose them to diverse and unfamiliar perspectives. The bad news is that most people still get most of their information from mainstream information sources, and those large media corporations are mostly getting bigger, not smaller. The better we understand how information is presented, the better we’ll understand the choices that citizens make about governance, about how our democracy works (or doesn’t), and about the appropriate role and acceptable limits of the law when faced with public political protest.

58 Linn (2003) suggests that the media tends to use stereotypes because they lend credibility – people believe the information they’re hearing is true because it matches their already existing views, but that the use of these stereotypes also then reinforces these existing views.

118

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Appendix. News Article Bibliography

Republican National Convention

New York Daily News

Ross, B. (2004, August 16). Protest Rap Sheet a Cause for Concern. New York Daily News, p. 32.

Ross, B. (2004, August 16). City Wants to Avoid Courting Chaos. New York Daily News, p. 32.

Saltonstall, D. (2004, August 16). Cops Have Own Loud Speaker. New York Daily News, p. 33.

Lombardi, F. (2004, August 17). Garbage Duty at MSG Dumped on Sanit Crews. New York Daily News, p. 15.

Katz, C. (2004, August 18). Banner Plans Land 4 in Clink. New York Daily News, p. 19.

Lombardi, F. (2004, August 18). RNC Week Rally Set in Harlem. New York Daily News, Suburban p. 1.

Lemire, J. & Standora, L. (2004, August 18). Cops, Firemen Swarm Mike’s Pad. New York Daily News, p. 2.

Katz, C. (2004, August 18). Pink Banner Lands 4 in Clink. New York Daily News, p. 2.

Nichols, A. & Saltonstall, D. (2004, August 19). Moonlight Rally Irks Mike’s Block. New York Daily News, p. 32.

McPhee, M. (2004, August 20). Cops Unwrap a Sonic Boom. New York Daily News, p. 25.

McPhee, M. (2004, August 20). Finest Get RNC-ready. New York Daily News, p. 25.

Fleisher, L., Grace, M., Singleton, D., Shifrel, S., & Gearty, R. (2004, August 21). Metro Briefings: City Atrium Opens: Hoo-Rye. New York Daily News, p. 18.

McPhee, M. & Lemire, J. (2004, August 21). Union: NYPD Violated Cops’ Rights. New York Daily News, p. 17.

Ross, B. (2004, August 22). New order in the court; Big rehab for Centre St. arraignment room. New York Daily News, Suburban p. 51.

Sacks, A. & Furse, J. H. (2004, August 23). Pro-Choicers Plan to Confront GOP. New York Daily News, p. 23.

Saul, M. (2004, August 24). Unions Turn to W in Pay Dispute. New York Daily News, p. 5.

119

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Peterson, H. (2004, August 24). No Park Protests, Judge Sez. New York Daily News, p. 8.

Williams, J. (2004, August 25). Why Left Goes Right to Leslie. New York Daily News, p. 4.

Peterson, H. (2004, August 25). Decision Day on Protest: Activists, City Await Judge’s Lawn Ruling. New York Daily News, p. 4.

Peterson, H. (2004, August 26). Judge’s KO Won’t Stop Protesters. New York Daily News, p. 4.

Haberman, M. (2004, August 26). Unions Vow to Tread Fine Protest Line. New York Daily News, p. 10.

O’Shaugnessy, P. (2004, August 26). Anarchists Hot for Mayhem; Police on guard vs. violent attacks. New York Daily News, p. 5.

Gearty, R. (2004, August 26). Pickets Must Honor Mike’s 30 Ft. Fence. New York Daily News, p. 10.

Becker, M. (2004, August 27). Rally Now Aims for Union Square. New York Daily News, p. 3.

Gittrich, B. (2004, August 27). Kelly: Peaceful Must Ax Anarchy. New York Daily News, p. 3.

Saul, M. (2004, August 27). Don’t Be So Gloomy, Says Bloomy. New York Daily News, p. 22.

Donohue, P. & Katz, C. (2004, August 27). Getting Outta Dodge. New York Daily News, p. 22.

Epstein, D., Lemire, J., & Becker, M. (2004, August 27). They’re Nude, Rude – Get Used To It! New York Daily News, p. 2.

Rose, D. (2004, August 28). Whose Streets? Our Streets. New York Daily News, p. 6.

Rose, D. Donohue, P., & Becker, M. (2004, August 28). Cops Bust Bike Protest; At least 264 riders charged with blocking streets. New York Daily News, p. 7.

Fleisher, L. (2004, August 28). Hardly the Red Carpet; Signs swipe at GOP. New York Daily News, p. 9.

Peterson, H. (2004, August 28). Coed’s Nude Debut Stuns Her Folks. New York Daily News, p. 9.

Guthrie, M. (2004, August 29). RNC: Most of It on Cable; Like Dems, GOP gets just 3 hrs. of coverage on major nets. New York Daily News, p. 29.

Grace, M. (2004, August 29). Blue Line Stretched Thin in Boro. New York Daily News, Suburban p. 1.

120

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

McPhee, M. (2004, August 29). Ace Keystone Cops Here to Help in Case of Crisis. New York Daily News, p. 4.

Becker, M. (2004, August 29). Marching to a Halt; Anti-war protest largest of wild disruptions planned for week. New York Daily News, p. 5.

Becker, M. (2004, August 29). Like Protests? Just Direct Your Feet. New York Daily News, p. 21.

Saltonstall, D. (2004, August 29). Role Could Pol Vault Mike. New York Daily News, p. 25.

Dillon, N., Ortega R. R., & Goldiner, D. (2004, August 30). The Personal Stories Behind the Political Convictions. New York Daily News, p. 2.

Siemaszko, C. (2004, August 30). 7th Ablaze with Anti-Bush-Fervor; 240 arretss as throng marches to the Garden. New York Daily News, p. 3.

Ingrassia, M. (2004, August 30). Cops Yell Cut! Actress Busted at Scene. New York Daily News, p. 3.

Becker, M., Williams, J., & Hutchinson, B. (2004, August 30). Stage Set for Days of Dissent. New York Daily News, p. 5.

Grace, M. (2004, August 30). People Still Sounding Alarm at Shut Firehouse. New York Daily News, Suburban p. 1.

Donohue, P. (2004, August 30). The Going Gets Toughest. New York Daily News, p. 6.

Santos, F. (2004, August 31). Beantown Cops Join N.Y. Pickets. New York Daily News, p. 13.

Grace, M., Donohue, P., & Siemaszko, C. (2004, August 31). 9:30 AM, Where is Everybody? How We All Coped on the First Day. New York Daily News, p. 5.

Grace, M. (2004, August 31). Protesters Attack Detective, Kick Him in Head. New York Daily News, p. 7.

Burke, K. (2004, August 31). In Among the Anarchists; News reporter listens to plans for “direct action” today. New York Daily News, p. 6.

McPhee, M. (2004, August 31). Top Troublemakers in Cops’ Sights. New York Daily News, p. 6.

Youn, S. (2004, August 31). Convention Puts Clamps on Investors, Shoppers; Consumers absent for back-to-school bargains. New York Daily News, Business p. 71.

Shelby, J. (2004, September 1). Boro Dems to Unite in Prospect Park Vigil. New York Daily News, Suburban p. 3.

121

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Ross, B. & Smith, G. B. (2004, September 1). Cops Weave Web with Nets; Tougher tactics baffle city rights group. New York Daily News, p. 23.

O’Shaugnessy, P. (2004, September 1). The Bomb Squad’s Boomtown. New York Daily News, p. 23.

Siemaszko, C. (2004, September 1). Cops Collaring & Corralling; Hundreds of protesters arrested across city. New York Daily News, p. 5.

Colangelo, L. L., El-Ghobashy, T., McPhee, M., & Santos, F. (2004, September 1). Cop Stomp Suspect is Busted. New York Daily News, p. 4.

Gearty, R., Coffey, J., & Gittrich, G. (2004, September 1). Veep’s Close Encounters. New York Daily News, Sports Final Edition p. 20.

Epstein, D. (2004, September 2). Alarming Garden Security Breaches. New York Daily News, p. 2.

Bazinet, K. R. & Katz, C. (2004, September 2). Activists Get Near Twins As Security Questions Mount. New York Daily News, p. 25.

Lemire, J., Dillon, N., & Goldiner, D. (2004, September 2). Protesters’ Arresting Tales. New York Daily News, p. 25.

Donohue, P. & Gittrich, G. (2004, September 2). Bridge Flag Captured by Creeps. New York Daily News, p. 8.

Siemaszko, C. (2004, September 3). Cops Corral Prez Protesters; Rowdies kept blocks from the Garden. New York Daily News, p. 4.

Becker, M. & Port, B. (2004, September 3). Protesters Click with New Media to Mobilize. New York Daily News, p. 28.

Katz, C., McPhee, M., & Zambito, T. (2004, September 3). Flaw & Disorder At Convention; Cadging badges too easy for GOP foes, pros admit. New York Daily News, p. 27.

Marzulli, J. (2004, September 3). Arm Feds with Flyin’ Colors! Paintballs vs. protesters. New York Daily News, p. 10.

Oswald, J. (2004, September 3). The Party-Crashing Continues. New York Daily News, p. 3.

Smith, G. (2004, September 4). Lawsuits Likely To Sing Blues Over NYPD Tactics. New York Daily News, p. 13.

Lombardi, F. (2004, September 8). Council Hearing: Cops & the RNC. New York Daily News, p. 12.

122

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

New York Post

Weiss, M. & Soltis, A. (2004, August 16). Finest Prep for Anarchy; Radicals eye GOP gala. New York Post, p. 6.

Seifman, D. (2004, August 18). Perks for Protests – Mikes’ anti-GOP discounts. New York Post, Sports & Late City Final, p. 3.

Celona, L. & Haberman, Z. (2004, August 18). Cops, Firefighters Visit Mayor’s Home. New York Post, p. 2.

Gregorian, D. (2004, August 19). Peaceniks Sue for Park Place. New York Post, p. 2.

Messing, P. (2004, August 20). Cops Drill to Rein in Rally Rowdies. New York Post, p. 8.

Campanile, C. (2004, August 21). Clever Mike’s “Protest” Pitch. New York Post, p. 11.

