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?