Riots, protests or demonstrations: Why language matters
Over three weeks on from the beginning of the unrest seen in the UK in July, Senior Account Manager, Meg Palmer, examines the importance of language when reporting on these events, and how it influences how a story is perceived.
We’re now over three weeks on from the beginning of the unrest that we saw on our streets at the end of July. Now that the dust is beginning to settle, we have a unique opportunity to reflect on what took place and dissect how it was reported in the media.
Other than those who attended events, most of us relied on media reports to provide us with an accurate representation of what took place. As was the case this time, we are increasingly seeing ‘amateur’ journalists reporting events by live streaming or vlogging as they walk through crowds, for example. Whether you are a fan of this type of content or not, it does provide a unique, less-polished insight into a story, as it is happening.
But, whilst we are seeing a shift in younger generations consuming news supplied by social media platforms such as TikTok, the majority of the population still view their news via mainstream media.
Major news publications remain influential
A 2023 report by Ofcom found that 71% of 16-24 year-olds use social media for news. But when looking at all UK adults, 70% use broadcast TV as their main news source and BBC news output across all its platforms reach 73% of all UK adults. A similar study found BBC News, Sky News and The Guardian to be the most viewed news websites by UK adults. This is why the language used by major news publications, remains just as important as it ever was.
On top of this, riots and protests provide particularly interesting case studies, due to their ability to capture massive media interest, very quickly. Because they are often fast-moving and evolving, they also tend to evoke the use of emotive and sensationalised language, in a bid to present the most engaging story in a highly saturated landscape.
The power of language means that just the way that an event is described, can have a significant influence on whether it is viewed as primarily negative and destructive, or peaceful and constructive, even if there isn’t a marked difference on the ground.
So, whenever I see headlines around these types of events, I want to ask who decides whether an event taking place is defined as a riot, protest, demonstration or peaceful march? And does the word used really matter?
So, let’s start with some Cambridge dictionary definitions.
- Riot – an occasion when a large number of people behave in a noisy, violent, and uncontrolled way in public, often as a protest.
- Demonstration – an occasion when a group of people march or stand together to show that they disagree with or support something or someone.
- Protest – an occasion when people show that they disagree with something by standing somewhere, shouting, carrying signs.
- March – an event in which a large number of people walk through a public place to express their support for something, or their disagreement with or disapproval of something.
Whilst these definitions are not dissimilar, there are nuances between them that depict a sense of violence and disorder, or of calm and coordination, yet they are often used interchangeably to describe the same events.
It may seem inconsequential which term is used, but the choice of wording heavily influences how a story is perceived. As a result, it has the power to exaggerate and amplify, or to minimise and downplay, the severity of an event – which we have seen occur frequently in recent history.
When does a riot become a riot?
Back in my university days I explored the depiction of protests during the civil rights movement in the US in the 1950s and 60s. Often, peaceful marches were represented in the media as chaotic uprisings, as a way to discredit the legitimacy, credibility and strategic nature of the event. In reality, very few of these demonstrations turned violent due to the protestors themselves, and instead escalated as a result of police brutality and the enforcement of unjust laws.
The complication often came when opportunist members of the public decided to take advantage of the disorder, in order to loot shops for example. The actions of a few individuals can quickly and easily transform the way an event is depicted. As soon as the media is able to report on criminal activity, it suddenly throws the rationale behind the event into question and tarnishes everyone with the same brush, even if it’s only a tiny percentage involved.
This is something that we still see in the present day – in the UK’s 2011 riots, stark images of protestors smashing shop windows and running out of burning buildings with Nike trainers hit the headlines. Whether this was, in fact, representative of wider events, became very challenging to decipher as soon as shocking images appeared on our TV screens.
Actions like this also make it difficult to accurately describe an event. If a few members of a largely peaceful demonstration begin looting or displaying violent behaviour does that suddenly make it a riot? What percentage of the group need to be carrying out this behaviour for it to be classified as a riot?
When the recent horrific scenes of crowds attacking hotels believed to be housing refugees were shared, clearly this was violent and criminal behaviour, but should this then influence the portrayal of other events happening that day by others who were reportedly protesting similar issues, even if they were peaceful?
So, what can we, as news consumers, do?
Needless to say, not all of these events are so complex. Many of the initial protests in July and the subsequent counter marches, were peaceful and were depicted as such. But it does remind us not to take everything at face value, and to endeavour to dig a little deeper where possible.
The media does of course have a responsibility to ensure that its stories are substantiated and based on fact, and sites such as Full Fact do a brilliant job of highlighting misinformation when it occurs. But the reality is that the news cycle is a highly competitive fast-moving place where, unfortunately, shocking imagery sells. It has always been this way and we would be naive to assume otherwise.
That’s not to disregard the high-quality, evidence-based and honest journalism taking place. The vast majority of journalists go to great pains to ensure that they are presenting a neutral and truthful depiction of events. And, finally, this isn’t a call to distrust the media. After all, no matter its failings, it does play a critical role in ensuring transparency and holding organisations, governments and people to account. And in the UK, it is easy to forget how lucky we are to be able to access unbiased accurate information.
But, as consumers of media, we must remind ourselves to use our critical thinking to make up our own minds, rather than being sucked into sensationalist headlines that are designed to be influential and compelling. This doesn’t require studying for hours, for me, it simply means paying attention to the language being used and accessing my news from a few different publications and mediums, to ensure I am consuming a diverse range of perspectives.