Friedman, S. C. (2004, August 23). Radicals Plot Bad Weather. New York Post, p. 10.

Dicker, F. U. (2004, August 23). Hill to Head Kerry’s “Truth Squad”. New York Post, p. 8.

Messing, P., Martinez, E., and Berger, A. (2004, August 23). McD’s, Starbucks Brace for Chaos. New York Post, p. 10.

Campanile, C. (2004, August 24). Court Hits Protesters Out of Park. New York Post, p. 6.

Gregorian, D. (2004, August 25). It’s Central Park – or Nothing Else: Protest Boss. New York Post, p. 2.

Celona, L. & Fermino, J. (2004, August 25). Agitators to Face “Pier” Pressure. New York Post, p. 2.

Calder. R. (2004, August 25). Tavern’s on the De-Fence. New York Post, p. 2.

Gaskill, S. (2004, August 26). Homeland Boss: Rest Easy. New York Post, p. 2.

Fermino, J. & Gregorian, D. (2004, August 26). Judge Shoots Down Central Park Protest. New York Post, p. 2.

Campanile, Carl (2004, August 26). Judge Rebuffs Cop Unions. New York Post, p. 2.

Riedel, M. (2004, August 27). Sick Ways to Sunday – Anti-GOPers Urge Actors to Boycott. New York Post, p. 41.

Mangan, D. (2004, August 27). Marchers Get a Clear Path. New York Post, p. 2.

123

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Deligiannakis, T., Messing, P., & Mangan, D. (2004, August 27). Plaza Kooks Inn Trouble / Anti-Bushies in Hi-Rise Stunt / Cops Injury Spurs Assault Rap. New York Post, p. 2.

Seifman, D. (2004, August 27). Dull Party for NYers. New York Post, p. 3.

Singer, H. & Haberman, Z. (2004, August 28). 149 Busted in Pedal Pests’ Tour de Farce. New York Post, p. 6.

Gregorian, D. (2004, August 28). Protesters in Clink Stink; Plaza-Sign Stunters ‘Mugged’. New York Post, p. 7.

Chiaramonte, P. & McGurk, J. (2004, August 28). Protests Take a Nasty Swing in Bronx. New York Post, p. 7.

Singer, H., Celona, L., & Friedman, S. (2004, August 29). Rally Big Shows; Thousands in March Mix. New York Post, p. 7.

Orin, D. (2004, August 29). Laura Gets Personal. New York Post, p. 4.

Mangan, D. (2004, August 30). Bush Bashers Hit the Streets – Thousands of Demonstrators Storm the City. New York Post, p. 7.

Calabrese, E., Allyn, S., & Gaskell, S. (2004, August 30). Gala Opening – Veep Kicks Off GOP’s National Convention. New York Post, p. 5.

Wire?? (2004, August 30). Convention Protests Have TV on Edge. New York Post, p. 99.

N/A. (2004, August 30). GOP Bash – Protesters Jam Streets As Conventions Kicks Off. New York Post, p. 33.

Orin, D. (2004, August 30). Rudy: Kerry Shift-y – Rips Dem’s Flip Flops. New York Post, p. 9.

MacIntosh, J. & Lisi, C. (2004, August 31). Pain in the Train – Suspect Package Causes Rush Hour Chaos. New York Post, p. 10.

Italiano, L. (2004, August 31). Fire-Dragon Protester Burned by 200G Bail. New York Post, p. 6.

Lovett, K. (2004, August 31). Protests Put GI’s in Danger: Papa Bush. New York Post, p. 5.

Gittens, H. & Sweeney, M. (2004, August 31). Unlawful Marchers Hurt Cop. New York Post, p. 6.

Kranes, M. (2004, August 31). Easy to $wallow – Business Up at City’s Eateries. New York Post, p. 11.

124

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Mangan, D. & Venezia, T. (2004, September 1). Marching Right to Jail – 1000-plus Bush- Bashers are Busted as Protests Get Nasty. New York Post, p. 8.

Gallahue, P., Haberman, Z., & Sanderson, B. (2004, September 1). Suspect Arrested in Vicious Attack on Cop. New York Post, p. 8.

Gallahue, P. & Sanderson, B. (2004, September 1). Hunt for Cop-Basher – Mike Vows to Find Perp of ‘Outrageous’ Attack. New York Post, p. 8.

Weiss, M., Montero, D., & Italiano, L. (2004, September 2). Angry Time Bomb – Cop Basher Berserk. New York Post, p. 23.

Friedman, S., Fermino, J., & Mangan, D. (2004, September 2). Sneak ‘Attack’ – Disguised Activists in Gala Security Breach. New York Post, p. 11.

Italiano, L., Weiss, M., & Mangan, D. (2004, September 3). Judge Slaps City – Protesters Freed After Arraignment Foot-Drag. New York Post, p. 8.

Bishop, I. (2004, September 3). Cheers Silence Infiltrators. New York Post, p. 4.

Seifman, D. (2004, September 4). Apple Harvest – Mike: Convention Nets City $225M. New York Post, p. 17.

Gregorian, D. & Italiano, L. (2004, September 4). Protest-Bust Lawsuits Could $ock Us Big. New York Post, p. 17.

Kuntzman, G. (2004, September 7). Protesting ‘Asbestos’ Pier. New York Post, p. 6.

New York Times

Lichtbau, E. (2004, August 16). FBI Goes Knocking for Potential Troublemakers. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1. Steinhauer, J. (2004, August 17). Behavior May Cost Protesters ‘Privileges’, Bloomberg Says. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3. Polgreen, L. (2004, August 17). City Lowering Its Sights for a Convention Boom. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1. Brick, M. (2004, August 17). New Yorkers Open Doors and Floors to Protesters. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1. Luo, M. (2004, August 17). Bus Routes to be Changed During G.O.P. Convention. The New York Times, Section B, p. 4.

125

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Steinhauer, J. (2004, August 18). Just Keep It Peaceful, Protesters, New York Is Offering Discounts. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1. Barry, D. (2004, August 18). A Salute to Free Speech, and the Freedom Not To Listen. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3. Lichtbau, E. (2004, August 18). Inquiry Into FBI Questioning is Sought. The New York Times, Section A, p. 16. Quotation of the Day. (2004, August 18). The New York Times, Section A, p. 2. Greenhouse, S. (2004, August 19). A Noisy Late-Night Message for the Mayor on Pay Raises. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3. Cardwell, D. (2004, August 19). Antiwar Group Asks Court to Allow Central Park Protest. The New York Times, Section B, p. 2. Saulny, S. (2004, August 19). Past Arrests Could Play a Role in Prosecution of Protesters. The New York Times, Section B, p. 2. Archibold, R. C. (2004, August 20). Anarchists Emerge as the Convention’s Wild Card. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1. Wilson, M. (2004, August 20). Police Show They’re Ready for Convention Disorder. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1. Haberman, C. (2004, August 20). Remember Them to Harold Sq. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1. Steinhauer, J. (2004, August 21). For Mayor, Antiwar Protest Makes a Pro-Stadium Case. The New York Times, Section B, p. 2. Nagourney, A. (2004, August 22). Bush Promises Detailed Plans at Convention. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 1. Ain, S. (2004, August 22). Delegates In, Commuters Out. The New York Times, Section 14LI, p. 1. Haley, P. & Moynihan, C. (2004, August 23). Yippies Protest Near Bloomberg’s Town House. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3. Brick, M. (2004, August 23). Signs? Check. Chant? Check. Ride to New York? Well. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3. Steinhauer, J. & Cardwell, D. (2004, August 23). A Week to Go, and Protesters Wonder: Keep It Legal or Go for the Park? The New York Times, Section B, p. 1. Greenhouse, S. (2004, August 24). State Orders Binding Arbitration in Police Negotiations. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3.

126

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Cardwell, D. (2004, August 24). Judge Rejects One Bid for a Central Park Protest. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1. Cardwell, D. (2004, August 25). Group Will Rally in Central park or Not At All, Leader Says. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3. Johnston, D. & Rashbaum, W. K. (2004, August 25). Vast Force Deployed for Security at Convention. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1. Saulny, S. (2004, August 26). Judge Bars Big Rally in Park, But Protest March is Still Set. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1. Preston, J. (2004, August 26). Court Backs Police Dept. in Curbs on Labor Tactics. The New York Times, Section B, p. 7. Archibold, R. C. (2004, August 26). Days of Protests, Vigils and Street Theater (Thongs, Too.) The New York Times, Section B, p. 7. McIntire, M. (2004, August 26). Give Your Name to the Police? Advice to Protesters Differs. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1. Moynihan, C. (2004, August 26). Metro Briefing New York: Bronx: Activist Defies Ban on Housing Protesters. The New York Times, Section B, p. 5. Hicks, J. P. (2004, August 27). Democrats to Open Office Today to Monitor the Republicans. The New York Times, Section A, p. 17. Scott, J. & Connelly, M. (2004, August 27). New York Awaits Republicans With Reluctance & Unease. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Cardwell, D. (2004, August 27). For Convention, Demonstrations Start Early, As Do Arrests. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Archibold, R. C. (2004, August 27). It May Be Hard to Tell a Rally From a Lot of People in the Park. The New York Times, Section B, p. 4.

Spicuzza, M. (2004, August 27). Calling All Scooters? Officers Will Patrol with a Putt-Putt. The New York Times, Section B, p. 4.

Mindlin, A. (2004, August 28). Want to Aid the Delegates? GOP Membership Helps. The New York Times, Section B, p. 4.

Saulny, S. (2004, August 28). Plaza Climbers Tell of a Grim Night in Jail. The New York Times, Section B, p. 5.

Lueck, T. J. (2004, August 28). In Convention Protest, Vandals Spray Paint Bronx Golf Course. The New York Times, Section B, p. 6.

127

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Buck, M. (2004, August 28). Before Days of Marching, A Long Drive. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Lichtbau, E. (2004, August 28). Protesters at Heart of Debate on Security vs. Civil Rights. The New York Times, Section A, p. 9.

Archibold, R. C. (2004, August 28). 100 Cyclists Are Arrested As Thousands Ride in Protest. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Cave, D. (2004, August 28). Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Elephant? The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Dwyer, J. (2004, August 28). A Protest in the Park? Showdown is Tomorrow. The New York Times, Section B, p. 4.

