Big protests — but not big news

Throngs of anti-Trump and anti-Musk protesters gathered in every state. Why was some media coverage so quiet — or almost non-existent?

On Sunday morning around 8 a.m., I scanned the home pages of some of the most influential news organizations in the United States, looking for coverage of the mass protests on Saturday. And I asked friends and relatives in various locations to tell me what their print newspapers had done with the story.

Quick answer: Not close to what it deserved.

Demonstrators rally during the nationwide "Hands Off!" protest against Donald Trump and Elon Musk, in Houston, Texas, on Saturday. Despite large turnouts, the protests received tepid media coverage / Getty Images

Here’s some of what I found:

In the Wall Street Journal, the story’s placement was the 20th most important. If you weren’t specifically looking for it, the coverage of 1,200 different protests in every state — and several in European cities — would not have caught your eye.

In the New York Times, the home page made it only the eighth most prominent. The main online photo was Trump at the White House with his fist raised. In the Times print edition, there was no article on Sunday front page; a smallish (two-column) photo, below the fold, carried a reference to a story inside the paper.

On the Fox News home page, I stopped counting after I scanned 40 articles and scrolled endlessly. I did see a video on Saturday, dismissively headlined, “Liberals rally against President Trump.”

The Washington Post and the Guardian found the story more important, as did CNN, which at one point on live TV had a banner headline: “MILLIONS OF PEOPLE PROTEST AGAINST TRUMP & MUSK.” They had live video from cities around the U.S.

The Washington Post didn’t put a story (only a teaser) on its Sunday front page in print. They placed it fourth on their Sunday morning home page — with a photo of big crowds in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Guardian US played it as their third most prominent article online. The Boston Globe and my hometown Buffalo News displayed their coverage inside the Sunday print paper, not on the front page. The Globe did give the story prominent display on the local section front, noting that 30,000 people had participated.

Organizers said that more than 100,000 demonstrators came to the protests in both New York and Washington DC. Crowd estimates are always tricky, but that certainly seems like a big story to me.

For weeks and months, I’ve been reading stories and analyses in major news organizations about how the public resistance to Trump is so much quieter now than in 2017.

But when the protests did happen, much of the media reaction was something between a yawn and a shrug. Or, in some outlets, a sneer.

Andy Revkin, the longtime environmental reporter, drew a sharp contrast with how the Times covered the first Earth Day demonstrations back in 1970 — with a huge six-column photograph at the top of the front page and a headline that shouted: Millions Join Earth Day Observances Across the Nation. A second headline: “Mood is Joyful as City Gives Its Support.” (Granted, this isn’t a perfect comparison, but the difference in tone is telling.)

The big question, for me, is why so much of the media downplayed the protests. I’ll offer three theories:

1. Although they wouldn’t phrase it the same way, many mainstream news organizations basically see this as Fox News does: Just the usual suspects — “liberals” — doing their thing. Nothing to see here, move along. I don’t believe that was the case; the crowds seemed to include people of many political stripes, drawn together by anxiety, fear and frustration with what’s been happening since Jan. 20th.

2. These media companies feared that prominent protest coverage would be criticized by the political right as partisan — in the tank for the anti-Trump forces. And they can’t take the terrible risk of being a part of that. In other words, the refs have been successfully worked. Again.

3. They don’t want to aggravate (or lose) right-leaning readers and viewers. They seek a big tent at all costs. So, yes, they seem to say, we will cover this, but we will downplay it. That quiet tone, they seem to say, is the best bet for not antagonizing anyone.

Readers, I’m interested in how your local news sources covered these protests and in whether you attended the gatherings personally. If so, what are your observations? What did it feel like? Any favorite signs? Will any of this make a difference?

---

---

I also want to make a couple of other media observations from last week.

At the Washington Post, the situation continues to be oddly varied. I was sorry to see Eugene Robinson, one of my favorite columnists and a Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary in 2009, decide to leave the paper. Robinson made reference to the “significant shift” in the section’s mission, as dictated by owner Jeff Bezos, as the reason for his departure. He follows his colleagues Ruth Marcus and Ann Telnaes out the door.

But on the Post’s news side, staffers like national security reporter John Hudson and economics reporter Jeff Stein — among many others — are doing a great job. Hudson, for example, had an exclusive last week that Trump’s national security adviser Michael Waltz and others had conducted government business over Gmail, a risky and insecure practice that would have freaked out the nation in the “but Hillary’s emails” era. Here’s a gift link to that story.

In short, The Post’s opinion section has been compromised; but the news section remains essential. I judged a journalism awards competition last week, and I saw two entries from Washington Post reporters that blew me away with their quality and depth. It’s a weird situation there, and I feel for my former colleagues who are living through it.

Thanks to all for being here, and a warm welcome to many new subscribers. Thank you for your comments on my last post about the need for straight talk now, answering my question about how you are holding up, and what you were doing to stay true to your values. I loved this from Aimee Chamernik: “I feel courageous because I *am* fearful yet I remain undeterred.” Way to go, Aimee, and so many others. Hang in there, everyone. Another tumultuous week looms, and we’ll get through this one, too.