A weekend of protests, a familiar narrative
In Melbourne this weekend, thousands gathered. On one side, Indigenous leaders, anti-racism campaigners, unions, and community allies under banners like Sovereignty Never Ceded. On the other, a far smaller contingent of far-right activists and neo-Nazi fellow-travellers.
Police prepared for brawls. Headlines predicted “chaotic clashes.” And yet, what unfolded? Marches for peace, solidarity, and justice that vastly outnumbered the far right. A few incidents of graffiti. A police line. A splash of pepper spray. A handful of arrests.
That should have been the story. Instead, media defaulted to a familiar script: “both sides clashed.”
Why the media reaches for “clashes”
The word is quick, clickable, and safe. It conveys drama without assigning blame. But it collapses crucial distinctions – between instigator and target, between violent act and peaceful protest, between a brief disruption and hours of orderly marching.
Journalists on deadline rely heavily on police briefings, which emphasise crowd control over context. Editors fear accusations of bias, so they retreat to “he said, she said.” The result is false equivalence. Audiences are left believing anti-racism activists are as violent as the groups they oppose.
Context erased: who has actually committed violence
The record is clear. Just two weeks ago, members of the National Socialist Network attacked Camp Sovereignty, an Indigenous protest site in Melbourne, injuring women of colour. That was real violence.
This weekend? No comparable attacks from peace marchers. No Indigenous women hospitalised. No anti-racism coalition swinging branches. Yet media language blurred those facts, flattening accountability.
Why more march for peace than hate
The numbers are not accidental. Anti-racism coalitions draw from unions, faith groups, student bodies, migrant communities, and civic organisations. Their demands – justice, equality, ceasefire – are morally clear and socially broad.
Far-right groups remain splintered, stigmatised, and risky to associate with. They mobilise online, not in community halls. That’s why peaceful protests fill city blocks while racist rallies struggle to muster a fraction.
What better reporting would look like
Good journalism doesn’t stop at “clash.” It asks:
- Who initiated violence?
- How many marched peacefully compared to those arrested?
- What happened for most of the day – not just in one viral clip?
- What’s the historical record of violence from each group?
Precision matters. Saying “police used pepper spray against far-right agitators after they attempted to breach barriers” tells the truth. Saying “clashes erupted” obscures it.
A call to editors and reporters
If the media keeps laundering violent extremism through the word “clash,” they lend legitimacy to provocateurs and discredit communities standing against hate.
Audiences deserve clarity: one side sought conflict; the other sought community.
The weekend proved it again – more people will always march for peace than for division. The least we can expect is that news outlets report that honestly.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Agree! Women are used to this of course. It’s only since #MeToo that media has (mostly) stopped referring to perpetrators of sexual assault as ‘sex pests’, for example.
Dear sane, rational world: the MSM is not your friend.
The plastic nazis are still infatuated with the Beer Hall (failed) Putsh of a century ago.
And the duopoly is pathetic. More and more legislation tp halt transparancy, as reportage at Michael West today concerning new so called legislation involving access and cost on FOI are being pushed.
News camera operators are trained and paid to capture ‘action and sensation’. They compete for it. At the scene, journalists try to match it, or try to big it up. Who selects the interviewees? Do they quiz them to try to match the narrative? Then again, do those ‘hot ones’ with an axe to grind interpose to make themselves available to interview?
Location, location, location, and 45 second grabs make things so easy to misrepresent – an editor’s, advertiser’s, bean counter’s and boardroom’s dream.