Farmer, M. & Farmer, A. (2004, August 29). 25,000 Abortion-Rights Advocates March to City Hall. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 27.

McNulty, W., Bronzan, J. & Burgess, J. (2004, August 29). The 2004 Republican National Convention. The New York Times, Section 15, p. 16.

Lyman, R. (2004, August 29) Seeing Another Opportunity to Make Boston Play Second Fiddle. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 25.

Cardwell, D. (2004, August 29). They’re Anti-Republican, But Not Embraced by Democrats. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 27.

Bronzan, J. & Burgess, J. (2004, August 29). Getting Around (During) the Convention. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 31.

Radsch, C. C. (2004, August 29). Voice in the Streets. The New York Times, Section 4, p. 2.

Kugel, S. (2004, August 29). A Model of Zen in an Elephant-Crossing Zone. The New York Times, Section 14, p. 6.

Salzman, A. (2004, August 29). Convention Delegates Put Aside Fears. The New York Times, Section 14C, p. 3.

Archibold, R. C. (2004, August 29). Anarchy Explained. The New York Times, Section 4, p. 4.

McFadden, R. D. (2004, August 30). Vast Anti-Bush Rally Greets Republicans in New York. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Brick, M. (2004, August 30). 35 Hours, on Burgers and 6 Tanks of Gas. The New York Times, Section P, p. 14.

128

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Steinhauer, J. (2004, August 30). Playing Polite Host, Bloomberg Caters to All. The New York Times, Section P, p. 14.

Feuer, A. (2004, August 30). Delegate Finds a Wilderness on the Streets of New York. The New York Times, Section P, p. 10.

Carr. D. (2004, August 30). Ink-Stained Wretches Angle For Some Ink. The New York Times, Section P, p. 16.

Lyman, R. (2004, August 30). Cheney Tries to Stir Memories of Bush in Days After 9/11. The New York Times, Section P, p. 8.

Nagourney, A. & Toner, R. (2004, August 30). The G.O.P. Arrives, Putting Sept. 11 Into August. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Lichtbau, E. (2004, August 30). Subpoena Seeks Records About Delegate Lists on Web. The New York Times, Section P, p. 10.

Santora, M. (2004, August 30). Families and Individuals Join in Anger & Frustration. The New York Times, Section P, p. 4.

Slackman, M. & Baker, A. (2004, August 30). With Restraint and New Tactics, March is Kept Orderly. The New York Times, Section P, p. 1.

Voices of Dissent Heard as One. (2004, August 30). The New York Times, Section P, p. 6.

Moynihan, C. (2004, August 30). Anticapitalists, Marijuana Advocates… Landlords? The New York Times, Section B, p. 3.

Wilgoren, J. (2004, August 31). Democrats Turn to the Art of Possible. The New York Times, Section P, p. 13.

Eaton, L. (2004, August 31). Republicans Decide to See for Themselves What the Terrorists Did. The New York Times, Section P, p. 8.

Archibold, R. C. (2004, August 31). Protesters' Encounters with Delegates on the Town Turn Ugly. The New York Times, Section P, p. 12.

Kleinfeld, N. R. (2004, August 31). Outward Calm Attests to the Disruption of the City. The New York Times, Section P, p. 1.

Healy, P. & Saulny, S. (2004, September 1). Demonstrators Held at Pier 57 Complain of Conditions and Long Waits. The New York Times, Section P, p. 12.

Cardwell, D. & Santora, M. (2004, September 1). At Least 900 Arrested in City as Protesters Clash with Police. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

129

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Rashbaum, W. K. & Wilson, M. (2004, September 1). Barricades Help Officers Keep Crowds Controlled. The New York Times, Section P, p. 7.

Greenhouse, S. (2004, September 1). Union to Give Nod to Bush at Meeting in Queens. The New York Times, Section P, p. 5.

Slackman, M. & Cardwell, D. (2004, September 2). Police Tactics Mute Protesters and Messages. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Saulny, S. (2004, September 2). Lawyers Flood the Courts, But Demonstrators Trickle In. The New York Times, Section P, p. 10.

Associated Press (2004, September 2). Metro Briefing New York: Manhattan: Ground Zero Rally for Burial. The New York Times, Section B, p. 5.

Schiesel, S. (2004, September 2). Justice is Blind, but a Court Surveillance Systems Sees All. The New York Times, Section G, p. 5.

Bumiller, E. (2004, September 2). Bush Reaches City, Accepting Firefighters’ Endorsement in Queens. The New York Times, Section P, p. 12.

Rashbaum, W. K. (2004, September 2). Man Charged in Attack on Detective During Protest. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3.

Archibold, R. C. & Rashbaum, W. K. (2004, September 2). Tools of Crowd Control: Scooters and Mesh Netting. The New York Times, Section P, p. 10.

Nagourney, A. & Toner, R. (2004, September 2). Cheney and G.O.P. Mount Vigorous Assault on Kerry. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Lyman, R. (2004, September 2). The View From the Floor: Looking Good For the President, and Getting Better. The New York Times, Section P, p. 6.

Stevenson, R. W. (2004, September 2). Jobless Figures Could Emphasize Bush’s Big Weakness. The New York Times, Section P, p. 4.

Bennet, J. (2004, September 3). Bush's New Vantage Point, From an Island of a Stage. The New York Times, Section P, p. 3.

Archibold, R. C. (2004, September 3). Protesters Try to Get in Last Word Before Curtain Falls. The New York Times, Section P, p. 8.

Santora, M. (2004, September 3). With Spare Passes in Hand, Hecklers Found It Surprisingly Easy to Crash the Party. The New York Times, Section P, p. 8.

130

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Saulny, S. & Cardwell, D. (2004, September 3). Facing Fine, City Frees Hundreds of Detainees. The New York Times, Section P, p. 1.

Feuer, A. (2004, September 3). Warriors of The Right Take to the Streets. The New York Times, Section P, p. 9.

Nagourney, A. & Stevenson, R. W. (2004, September 3). Bush, Evoking 9/11, Vows to 'Build a Safer World'. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Berger, J. (2004, September 3). For Some, Bargain Dining Transcends Political Ideology. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3.

Chen, D. W. & Luo, M. (2004, September 4). Traffic Lanes Restored, City Gets Groove Back. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3.

Archibold, R. C. & Wilson, M. (2004, September 4). Police and Protesters Spar a Last Time, Over the Peace. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Steinhauer, J. (2004, September 4). Bloomberg Held the Line & Managed to Walk It, Too. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Cardwell, D. (2004, September 4). Antiwar Group’s Tactics: Stealth and Pink Lingerie. The New York Times, Section B, p. 2.

Rubenstein, C. (2004, September 5). The Delegate as Commuter. The New York Times, Section 14WC, p. 4.

Feuer, A. (2004, September 5). A North Pole Resident, at Home in Coney Island. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 36.

Carr, D. (2004, September 5). New York Makes a Good Impression on Delegates. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 33.

Santora, M. (2004, September 7). Playing and Swaying to Caribbean Rhythms. The New York Times, Section B, p. 3.

Steinhauer, J. (2004, September 8). Final Tally Awaits the Police and Protesters. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Polgreen, L. (2004, September 8). Convention’s Financial Impact is Disputed. The New York Times, Section B, p. 4.

131

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Occupy Wall Street

New York Daily News

Dominguez, R. (2011, September 17). Wakeup Call' Protest Set for Wall Street. The New York Daily News, p. 20. Deluca, M. & Lemire, J. (2011, September 18). Protesters Hit a Wall, Fenced Out by Police. The New York Daily News, p. 6. Deluca, M. & Boyle, C. (2011, September 25). Nasty Wall Street-Fight. Protesters Cuffed, Pepper-Sprayed During 'Inequality' March. The New York Daily News, p. 9. DeJohn, I., Siegel, J., Weichselbaum, S., & Hutchinson, B. (2011, September 26). Jailed Protester 'Proud' of Bust, Back with Pals. The New York Daily News, p. 10. Parascandola, R., Sher, E., Connor, T., & Sandoval, E. (2011, September 27). ‘Anonymous' Protest Group Targets Cop. The New York Daily News, p. 12. Rotondo, C., Parascandola, R., & Connor, T. (2011, September 28). Protesters to Sarandon: Who Are You?! The New York Daily News, p. 8. Boyle, C. & Doyle, J. (2011, September 29). Spray It Ain't So. Probe NYPD Big's Nasty Peppering of Protesters. The New York Daily News, p. 24. Parascandola, R. (2011, September 30). Few CCRB Callers Attended Rally. The New York Daily News, p. 18. Boyle, C., Burke, K., & Martinez, J. (2011, October 1). Where's Radiohead? Occupy Wall Street protest swelled by rock band drop-in hoax. The New York Daily News, p. 12. Doyle, J., Mullany, A., & Schapiro, R. (2011, October 2). Tie-Up On the Bridge. Cops cuff 700 protesters on B'klyn span. The New York Daily News, p. 12. Boyle, C. (2011, October 2). Via Web & Mail, Supplies Pour in From Across U.S. The New York Daily News, p. 13. Donohue, P., Sher, E., & Kennedy, H. (2011, October 3). TWU Blasts City for Putting Cuffed Protesters on Buses. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Donohue, P., Cunningham, J. H., & Kennedy, H. (2011, October 4). Hunting for 'Banksters'. Fresh Recruits Join Wall St. Protesters. The New York Daily News, p. 14. Boyle, C. (2011, October 5). Protesters Sue City, Say Cops Pinned 'Em on Bridge. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Cunningham, J. & Boyle, C. (2011, October 5). Big Money in Wall St. Protest. The New York Daily News, p. 9.

