💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-talking-to-the-media.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:49:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Talking to the Media
Author: CrimethInc.
Date: 12th December 2017
Language: en
Topics: media, how to
Source: Retrieved on 9th September 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2017/12/12/talking-to-the-media-avoiding-the-pitfalls-a-guide-for-anarchists

CrimethInc.

Talking to the Media

Anarchists have appeared in the corporate media a lot this year, from

the first breathless reports on resistance to the rise of the far right

to recent appearances in the fashion pages. But not all visibility is

good visibility. The Trump regime is looking to popularize an image of

anarchists and other activists as a major threat to public order in

order to legitimize further crackdowns; fascist organizations have

worked hard to capitalize on a media profile of “antifa” as violent and

mysterious in order to draw more people into their ranks. Corporate

media outlets like the Wall Street Journal are notorious for catering to

the reactionary politics of their owners, while even the most

sympathetic media coverage can be useful to law enforcement agencies

seeking information to use against activists.

Anarchists and others have long been critical of the function of the

media itself. Yet it’s not always possible to avoid press coverage; in

the information age, it’s spin or be spun. When we act effectively in

pursuit of social change, media outlets will seek to represent us to the

general public—and unless we can disrupt their narratives, most people

will see us through their eyes.

Corporate media is not a neutral space in which we can present ideas the

way we can in direct conversation with our coworkers and neighbors. It

is a strategic terrain on which the authorities position themselves to

legitimate the use of force. To step in front of the cameras is to enter

a hostile territory controlled by a class that is determined to use our

images against us. If we enable media outlets to depict us as violent,

alien, or extreme—no matter how strong the arguments we make in favor of

our tactics or ideas—the ultimate result will be that the authorities

are emboldened to step up their attacks on us.

When we engage with the media, we must not imagine that they will

promote our ideas; we have to accomplish that on our own through our own

channels. (At best, we can use media appearances to direct people to

those channels, like the organization that insisted on only answering

interviews in front of a banner displaying their website.) Rather, we

are engaging in a subtle war of position in which we seek to prevent the

authorities from alienating others from us and to undermine the

narratives that legitimize their violence. We must always balance the

possible gains to be made in legitimacy and visibility against the risks

of making ourselves a higher profile target.

We should never forget the example of the SHAC campaign, which sought to

shut down an animal testing company. At first, the campaign made great

headway, gaining momentum as the media publicized the effects of their

organizing—yet ultimately, law enforcement was able to use this menacing

image to orchestrate a crackdown that sent many people to prison for

years. We offer the following suggestions in hopes of helping you

navigate your interactions with the media safely.

Before Talking with the Media:

make public statements on a subject. Consult others who may be affected

by what you say to get their feedback before participating in an

interview.

their audience. Are you the best person to convey this information?

others who might face them in the future. Even the most innocuous

statements can be manipulated to smear and discredit activists,

especially those already facing criminal charges. Everything said in a

press interview can be used:in criminal prosecutionsto indict the person

being interviewed or anyone else implicated in the public statementsto

subpoena the person being interviewed to testify for the prosecution and

against his or her comrades and fellow activists.

stand to accomplish by appearing in this media outlet? How will you

accomplish it? For example, if you are attempting to draw additional

participants to an upcoming demonstration, it may make sense to obtain

coverage in a paper read by people who may join you, but it probably

will not make sense to appear in a paper read chiefly by reactionaries

who wish to see such protests suppressed.

Reporters will often ask leading or hostile questions in order to trap

you into providing the material they need to tell a predetermined story.

If you have limited experience with the media, speak to those who have

more experience.

they hope to accomplish? What are the basic terms of the discourse that

they utilize? How can you disrupt the narratives that they are

propagating?

on the venue in which the story will appear? If you have no basis for

trust, be very cautious.

When you speak with reporters, make agreements in advance about how they

will identify you and what information they will publish. Emphasize that

you do not represent a political constituency and are not acting as a

“leader for the movement.” If you use a pseudonym, be careful to ensure

that no one will be able to work out your legal identity; law

enforcement officers have compelled journalists to reveal the “true

identities” of media spokespersons as a way of endangering and

discrediting them.

