There is a hole in my research that I will not deny and that is if the coverage of the Black Panther Movement was not to some degree justified. The media focused on the violence of the movement, and indeed there was a considerable amount of turbulence surrounding the panthers. They highlighted the division of the black community on the use of violence, and indeed a dichotomy did exist. With in the frame of my research I have concluded that while news coverage of the time was factual, it was not an accurate or fair depiction of the heart of the issue. It ignored whole parts of the story, blatantly leaving out interviews Panther supporters and belittled the movement as objective news never should.
One must also keep in mind that the press may not have done this intentionally, after all, media tends to be simply a mirror to society. It shapes public opinion, yet it also reflects it. The casting of the panthers as monsters may have been the press's doing, or it may have been already decided on by the public. This is one area of further research that peaks my interest.
I also limited my study to only include mainstream papers, but during my research I was drawn to alternative press. How the values of these papers differ? Did black papers, like the one published by the Black Panthers themselves, highlight violence as the more widely distributed publications did?