132

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Boyle, C., Sher, E., Mullany, A., & Kennedy, H. (2011, October 6). A Wall Street Fight. Union workers add muscle to protest in largest march yet, but as night falls it turns into… The New York Daily News, p. 9. Parascandola, R. & Kennedy, H. (2011, October 7). NYPD Backs Nightsticks, Spray vs. 'Anarchists'. The New York Daily News, p. 6. Burke, K. & Martinez, J. (2011, October 8). Protesters are Breaking Camp. Signs They're Gonna Occupy Washington Sq. Park. The New York Daily News, p. 5. DeLuca, M. & Moore, T. (2011, October 9). Revolution Heads Uptown and Back. 'Occupying' Crowd Goes Park-To-Park in Protest. The New York Daily News, p. 5. Boyle, C. & Mullany, A. (2011, October 9) Portraits of Protest. They All Have One Thing in Common: Anger. The New York Daily News, p. 20. Kennedy, H. (2011, October 11). ‘Idol' Hands Indeed Downtown Protesters Display Golden Calf in Slap at Famed Bull So Symbolic of Wall St. – And They Get Support From Clergy in Delivering Their Message. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Siemaszko, C. (2011, October 10). Geraldo Rivera chased off by Occupy Wall Street protesters after Fox News host attempts interviews. The New York Daily News, Special Section. Croghan, L. & Kennedy, H. (2011, October 11). Target: Tycoons. Wall Street foes to march against ending millionaire tax. The New York Daily News, p. 3. McShane, L., Paddock, B., & Grace, M. (2011, October 12). Arrest the Spray Cop, Victim's Lawyer Sez. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Kennedy, H. (2011, October 12). Protesters Make House Calls to VIPS. Movement Goes Uptown to Hand Fake Tax Checks to Fat Cats. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Sandoval, E. & Kennedy, H. (2011, October 14). Cops and Moppers Showdown Looms. Protesters Vow Not to Quit Park But Police Plan a 'Clean' Sweep. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Siemaszko, C. (2011, October 15). Police, Protesters Clash in the Street. Officials back off plan to clear out and clean up park. The New York Daily News, p. 2. Einhorn, E. & Lemire, J. (2011, October 15). Even Friends & Allies Shouted, 'Don't Do It, Mike'. The New York Daily News, p. 3. Doyle, J. & Burke, K. (2011, October 16). Beat Goes On, And Gets On Some Nerves. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Lysiak, M., Armaghan, S., & Lemire, J. (2011, October 16). What a B'Way Show Marchers hit Times Square, scores gusted on tense day. The New York Daily News, p. 9. McShane, L. (2011, October 16). Globe Gets Zuccotti Fever. The New York Daily News, p. 10.

133

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Ruiz, A. (2011, October 16). Occupy Wall Street Gets Latino Touch. The New York Daily News, p. 34. Grace, M. (2011, October 17). We Will Clog the Courts! Dismiss charges or else, lawyers say. The New York Daily News, p. 5. Kennedy, H. (2011, October 17). From Zuccotti, To World. The New York Daily News, p. 4. Boyle, C. (2011, October 20). Legal Minds Step Up to Offer Their Support. The New York Daily News, p. 11. Wills, K. & Parascandola, R. (2011, October 21). ‘Occupy' Neighbors Protest Protesters CB 1 bombarded with complaints on noise & waste. The New York Daily News, p. 26. Doyle, J. (2011, October 22). 12 Firefighters Hurt Near OWS Site. The New York Daily News, p. 10. Einhorn, E., Wills, K., & Schapiro, R. (2011, October 22). March & Get Your Permits, Hizzoner Tells Protesters. The New York Daily News, p. 10. Boyle, C. (2011, October 23). A Day in the (Weired) Life At Zuccotti Park Where Vagrants, Ex- Cons & 'Takers' Find a Home. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Doyle, J. & Boyle, C. (2011, October 23). A Day in the (Weired) Life At Zuccotti Park The News takes you inside 24 hours with protesters. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Badia, E. & Schapiro, R. (2011, October 23). A Day in the (Weired) Life At Zuccotti Park A Bit of High Drama. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Karoliszyn, H., Durkin, E., & Paddock, B. (2011, October 24). Tries To Deal Coke, Beats Protesters. The New York Daily News, p. 5. Connor, T. (2011, October 25). Going To Jail? There's App For That. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Grace, M. (2011, October 25). Protesters Get Offer to Dismiss Charges. The New York Daily News, p. 8. De John, I. & Hutchinson, B. (2011, October 25). 99% Ready for 32 Degrees. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Rotondo, C., Wills, K., & Hutchinson, B. (2011, October 26). Mapping Locations for Relief. Protesters Cope With Life Outside as CB 1 Votes to Limit Drumming to 2 Hours Daily. The New York Daily News, p. 18. Parascandola, R. (2011, October 26). Cops bedeviled church meeting, rev says. The New York Daily News, p. 39. Monahan, R. (2011, October 26). School Boss Disrupted. The New York Daily News, p. 29.

134

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Doyle, J. (2011, October 26). Cops Seek 3 Who Threatened Park Assault Victim. The New York Daily News, p. 18. Grace, M. & Boyle, C. (2011, October 27). ‘Punch' Protester to Meet with DA. The New York Daily News, p. 21. Doyle, J., Wills, K., & Boyle, C. (2011, October 28). Get Physical In Wall Street Protests & We'll Sue - Sgts. Union. The New York Daily News, p. 16. Lemire, J. & Boyle, C. (2011, October 29). The 99 Brr-Cent City Safety Move Could Freeze OWS. The New York Daily News, p. 10. DeLuca, M. & Moore, T. (2011, October 30). They Do Not Fear Winter. The New York Daily News, p. 10. Boyle, C. (2011, October 30). The Little People Give Big. Protest backed by middle class. The New York Daily News, p. 10. Sandoval, E. & Kemp, J. (2011, November 1). Rules for the Unruly Occupy protesters' security detail sets standards for park conduct. The New York Daily News, p. 4. Weichselbaum, S. (2011, November 1). Not the tee party! Protesters say vendor is exploiting OWS. The New York Daily News, p. 33. Lemire, J. (2011, November 3). Behave, or be gone! Bloomy hints crackdown on OWS protesters may be in the works. The New York Daily News, p. 6. Feeney, M. J. (2011, November 4). Uptown leaders & residents to march downtown. The New York Daily News, p. 40. Schapiro, R., Einhorn, E., & Kennedy, H. (2011, November 4). Are They Here to Help? Protesters, cops at odds over crime. The New York Daily News, p. 5. Sandoval, E., Doyle, J., & Kennedy, H. (2011, November 9). It's Woodstock-otti '60s protest stars serenade new rebels. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Sandoval, E., Einhorn, E., & Kennedy, H. (2011, November 9). What, I can't hear you over all the drumming! The New York Daily News, p. 9. Kemp, J., Parascandola, R., & Siemaszko, C. (2011, November 16). The NYPD's night of shock & awe. The New York Daily News, p. 5. Ross, B., Boyle, C., Lysiak, M., & Kennedy, H. (2011, November 16). Sleepless in Zuccotti Park Occupy Wall St. campsite cleared out Protesters back - without their tents. The New York Daily News, p. 2. Doyle, J. & Hutchinson, B. (2011, November 16). EMT hurt in park 'anarchy' one of real 99%, ma protests. The New York Daily News, p. 9.

135

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Lysiak, M., Moore, T., Blau, R., & Kennedy, H. (2011, November 17). They Vow a Dapper Raid on Wall Street; We'll wear suits, blend in & get revenge for raid, say protesters. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Feeney, M. J. (2011, November 17). Pastors on mission Leaders vow to step up after 2 Harlem murders. The New York Daily News, p. 43. Parascandola, R., Burke, K., Wills, K., & Kemp, J. (2011, November 17). His burning rant viral on YouTube. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Grace, M. (2011, November 18). Bomb-threat guy blasts cops in court. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Badia, E., Lysiak, M., Burke, K., & McShane, L. (2011, November 18). More like Annoy Wall St.; Financial District workers have hard time getting to jobs as mobs clog streets. The New York Daily News, p. 4. Parascandola, R., Lemire, J., & Kemp, J. (2011, November 18). Seven cops are injured amid chaos. The New York Daily News, p. 8. Doyle, J., Boyle, C., Cunningham, J. H., & McShane, L. (2011, November 18). Sound, Fury & A Pain in Butt; Thousands swarm lower Manhattan in all-day rallies; Mayor declares victory amid hundreds of arrests; But many workers faced commuting nightmares. The New York Daily News, p. 3. Lovett, K. (2011, November 18). To Borrow A Phrase, Yes We Can: Cuomo. The New York Daily News, p. 12. Lysiak, M. & McShane, L. (2011, November 19). An 'Occupy Wall St.' Thanksgiving. The New York Daily News, p. 11. Ross, B., Lemire, J., Lysiak, M., & McShane, L. (2011, November 19). Zuccotti protesters gone a court-ing. The New York Daily News, p. 11. Dillon, N. (2011, November 20). Zuccotti Not Happy; Man behind the park bummed by name's ill fame. The New York Daily News, p. 18. Armaghan, S. & Moore, T. (2011, November 20). The beat (just barely) goes on for downtown rebels. The New York Daily News, p. 18. Levin, S., Blau, R., Kapp, T., & Kennedy, H. (2011, November 21). What Drummies! Demonstrators raise racket near Bloomberg's upper East Side home. The New York Daily News, p. 5. Furman, P. (2011, November 23). Big Apple, big tax; Nine out of the 10 most heavily taxed nabes in U.S. are right here. The New York Daily News, p. 32. Grace, M. & Kemp, J. (2011, November 24). OWS bails out one of their own Charged with swiping cop hat, sprung by pals. The New York Daily News, p. 14.

136

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Doyle, J. & Kemp, J. (2011, November 24). Don't arrest media people doing their job, Kelly tells rank-&-file. The New York Daily News, p. 9. Moore, T. (2011, November 27). Occupy L.A.'s eviction coming. The New York Daily News, p. 22. Kennedy, H. (2011, November 29). 1% Hits Lottery; Wealth managers win Powerball. The New York Daily News, p. 2.