Advice to Activists from a Sympathetic Reporter

This originally appeared in the fourth issue of Rolling Thunder as part

of “Report from the Press Box: MSM Confidential.” If some of it

contradicts the above advice, take it with a grain of salt.

you suspect. He believes you have fallen victim to an intellectual trap

of your own making: an inability to appreciate nuance or identify with

your enemy. As he sees it, his job on this unfortunate assignment is to

present your information without getting suckered into mainlining lefty

propaganda into the information bloodstream. He will ask you many, many

questions (Who is funding this organization? Isn’t it true that you are

all college graduates? Did you ever consider taking your grievances to

the Community Police Board? Can I see your membership lists?); you

should answer them in full, where appropriate. It’s more important to be

upfront if your enterprise is loosely coordinated than to present

yourself as a stable coalition or single entity when that’s not the

case. No one likes to be interrogated, but it’s better for you if he

feels that you’ve held nothing back from him.

like to be reminded that we don’t know everything in the world. (You

might think that the beginning of journalism is a recognition of that

basic fact, but there you have it.) As a result, spewing jargon or

citing obscure texts will make her feel ignorant, exposed, and angry.

She will portray you as aloof elitists playacting at something

important. If she draws an improper conclusion during your conversation,

it’s far better to clarify what you’ve said than to jump down her

throat. If she continues to misrepresent you, call her office after the

story is published, and warn her editor that there’s a fabulist on

staff. (Remember that word—“fabulist,” that is to say, liar. Those three

syllables make editors break out in a cold sweat.)

intelligent. Rare is the reporter who doesn’t exhibit at least basic

intelligence, since his job depends on either inquiry or diligence.

Flattery will get you nowhere, since he doesn’t like to be bullshitted.

But politeness and attentiveness are appreciated in what is very often

an exhausting job for little pay. If you treat him with respect and

openness, he may even reconsider his condescension. Don’t bet on it, but

stranger things have happened.

During your interview, explain in detail what you intend to do, how, and

why. If this involves illegal activity, describe the motivations for

your actions very clearly. Don’t expect all this raw information to make

it into the story. But the more you give her, the more she will have to

fill up her column inches or her word count or her airtime—and all of

that will come from your side. Remember, you are giving her access. The

IMF or the local police precinct will not. That is an advantage to you.

further questions to ask when I sat down in front of my keyboard. The

reporter you’re dealing with will probably want to ask some follow-up

questions. If you’re not around to answer them, he is going to make

inferences and assumptions about what you’re about. If you complain to

his editors, he’ll be able to argue, credibly, that you weren’t

answering your phone or your email, and he had a deadline to meet, so

what else could he do. He will win that argument. Don’t let him.

for Homo Journalisticus. Her inclination is to print only as much of

your story as is necessary for her to get back to the office and put in

for a more interesting assignment. This is as true—if not more so—for

young reporters than older ones: the young reporter is clocking time

until a better job or a better bureau opens up, and your penny-ante

revolutionary antics are the tick of her clock. Following the above

instructions will get your message out inasmuch as that is possible

through this medium. You may, of course, choose to supplement your

efforts in the mainstream press with your own account on a website or

elsewhere, but that’s your domain and not mine.

what desk he’s on (Metro? General assignment? National?), who he works

for, how long he’s been there, and how he finds it. Take notes. He’ll

interpret this as a sign of your diligence as a press liaison, and, at

best, a polite recognition of his importance. In reality, this is a tool

to use for your advantage. If you are dissatisfied with his coverage,

contact his editor and itemize your grievances. Some caveats: do not

rant, and be prepared to be specific about errors of fact or sloppiness.

It is in this area that the editor on the other end of the phone or

e-mail will be prepared to act—either by running corrections, assigning

another reporter to cover you and putting him on a leash, or by actively

punishing your malicious interlocutor. If you try to correct

interpretation, the editor will consider you a crank and stick up for

the reporter.