Many activists I talk with constantly bash “the media,” as if news operations are one gelatinous mass of reporters sharing a brain, hive-style. Contemporary journalism is in a pretty sorry state, I completely agree: more and more news outlets are owned by fewer and fewer corporations, that in turn own other corporations. The emphasis is more on the bottom line than on hard-hitting journalism.
But reporters, individually, tend to be pretty good people who care about the news, understand the relationship between a free press and a healthy democracy, and take pride in their work. Don’t be so shocked. It’s true. There are some jerks in the mix, and some lazy dogs, but that’s the case in any line of work.
That’s why I’m consistently shocked to see reporters do such a horribly inaccurate job covering so-called “eco-terrorism.” I’ve seen reporters blur, and even completely eliminate, the lines between illegal activists and above-ground groups. And I’ve seen reporters regurgitate claims by politicians and industry groups that non-profits have given money to the Earth Liberation Front (it’s an absurd claim because the ELF exists in name only: it’s more of a loose philosophy or tactic than an organization).
So I was pleasantly surprised to see Joe Mozingo’s article in The Los Angeles Times profiling Jerry Vlasak. Mozingo writes:
Vlasak, 48, sits on a precarious perch within the animal rights movement. Through his Animal Liberation Press Office, he is the spokesman for shadowy groups that sabotage labs, vandalize homes, firebomb properties and make death threats via late-night phone calls. But he works in the wide open, operating a website, issuing press releases, talking to journalists.
Vlasak may or may not have liked the profile. And activists and industry groups alike would probably make some line edits, or even a rewrite, if they could. But Mozingo showed a basic understanding of the movements he is covering. The animal rights and environmental movements, like all other social movements, have both legal and illegal components. Some above-ground activists use their First Amendment rights to vocally support illegal tactics, but that doesn’t mean they are the ones committing the crimes.
If more reporters made that simple, factual distinction in their work, perhaps it would help knock the legs out from underneath these New McCarthyists. And it might even help raise serious questions about the government convicting of non-violent activists on “terrorism” charges for running a website. If the distinction isn’t made, however, the activists have been convicted before they enter the courtroom.