New York Post

Saul, J. & Walker, J. (2011, September 25). Wall St. protests end in mayhem. The New York Post, p. 22. Riordan Seville, L. (2011, September 26). Protests back on Wall Street. The New York Post, p. 7. Campanile, C. (2011, October 1). Mike rips Street fight. The New York Post, p. 14. Saul, J. & Boniello, K. (2011, October 2). Take It To The Bridge; 700 busted as Wall St. foes clog B'klyn Bridge; PROTESTERS MAKE APPLE JAM. The New York Post, p. 6. Cartwright, L., Harshbarger, R., & Rappleye, H. (2011, October 3). Cops' rally cry: We warned 'em! Vids show officers' bridge-bust alerts. The New York Post, p. 5. Rappleye, H., Gregorian, D., & Fredericks, B. (2011, October 4). Ghoulish on Wall. St.; $care tactics at protests. The New York Post, p. 4. Gold, D. & Bennett, C. (2011, October 5). Unions in Street fight. The New York Post, p. 16. Mixson, C., Ford, S., Goldenberg, S., & Sullivan, C. J. (2011, October 6). It's Brawl Street! Peaceful protest suddenly violent. The New York Post, p. 7. Earle, G. (2011, October 7). Malcontent-in-chief Bam gets behind Wall St. protesters. The New York Post, p. 10. Seifman, D., O’Connor, M., & Mangan, D. (2011, October 8). Driving Mike up the wall; Bloomberg blasts protests as bad for the city. The New York Post, p. 5. Roberts, G. & Hamilton, B. (2011, October 9). Park-&-wreck freeloaders seek sex, drugs & free bedrolls. The New York Post, p. 4. Perone, T. (2011, October 9). Ditto at DC museum. The New York Post, p. 5. The march on 'Washington'; Wall Street protesters hit Village. (2011, October 9). The New York Post, p. 4. Rappleye, H. & Fredericks, B. (2011, October 10). Kids get lesson in street grime. The New York Post, p. 6.

137

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Campbell, A. (2011, October 10). It's NYC's 'Lam'-sterdam; Sex , drugs & hiding from law at protest; Boozed-up fugitives at the protest. The New York Post, p. 7. Miller, S. A. (2011, October 10). Pelosi: 'Count me among' supporters. The New York Post, p. 6. Freund, H., Cartwright, L., & Saul, J. (2011, October 11). Party over, Bum; 'Occupy' crasher busted in grope. The New York Post, p. 7. Italiano, L. (2011, October 12). Peppered protester wants spray cop nailed. The New York Post, p. 10. Freund, H., Rosenberg, R., Gold, D., & Saul, J. (2011, October 12). Rally hits 'home'; Marchers target biz bigs' UES digs. The New York Post, p. 10. Seifman, D. & Perone, T. (2011, October 13). Zuccotti getting clean sweep. The New York Post, p. 10. Goldenberg, S. & Margolin, J. (2011, October 13). ‘Poor' unions feed Wall St. The New York Post, p. 10. Rosenberg, R. & Fredericks, B. (2011, October 14). Cooking up some help; Neighbor is lending protesters her kitchen. The New York Post, p. 4. Rappleye, H. & Sullivan, C. J. (2011, October 14). Hell, No, We Won't Go! Zuccotti hordes defiant. The New York Post, p. 5. Seifman, D. (2011, October 15). Mike: Pols lowered the broom; Rips park 'threats'. The New York Post, p. 4. Rosario, F., Bain, J., & Mangan, D. (2011, October 15). ‘Nothing can stop us!' Protests hails a 'victory'. The New York Post, p. 4. Fagen, C. R. (2011, October 16). Angry protests around world. The New York Post, p. 6. Klein, M., Bain, J., & Feis, A. (2011, October 16). NY 'Occupy' war chest at 230G; Leaders: How do we spend all this? The New York Post, p. 6. Roberts, G., Bain, J., & Fasick, K. (2011, October 16). Squaring Off at Crossroads; Masses come up from Village. The New York Post, p. 7. Calabrese, E., Freund, H., & Bennett, C. (2011, October 17). The anti-leaders; Hard-core planners head up protest. The New York Post, p. 6. Rappleye, H. & Bennett, C. (2011, October 17). Occupy eyeing Lincoln Center. The New York Post, p. 6. Algar, S. (2011, October 17). Saluting a giant. The New York Post, p. 19. Kriss, E. (2011, October 18). NYers back rich tax & Wall St. marchers. The New York Post, p. 10.

138

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Italiano, L. (2011, October 18). Pepper spray gal: Nail cop for a-salt. The New York Post, p. 10. Celona, L. & Schram, J. (2011, October 18). Criminal occupation; Thieves preying on fellow protesters. The New York Post, p. 10. ‘Real World' casts Occupy Wall Street. (2011, October 19). The New York Post, p. 80. McClear, S. (2011, October 19). Favored pizzeria making big dough; Meet Telly Liberatos, the Least Likely Revolutionary in NYC. The New York Post, p. 4. Mollica, J. & Greene, L. (2011, October 19). Pepper cop stung with loss of days. The New York Post, p. 4. Rosenberg, R. (2011, October 19). Occu-pie the kitchen; Protest mob is enjoying rich diet. The New York Post, p. 5. Weiss, L. (2011, October 19). Rooms to Grow - Hotels are Developing - And Changing Hands - All Across NYC. The New York Post, p. 38. Kriss, E. (2011, October 19). Back away from radicals, Dems told. The New York Post, p. 4. Goldenberg, S. (2011, October 20). Job diss on union allies. The New York Post, p. 27. Rosenberg, R., Antenucci, A., & Saul, J. (2011, October 20). Take a Shower! Rain scatters anti- greed protesters. The New York Post, p. 27. Kleinman, G. (2011, October 21). Fla. Mom of 4 bolts for NY protest; She plans to stray awhile. The New York Post, p. 19. Goldenberg, S. (2011, October 21). Hizzoner turns on Wall Street 'complainers'. The New York Post, p. 19. Martinez, B. & Sadler, L. (2011, October 22). AWOL FLA. MOM ; Off Wall Neighbors: She's a bizarre hippie. The New York Post, p. 5. Antenucci, A. & Campanile, C. (2011, October 22). Health expert condemns park rats. The New York Post, p. 4. Margolin, J., Mangan, D., & Calabrese, E. (2011, October 22). Mike's new marching orders vs. protesters. The New York Post, p. 4. Adams Otis, G. (2011, October 23). They want $lice of the occu-pie; 500G fight at Zuccotti. The New York Post, p. 13. Conley, K. & Simeone, J. (2011, October 23). Shootings way up in two weeks. The New York Post, p. 4. Fasick, K. (2011, October 23). The 'art'ful dodger. The New York Post, p. 13. Schwartzwald, L. (2011, October 24). Zuccotti's cooks can't take 'A' joke. The New York Post, p. 14.

139

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Dicker, F. (2011, October 24). Cuomo is 'Preoccupied' Wall Street. The New York Post, p. 4. Rappleye, H., Rosenberg, R., & Fredericks, B. (2011, October 25). Zuc-cutty park; Clip service for protesters. The New York Post, p. 7. Italiano, L. & Rosario, F. (2011, October 25). DA to offer deal on arrests. The New York Post, p. 7. Auer, D. (2011, October 26). Grubby lowlifes; Rikers cons flood Zuccotti for free eats. The New York Post, p. 10. Gold, D. & Fredericks, B. (2011, October 27). ACORN taking root again amid protests. The New York Post, p. 6. Campbell, A. (2011, October 27). Iraq vet is injured in Oakland riot. The New York Post, p. 6. Algar, S. & Fredericks, B. (2011, October 27). Exclusive: Zuccotti a Hell's Kitchen; Cooks revolt vs. food freeloaders. The New York Post, p. 7. Campbell, A. (2011, October 27). Crackdown on 'Chaos' in Oakland. The New York Post, p. 6. Sutherland, A., Algar, S., & Venezia, T. (2011, October 28). Give us shelter; Occupiers flee to wherever it's free. The New York Post, p. 4. Kriss, E. (2011, October 28). Silver renews call for rich tax. The New York Post, p. 2. Antenucci, A. & Sanderson, B. (2011, October 29). Zuccotti Pedal Power; Bike-pumped generators after FDNY takes OWS gizmos. The New York Post, p. 7. Fasick, K. & Giove, C. (2011, October 30). Zuccotti perv; Fiend attacks protesters in her tent. The New York Post, p. 23. Saul, J., Rodriguez, M., & Fredericks, B. (2011, October 31). OWS camp gets really commie- cal. The New York Post, p. 6. Italiano, L., Rosario, F., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 1). Occupy 'Ball' Street [Exclusive]; Rush for STD tests. The New York Post, p. 3. Fasick, K., Goldenberg, S., and Fredericks, B. (2011, November 2). Real Job Killers; Protesters force café layoffs as biz drops. The New York Post, p. 7. Marsh, J., Goldenberg, S., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 3). Other 99% Fires Back; Raging shop owners claim OWS scares away customers. The New York Post, p. 4. Schram, J. (2011, November 3). Protester busted in tent grope. The New York Post, p. 5. Soltis, A. (2011, November 4). Pressure cooker pops in Oakland. The New York Post, p. 6. Gonen, Y., Mongelli, L., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 4). Detention for 'rowdy' teacher. The New York Post, p. 6.

140

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Italiano, L. (2011, November 4). Protesters: Hell, no, we won't cop a plea! The New York Post, p. 7. Fasick, K. & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 4). Sachs and Sex Add to Insanity. The New York Post, p. 7. Fasick, K. (2011, November 4). Goons Occupy Brawl Street; 'Off meds' rant & fight at Zuccotti. The New York Post, p. 4. Italiano, L. (2011, November 5). Busted teach: I protest. The New York Post, p. 4. Celona, L., Schram, J., & Conley, K. (2011, November 7). It's crime all the time at Zuccotti Park. The New York Post, p. 6. Rappleye, H., Fenton, R., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 7). Protests planned into next decade; Occupy until '2025'! The New York Post, p. 6. Sutherland, A. & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 8). Occupiers terrorize us: eatery. The New York Post, p. 4. Gold, D. (2011, November 6). Thief nailed at Zuccotti. The New York Post, p. 32. Messing, P. & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 10). NYPD is Rabble Roused; Elite detectives at OWS. The New York Post, p. 7. Sutherland, A., Rosenberg, R., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 10). Mike's claim full of shhh! The New York Post, p. 7. Campbell, A., Rappleye, H., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 11). Buddy, spare a sign; Scam artists going for the 'beg' bucks at OWS protest. The New York Post, p. 3. Seifman, D., Gold, D., & Auer, D. (2011, November 12). Jay-Z's 'Street' $marts; Profits on T- shirt. The New York Post, p. 4. Giove, C. (2011, November 13). Dollars and dissents: OWS costs local biz… $479,400! The New York Post, p. 8. Giove, C. (2011, November 13). New outpost coming. The New York Post, p. 8. Conley, K. & Feis, A. (2011, November 13). ‘Occupy'er slugs cop. The New York Post, p. 8. Rosario, F., Auer, D., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 14). Take out the trasher! Ex-cop boots OWS heckler. The New York Post, p. 5. Rosenberg, R. & Mangan, D. (2011, November 16). Conditions just 'offal'. The New York Post, p. 6. Kriss, E. (2011, November 16). Battle lines in Albany. The New York Post, p. 7. Margolin, J., Seifman, D., & Mangan, D. (2011, November 16). Inside story of why Mike finally had to act. The New York Post, p. 6.

