During the late 60's a cloud of
negativity surrounded the Black Panthers. The media enveloped the
group in demeaning descriptions. The language of the press clearly
illustrates their hegemonistic tendencies. When Stokely Carmichael
told the press that the assassination of Marin Luther King Jr. would
lead to increased violence, the New York Times called him “psychotic”
(6). Carmichael's assertions were indeed bold, especially when he
said that the assassination was akin to a declaration of war on the
black population, yet he is far from insane. In fact, retrospectively
he was correct. Even if his ideas were outlandish, how can a
self-respecting publication use such strongly opinionated vocabulary? The New York Times had also covered the Panthers' strike at Yale, which
they said, “plunged campus activism into new depths of
irrationality” (2). However this story had run in the opinion
section, justifying the stronger language.
 |
| Seattle Times article, 1970 (12) |
Language was also used against the
Panthers in a different way. Often publications made a spectacle of
the course diction of the panthers and their rhetoric was connected
with an image of an uneducated ruffian. By putting phrases like “cop
dogs” and “pigs” (words commonly used by Panthers to describe
white oppressors) in quotations, journalists made the words jump off
the page, emphasizing their ridiculousness (13). This helped papers
define the panthers as a largely illiterate and unintelligent
movement. A 1970 Seattle Times article uses this quotation method and
then at the end of the article reinforces the stupidity of the
Panthers with the reminder that none of the Panthers are currently
enrolled in school (12). Media coverage loved to report the fact that
Huey Newton was an illiterate high school drop out as if it was
somehow indicative of the entire movement, though Newton proudly
admitted to the fact and later went on to earn a PhD (8).
 |
| Article printed in the Seattle Times, 1970 (11) |
 |
| Seattle Post Intelegencer article, 1969 (14) |
Even the
headlines of some articles were employed to make the Panthers seem
dumb. “Angry
Blacks Berate Solons In Eloquent Capitol Lecture” read one Seattle
Post-Intelegencer article, juxtaposing the words “eloquent” and “angry” to make the group seem ridiculous and volatile to
their pristine surroundings (14). Some papers went so far as to
emphasize irrelevant details just for the sake of dragging the party
down. An article reporting declined membership to the party said some
described the group as “bumbling” and included an unrelated
anecdote about how Panther demolition expert, “blew himself up
while trying to throw a bomb at his girl friend” (11). The amusing
detail provided color to the story, but was of no worth to the
article and no doubt was included to make a jab at the Panthers.
Panthers
were also ridiculed by the press when they were deemed not worthy of
being quoted in stories about their own affairs. It was sort of
journalist tradition at the time for African Americans to be
under-represented in the news when the stories were not specifically
about them (4), but to leave the Black Panthers out of a story about
the Black Panthers was unprecedented. Especially when the Panthers
were in legal trouble or when they were facing public criticism,
interviews were rarely sought. The Oakland
Tribune
ran a side bar of the “Background of the Black Panthers” in which
they informed the public that the police were in control of the group.
Yet if the writers of this piece were to interview Panthers, they
would have found a very different perspective, since the Panthers
believed that they were keeping the police it line, not the other way
around.
Perhaps the most alarming tactic used
to de-legitimatize the Panthers was the frequent connections drawn
between the party and the Klu Klux Klan. Many publications went as
far as to say that the Panthers had become the bastions of hate and
evil that they rebelled against so strongly(15). Televised news
between 1968 and 1970 portrayed the Panthers as more violent and
hateful than white racists and was more skeptical of their movement
(6). An editorial in the Oakland Tribune
entitled “Playtime in Sacramento” ridiculed the party essentially
for playing dress up, putting on berets and guns and acting out a
silly revolution complete with “a secret name” (13). The piece
drew connections between the two groups, each in their own costume.
As a result the media became unable to “distinguish between the
donning of a white hood and the wearing of a black berets as symbolic
practices” (13).