141

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Gregorian, D., Sutherland, A., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 16). City Basking in Evict- ory! Ousted horde loses court challenge; 220 arrested amid weapons & filth; Judge reopens park but bans tents. The New York Post, p. 4. Bennett, C. (2011, November 17). Eviction boo$ts OWSers. The New York Post, p. 6. Saul, J., Fasick, K., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 17). Zu populated by cops & leftovers. The New York Post, p. 6. Soltis, A. (2011, November 17). Mental shellcase; Crackpot nailed in White House shooting. The New York Post, p. 27. Goldenberg, S., Celona, L., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 17). D-Day: Occupy the city; Target stox, rails. The New York Post, p. 6. Rappleye, H., Livingston, I., & MacIntosh, J. (2011, November 18). Bummed! Jobbed! There wall be blood; Ready riot cops whack back at OWS hooligans. The New York Post, p. 8. Campbell, A., Kleiman, G., & Fermino, J. (2011, November 18). ‘I'm just trying to make it home!' It's the 'everyman' for himself as working stiffs get stuck. The New York Post, p. 6. Antenucci, A., Rappleye, H., & Cartwright, L. (2011, November 18). Shows you can't find City Hall. The New York Post, p. 6. Rappleye, H., Livingston, I., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 18). Jobbed! Now Occupying Your Commute! Mob snarls transit, traffic; Violent clashes with cops. The New York Post, p. 4. Seifman, D., Feis, A., & Mangan, D. (2011, November 19). Mayor defends rich vs. pro-OWS unions; Wall St. butters bread. The New York Post, p. 4. Giove, C. (2011, November 20). Exclusive: Wall Street 'cra$h' pad; Occupy bigwigs sleep easy at $700-a-night hotel. The New York Post, p. 5. Roberts, G. & Feis, A. (2011, November 20). Rabble returns to Zuccotti to 'drum' up support. The New York Post, p. 5. Bennett, C. (2011, November 21). Phone it in, cops! Officers' OT ap. The New York Post, p. 3. Simeone, J., Marsh, J., & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 21). Unhappy campers slam honchos' posh digs. The New York Post, p. 9. Harshbarger, R. & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 21). Armed Occupation; Hot-tempered OWS artist 'packed heat'. The New York Post, p. 9. Simeone, J. & Seifman, D. (2011, November 21). Press fooled by fake flack. The New York Post, p. 9. Freund, H. & Fredericks, B. (2011, November 22). Lunch crowd back at the Zu. The New York Post, p. 16.

142

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Kleiman, G. & Guzman, J. (2011, November 25). Earlier birds beat Friday crush; It's Black Thursday! The New York Post, p. 11. Seifman, D. (2011, November 28). Zuccotti a den of din. The New York Post, p. 22.

New York Times

Moynihan, C. (2011, September 18). Protesters Find Wall Street Off Limits. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Goldstein, J. (2011, September 27). Demonstrations Test Police Trained for Bigger Threats. The New York Times, Section A, p. 17.

Kulish, N. (2011, September 28). As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge Around Globe. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Baker, A. & Goldstein, J. (2011, September 29). Officer's Pepper-Spraying of Protesters Is Under Investigation. The New York Times, Section A, p. 18.

Newman, A. (2011, October 1). For a Concert That Never Was, a Good Turnout Nonetheless. The New York Times, Section A, p. 18.

Kleinfeld, N. R. & Buckley, C. (2011, October 1). Wall Street Occupiers, Protesting Till Whenever. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Baker, A. & Moynihan, C. (2011, October 2). More Than 700 Arrested as Protesters Try to Cross Brooklyn Bridge. The New York Times, Section A, p. 18.

Secret, M. (2011, October 3). Police, Too, Release Videos of Brooklyn Bridge Arrests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Baker, A. & Goldstein, J. (2011, October 3). ‘White Shirts' of Police Dept. Take On Enforcer Role. The New York Times, Section A, p. 17.

Eckholm, E. & Williams, T. (2011, October 4). Anti-Wall Street Protests Spreading to Cities Large and Small. The New York Times, Section A, p. 18.

Harris, E. A. (2011, October 5). Citing Police Trap, Protesters File Suit. The New York Times, Section A, p. 25.

Roberts, S. (2011, October 6). A Public Servant Linked to a Protest's Home. The New York Times, Section A, p. 30.

Raftery, I. (2011, October 6). Washington: 20 Arrested in Park. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

143

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Buckley, C. (2011, October 6). New to This Sort of Thing, Or at Least Long Dormant. The New York Times, Section A, p. 30.

Greenhouse, S. & Buckley, C. (2011, October 6). Seeking Energy, Unions Join Wall Street Protest. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Landler, M. (2011, October 7). Protests Offer Obama Opportunity to Gain, and Room for Pitfalls. The New York Times, Section A, p. 13.

Buckley, C. (2011, October 8). When Occupying Becomes Irritating. The New York Times, Section A, p. 15.

Taylor, K. (2011, October 8). For Bloomberg, 'Occupy Wall Street' Evokes Protests from Vietnam Era. The New York Times, Section A, p. 17.

Associated Press. (2011, October 9). Protest of War Shuts Museum in Washington. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Preston, J. (2011, October 9). Wall Street Protest Spurs Online Dialogue on Inequity. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Taylor, K. & Kaplan, T. (2011, October 11). City Does Not Plan to Evict Protesters, Bloomberg Says. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Lichtblau, E. (2011, October 11). Democrats Try Wary Embrace of the Protests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Johnson, K. (2011, October 12). Response of the Police is Expanding with Protests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 11.

Roose, K. & Scott, M. (2011, October 12). Report Predicts New York City May Lose 10,000 Wall St. Jobs. The New York Times, Section B, p. 10.

Flegenheimer, M. (2011, October 13). A Not-Really-on-Wall-St. Protest, but Ripples Are Felt, and Even Stepped In, There. The New York Times, Section A, p. 23.

Stelter, B. (2011, October 13). A News Story Is Growing With 'Occupy' Protests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Chen, D. W. (2011, October 13). Protesters Told To Vacate Park, For Its Cleaning. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

Foderaro, L. W. (2011, October 14). Privately Owned Park, Open to the Public, May Make Its Own Rules. The New York Times, Section A, p. 26.

144

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Hartocollis, A. (2011, October 14). Tidying Up, Pre-emptively, But Showdown May Loom. The New York Times, Section A, p. 23.

Frosch, D. & Johnson, K. (2011, October 15). Police Clear Camp of Offshoot Demonstrators in Denver. The New York Times, Section A, p. 16.

Kilgannon, C. (2011, October 15). Near Zuccotti Park, a Momentary Détente for 2 Representatives of Opposing Views. The New York Times, Section A, p. 16.

Newman, A. & Baker, A. (2011, October 15). Two Police-Protester Flare-Ups Gain Fuel Online. The New York Times, Section A, p. 16.

Barbaro, M. & Taylor, K. (2011, October 15). Calls Flood In; City Backs Off; Protesters Stay. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Schwartz, N. D. & Dash, E. (2011, October 15). In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Schwartz, N. D. (2011, October 16). Online Banking Keeps Patrons Tangled in Fees. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Meet the Newest Faces of Wall Street. (2011, October 16). The New York Times, Section BU, p. 7.

Buckley, C. & Donadio, R. (2011, October 16). Rallies Across the Globe Protest Economic Policies. The New York Times, Section A, p. 4.

Preston, J. (2011, October 17). Occupy Wall Street, and Its Global Chat. The New York Times, Section B, p. 7.

Hoffman, M. (2011, October 17). Protesters Debate What Demands, If Any, to Make. The New York Times, Section A, p. 19.

McGeehan, P. (2011, October 17). Pleasant Surprise for East River Ferries: Crowds. The New York Times, Section A, p. 19.

Kaplan, T. (2011, October 18). Despite Protests, Cuomo Says He Will Not Extend a Tax Surcharge on Top Earners. The New York Times, Section A, p. 20.

Goodman, J. D. (2011, October 18). A Regular at the Protests with an Unspoken Past: Wall St. Made Him Rich. The New York Times, Section A, p. 19.

Flegenheimer, M. & Eligon, J. (2011, October 18). Bloomberg Says 'Tent City' G The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.oes Beyond Free Speech. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

145

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Lacey, M. (2011, October 18). Countless Grievances, One Thread: We're Angry. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Taylor, K. (2011, October 19). Quinn Says City Must Find Balance in Response to Protests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 25.

Baker, A. (2011, October 19). Commander Faces Penalty Over Use of Pepper Spray. The New York Times, Section A, p. 25.

Goodnough, A. (2011, October 19). Candidate's Fighting Words Draw G.O.P.'s Fire. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Roose, K. (2011, October 19). Protests Are a Payday for Security Firms. The New York Times, Section F, p. 1.

Dunlap, D. W. (2011, October 20). A Holdout Well Before There Was Even a Park to Occupy. The New York Times, Section A, p. 27.

Taylor, K. (2011, October 21). Masked Protector of Gotham Has His Eye on Wall Street Protesters. The New York Times, Section A, p. 31.

Bidgood, J. (2011, October 22). Occupying Boston and Beyond, with Tent Libraries for All. The New York Times, Section A, p. 9.

Berger, J. (2011, October 22). Cries of Anti-Semitism, But Not at Zuccotti Park. The New York Times, Section A, p. 15.

Zernike, Z. (2011, October 22). Wall St. Protest Isn't Like Ours, Tea Party Says. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Povoledo, E. (2011, October 25). Vatican Calls for Oversight of the World's Finances. The New York Times, Section A, p. 12.

Roberts, S. (2011, October 26). As the Data Show, There's a Reason the Protesters Chose New York. The New York Times, Section A, p. 23.

Lewin, T. (2011, October 26). President to Ease Student Loan Burden for Low-Income Graduates. The New York Times, Section A, p. 15.

Zeleny, J. & Thee-Brennan, M. (2011, October 26). New Poll Finds a Deep Distrust of Government. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Harris, E. A. & Moynihan, C. (2011, October 27). An Occupy Wall Street March To Support Those in Oakland. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

146

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

McKinley, J. & Goodnough, A. (2011, October 27). Some Cities Begin Cracking Down on 'Occupy' Protests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 16.

Navarro, M. (2011, October 27). Plan for Interstate Gas Pipeline Provokes Debate on Both Sides of the Hudson. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Taylor, K. (2011, October 27). Where Campaign Posters Can Promote Past Arrests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 21.

McKinley, J. & Wollan, M. (2011, October 28). Outrage over Veteran Injured at 'Occupy' Protest. The New York Times, Section A, p. 15.

Burns, J. F. (2011, October 31). ‘Occupy' Protest at St. Paul's Cathedral in London Divides Church. The New York Times, Section A, p. 9.

Johnson, K. (2011, October 31). Protesters Regroup in Nashville and Denver. The New York Times, Section A, p. 15.

Court Lets Nashville Protesters Stay. (2011, November 1). The New York Times, Section A, p. 3.

Nagourney, A. (2011, November 1). Dissenting, or Seeking Shelter? Homeless Stake a Claim at Protests. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Somaiya, R. (2011, November 2). Britain: Cathedral Suspends Legal Action Against Protesters. The New York Times, Section A, p. 8.

Wollan, M. (2011, November 2). Oakland Activists Regroup and Call for General Strike. The New York Times, Section A, p. 21.

Taylor, K. (2011, November 2). Two Mayors Deeply Split Over Blame on Fiscal Ills. The New York Times, Section A, p. 25.

Eligon, J. (2011, November 3). Special Manhattan Court Trimes Case Backlog, but Defense Lawyers See Drawbacks. The New York Times, Section A, p. 25.

Lewin, T. (2011, November 3). College Graduates' Debt Burden Grew, Yet Again, in 2010. The New York Times, Section A, p. 20.

Wollan, M. (2011, November 3). Oakland's Port Shuts Down as Protesters March on Waterfront. The New York Times, Section A, p. 18.

Ewing, J. & Erlanger, S. (2011, November 3). Euro Crisis Shifts Mood For G-20. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Eligon, J. (2011, November 4). A Parade of Protesters, In a Court Just for Them. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

147

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Wollan, M. (2011, November 4). Oakland Police Clash With Fringe Protesters. The New York Times, Section A, p. 15.

Taylor, K. (2011, November 4). Demonstrators Test Mayor, a Backer of Wall St. and Free Speech. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Buckley, C. & Moynihan, C. (2011, November 6). A Protest Reaches a Crossroads. The New York Times, Section MB, p. 1.

Eckholm, E. (2011, November 7). Race Barrier May Topple As Voters Pick Mayor. The New York Times, Section A, p. 14.

Buckley, C. & Flegenheimer, M. (2011, November 9). At Scene of Wall St. Protest, Rising Concerns About Crime. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

Greenhouse, S. (2011, November 9). Standing Arm in Arm. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Flegenheimer, M. (2011, November 11). A Petri Dish Of Activism, And Germs. The New York Times, Section A, p. 26.

Associated Press. (2011, November 11). Vermont: Suicide at 'Occupy' Camp. The New York Times, Section A, p. 23.

Clifford, S. (2011, November 11). Thanksgiving As Day to Shop Meets Rejection. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Associated Press. (2011, November 12). Pressure Is Growing to Shut Down 'Occupy' Camps Across the Nation. The New York Times, Section A, p. 13.

Davey, Monica. (2011, November 12). Keeping Protest Alive in Wisconsin, but Some Allies Have Their Doubts. The New York Times, Section A, p. 12.

Police in Denver Move on Protesters. (2011, November 13). The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Roose, K. (2011, November 13). Nuns Who Won't Stop Nudging. The New York Times, Section BU, p. 1.

Buckley, C. (2011, November 14). For Annoyed Neighbors, the Beat Drags On. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Wollan, M. & Harris, E. A. (2011, November 14). Occupy Protesters Shift Focus to Campuses. The New York Times, Section A, p. 14.

148

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Kormanik, B. (2011, November 14). After an Anti-Semitic Episode, a March With a Message. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

Wollan, M. (2011, November 15). Police Clear Occupy Oakland Encampment, but Protesters Return. The New York Times, Section A, p. 22.

Burns, J. F. (2011, November 16). London Protesters Identify With New York Counterparts and Worry of Similar Fate. The New York Times, Section A, p. 32.

Buckley, C. (2011, November 16). Beyond Seizing Parks, New Paths to Influence. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Foderaro, L. (2011, November 16). Across U.S., Demonstrators Face Arrests and Evictions. The New York Times, Section A, p. 32.

Halbfinger, D. M. & Barbara, M. (2011, November 16). Jolted, Wall St. Protesters Face Challenge For Future: Ousted by Police, Then Allowed to Return. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Flegenheimer, M. (2011, November 17). Where Protesters Camped, a Placid Scene, for Now. The New York Times, Section A, p. 29.

Savage, C. & Landler, M. (2011, November 17). Arrest Made After Discovery That Shot Hit White House. The New York Times, Section A, p. 15.

Kaplan, T. (2011, November 17). At Protest, A Rebuke Each Night for Cuomo. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

Man Arrested After Video Threat. (2011, November 17). The New York Times, Section A, p. 29.

Taylor, K. (2011, November 17). Lunch in the Park: Carry In, and in the Rain, Carry Out. The New York Times, Section A, p. 28.

Buckley, C. (2011, November 18). 200 Are Arrested As Protesters Clash With the Police. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

Otterman, S. (2011, November 18). Protesters, Even in Churches, Can't Escape Watch of Police. The New York Times, Section A, p. 29.

Somaiya, R. (2011, November 18). Britain: 'Occupy' Protesters Defy London Deadline. The New York Times, Section A, p. 12.

Johnson, K. (2011, November 19). Honk if You Agree There Is a Difference Between Free Speech and Noise. The New York Times, Section A, p. 14.

149

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Confessore, N. (2011, November 19). Vilifying Rival, Wall St. Rallies for Senate Ally. The New York Times, Section A, p. 1.

Stelter, B. (2011, November 21). California University Puts Officers Who Used Pepper Spray on Leave. The New York Times, Section A, p. 13.

Stelter, B. (2011, November 21). Protest Puts Coverage In Spotlight. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Goldstein, J. & Moynihan, C. (2011, November 21). Loudly Protesting Park Eviction, if Not Outside Mayor's Window as Planned. The New York Times, Section A, p. 21.

Speri, A. & Phillips, A. M. (2011, November 22). CUNY Students Protesting Tuition Increase Clash With Police. The New York Times, Section A, p. 23.

Medina, J. (2011, November 22). California's Campus Movements Dig In Their Heels. The New York Times, Section A, p. 17.

Taylor, K. (2011, November 23). Council Speaker Hears Sharp Debate on Wage Proposal. The New York Times, Section A, p. 29.

Seelye, K. Q. (2011, November 23). Pepper Spray's Fallout, From Crowd Control To Mocking Images. The New York Times, Section A, p. 14.

Lovett, I. (2011, November 23). Occupy Los Angeles Camp Is Allowed to Stay, for Now. The New York Times, Section A, p. 17.

Associated Press. (2011, November 24). Let Journalists Be, Police Are Ordered. The New York Times, Section A, p. 30.

Preston, J. (2011, November 25). Protesters Look for Ways to Feed the Web. The New York Times, Section A, p. 28.

Shadid, A. & Stack. L. (2011, November 25). In Cairo, Reflection As Revolt Pivots Again. The New York Times, Section A, p. 16.

Clifford, S. & Maag, C. (2011, November 26). For Black Friday Novices, It Was Perhaps Not a Night of Conversion. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Lovett, I. (2011, November 26). Occupy L.A. to Be Evicted on Monday. The New York Times, Section A, p. 12.

Stelter, B. (2011, November 27). For Occupying Protesters, Deadlines and Decisions. The New York Times, Section A, p. 24.

150

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Yardley, W. (2011, November 28). The Branding Of the Occupy Movement. The New York Times, Section B, p. 1.

Medina, J. (2011, November 28). Bad Times Take Bloom Off Rose Parade Ritual. The New York Times, Section A, p. 14.

Flegenheimer, M. (2011, November 28). In Newark, a More Welcoming Response to Occupiers. The New York Times, Section A, p. 20.

Medina, J. (2011, November 29). Los Angeles Police Withdraw After Occupy Eviction Deadline Passes. The New York Times, Section A, p. 16.

151

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Bibliography

AFL-CIO (n.d.). “Key Events in Labor History”. Retrieved July 29, 2017 from https://aflcio.org/about/history/labor-history-events. Altman, A. (1993). “Liberalism and Campus Hate Speech: A Philosophical Examination.” Ethics 103 (January), 302-317. Ashley, L. & Olson, B. (1998). “Constructing Reality: Print Media’s Framing of the Women’s Movement, 1966 to 1986”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 263- 277.

Bagdikian, B. H. (1989, July 12). “The Lords of the Global Village”. The Nation, 805-820.

Bagdikian, B.H. (1992). “Journalism of Joy”. Mother Jones, 17(3), 48-51.

Barber, B. R. (2003). Fear’s Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy. W. W. Norton and Company: New York and London.

Becker, H. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. NY: The Free Press. Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. NY: Anchor Books. Best, J. (1989). Images of Issues. NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Bickford, S. (2000). Constructing inequality: city spaces and the architecture of citizenship. Political Theory, 28(3), 355-376. Bloch, R. & Lamoreaux, N. R. (2004). “The public-private distinction in American history: The privatization of the corporation and the problem of minority shareholders.” Unpublished manuscript, prepared for presentation at the Law, Economics and Organization Workshop of the Yale Law School. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of CA Press. Boyle, M. P., McCluskey, M. R., Devanathan, N., Stein, S. E., & McLeod, D. (2004). “The Influence of Level of Deviance and Protest Type on Coverage of Social Protest in Wisconsin from 1960 to 1999”. Mass Communication & Society, 7(1), 43-60. Burkitt, I. (2004) “The time and space of everyday life.” Cultural Studies, 18(2/3), 211-227. Cahill, D. (2001). “The Anti-WEF Protests and the Media.” Social Alternatives, 20(1), 63-67.

152

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Christen, C. T., Kannaovakun, P. K., & Gunther, A. C. (2002). “Hostile Media Perceptions: Partisan Assessments of Press and Public during the 1997 United Parcel Service Strike”. Political Communication, 19, 423-436. Cohen, S. (2002). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers, 3rd Edition. NY: Routledge. Cooley, C. H. (1983). Human Nature and the Social Order. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books (Rutgers). Crawford, M. (1995). Contesting the public realm: Struggles over public space in Los Angeles. Journal of Architectural Education, 49(1), 4-9. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of Fear. Henry Holt & Co., Inc.: New York. Davis, D. M. & Silver, B. D. (2004). “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America”. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 28-46. Gonzalez Diez, L., Puebla Martinez, B., Birkner, T., & Perez Cuadrado, P. (2015). “Newspaper design as a fundamental element of the tabloid press. An analysis of the causes of the closure of Claro newspaper”. Revista Latina de Communicacion Social, 70, 859–877. Dillard, C. L. (2002). “Civil Disobedience: A Case Study in Factors of Effectiveness”. Society & Animals, 10(1), 47-62. Domke, D., Fan, D. P., Fibison, M., Shah, D. V., Smith, S. S., & Watts, M. D. (1997). “News Media, Candidates and Issues, and Public Opinion in the 1996 Presidential Campaign”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 718-737. Edy, J. A. & Snidow, S. M. (2011). “Making News Necessary: How Journalism Resists Alternative Media’s Challenge”. Journal of Communication, 61, 816-834. Engels, Friedrich (1847). The Principles of Communism. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm on 7/29/17. ericuman.(2016, December 3). “1/ Today's public editor column is about a crucial issue: language, and the words journalists should use to describe things.” [Twitter thread]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ericuman/status/805230039818178560. Foucault, M. & Gordon, C. (ed.) (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Pantheon Books. Gilens, M. & Page, B. I. (2014). “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens”. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581. Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press.

153

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Gossel, D. (2014, November 7). “Tabloid journalism”. Retrieved July 29, 2017 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/tabloid-journalism. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. (Hoare, Q. and Nowell Smith, G., Eds. And Trans.). London: Lawrence and Wishart. Green-Pedersen, C. & Stubager, R. (2010). “The Political Conditionality of Mass Media Influence: When Do Parties Follow Mass Media Attention?” British Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 663-677. Groseclose, T. & Milyo, J (2005). “A Measure of Media Bias”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191-1237. Habermas, J. (1964). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). (Lennox, S. & Lennox, F., Trans.). New German Critique, Fall74(3), 49-55. (Original work published 1964). Hall, K. L., ed. (2000). The Supreme Court in American Society: Equal Justice Under Law; Conscience, Expression and Privacy. NY and London: Garland Publishing. Hall, S. Critcher, C. Jefferson, T. Clarke, J. & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Hallin, D. (1989). The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. University of California Press. Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Post-Modernity. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. Harvey, D. (2003). “The Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939-41. Harvey, D. (2005). “The Sociological and Geographical Imaginations.” International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 18, 211-255. Herman, E. S. (2001). “The Media’s Role in U.S. Foreign Policy”. Journal of International Affairs, Summer 1993, 47(1), 23-45. Herman, E. S. & Chomsky, N. (1988). “Propaganda Mill: The Media Churn Out the Official Line”. The Progressive, 52(6), 14-17. Hertog, J. K. & McLeod, D. M. (1995). “Anarchists Wreak Havoc in Downtown Minneapolis: A Multi-Level Study of Media Coverage of Radical Protest.” Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs, June 95(151), 1-48. Hsieh, H-F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. Hurwitz, J. & Peffley, M. (2005). “Playing the Race Card in the Post-Willie Horton Era: The Impact of Racialized Code Words on Support for Punitive Crime Policy”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 99-112.

154

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Huspek, M. (2004). “Black press, white press, and their opposition: The case of the police killing of Tyisha Miller”. Social Justice, 31(1-2), 217-241. Jackson, R. (2007). “Language, policy and the construction of a torture culture in the war of terrorism”. Review of International Studies, 33, 353-371. Jordan, T. (2004). The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It. Naperville, IL: Oak Hill Publishing Company. Kelliher, L. (2004). “Fox Watch: MoveOn.org members take bias-watching into their living rooms”. Columbia Journalism Review, March/April, 8. Kersch, K. T. (2003). Freedom of Speech: Rights and Liberties Under the Law. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Kohn, M. (2004). Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. New York: Routledge.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lee, T-T. (2005). “The Liberal Media Myth Revisited: An Examination of Factors Influencing Perceptions of Media Bias”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 43-64.

Linn, T. (2003). “Media Methods That Lead to Stereotypes”. In Images That Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media, Second Edtion, ed. Lester, P. M. and Ross, S. D. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

McCarthy, J. D., McPhail, C., & Smith, J. (1996). “Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991”. American Sociological Review, 61(3), 478-499.

McKnight, D. (2003). “’A World Hungry for a New Philosophy’: Rupert Murdoch and the rise of neo-liberalism”. Journalism Studies, 4(3), 347-358.

Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., & Shearer, E. (2016). “The Modern News Consumer: News attitudes and practices in the digital era.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/.

Mitchell, D. (1995). “The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public, and Democracy”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108-133.

Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City. New York: The Guilford Press.

Mitchell, D. (2003b). The liberalization of free speech: Or, how protest in public space is silenced. Stanford Agora, 4. Retrieved March 23, 2007, at http://agora.stanford.edu/agora/volume4/mitchell.shtml.

155

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). “Growing Up With Television: Cultivation Processes”. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd Edition. NY: Routledge.

Murdock, G. (1981). “Political deviance: the press presentation of a militant mass demonstration”. In Cohen, S. and Young, J. (eds.), The Manufacture of News: Social problems, deviance and the mass media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Murphy, P. L. (1981). “Near v. Minnesota in the Context of Historical Developments.” Minnesota Law Review, 66, 95.

Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance”. The American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-583.

Oliver, P. E. & Maney, G. M. (2000). “Political Processes and Local Newspaper Coverage of Protest Events: From Selection Bias to Triadic Interactions”. American Journal of Sociology, 106(2), 463-505. Oliver, P. E & Myers, D. J. (1999). “How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Location and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events”. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 38-87. Owens, L. & Palmer, L. K. (2003). “Making the News: Anarchist Counter-Public Relations on the World Wide Web”. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(4), 335-361. Petley, J. (2007). “Censoring the Word”. Index on Censorship 36(180), 180-206.

Ragan, F. D. (1971). “Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Zechariah Chafee, Jr., and the Clear and Present Danger Test for Free Speech: The First Year, 1919.” The Journal of American History, 58, 24-45.

Sekhon, V. (2003). “The Civil Rights of ‘Others’: Antiterrorism, The PATRIOT Act, and Arab and South Asian American Rights in Post-9/11 American Society.” Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 8(1), 117-148.

Semler, S. (2001). “An overview of content analysis.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved July 30, 2017 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.

Sevenans, J. (2018). “How mass media attract political elites’ attention”. European Journal of Political Research, 57, 153-170.

Smith, J., McCarthy, J., Phail, C., & Boguslaw, A. (2001). “From Protest to Agenda Building: Description Bias in Media Coverage of Protest Events in Washington, D.C.”. Social Forces, Vol. 79, Issue 4, 1397-1423.

156

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Snow, D. A., Rochford, Jr., E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). “Frame Alighnment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation”. American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481. Stone, G. R. (1987). “Content-Neutral Restrictions.” University of Chicago Law Review, 54, 46- 118. Sunstein, C. R. (1995). Democracy and the problem of free speech. New York: The Free Press. Tan, Y. & Weaver, D. H. (2010). “Media Bias, Public Opinion, and Policy Liberalism from 1956 to 2004: A Second-Level Agenda-Setting Study”. Mass Communication and Society, 13(4), 412- 434. The U. S. Constitution and Other Key American Writings. (2015). San Diego, CA: Canterbury Classics. van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Waldman, P. & Devitt, J. (1998). “Newspaper Photographs and the 1996 Presidential Election: The Question of Bias”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 302-311. Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. (1999). Broken windows. In The police and society (Victor Kappeler, Ed.), 154-168. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland. Wilson, J. (1973). Introduction to Social Movements. NY: Basic Books, Inc. Wolfsfeld, G. (1997). Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East. UK: Cambridge University Press Woolley, J. T. (2000). “Using Media-Based Data in Studies of Politics”. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 156-173. Zinn, Howard (2005). A People’s History of the United States. NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Legislation Espionage Act of 1917 (18 U.S.C. ch. 37, enacted June 15, 1917) Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65-150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 449) 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 Oklahoma HB 1123 (2017) Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018, H.R. 6054

157

The Social Construction of Protest Kirsten Christiansen

Court Cases Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. [1 Cranch] 137 [1803]) Commonwealth v. Hunt (45 Mass. 111 [1842]) Patterson vs. Colorado (205 U.S. 454 [1907]) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (244 F. 535 [S.D.N.Y 1917]) Schenck v. United States (249 U.S. 47 [1919]) Abrams v. United States (250 U.S. 616 [1919]) Gitlow vs. New York (268 U.W. 652 [1925]) Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (307 U.S. 496 [1939]) Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (315 U.S. 568 [1942]) Cox v. Lousiana (379 U.S. 536 [1965]) United States v. O’Brien (391 U.S. 367 [1968]) Lloyd Corp, Ltd.. v. Tanner (407 U.S. 551 [1972]) Gay Veterans Assn., Inc. v. American Legion – New York County (621 F. Sup. 1510 [S.D.N.Y 1985]) Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (512 U.S. 753 [1994]) Phelps-Roper v. Nixon (509 F.3d 480,488 [8th Circuit 2007])

158