The upcoming wave of protests on October 18 will challenge American voters and news organizations. The way these demonstrations are covered by journalists, and the public’s perception of them, will have significant consequences for our civic well-being.
Demonstrations are often difficult to accurately portray and easy to discredit. While crowd size is important, it’s often disputed. The atmosphere, whether festive or fearful, is subjective. The originality and quantity of signs, as well as the appearance and behavior of law enforcement, all contribute to the narrative.
Once a demonstration grows large enough, conflict is more likely to occur. Even if most participants are peaceful, clashes with police or property damage can alter the overall perception of the event. Determining the cause of violence, distinguishing between a riot and a hijacking, is crucial.
The journalistic tendency to prioritize sensational or violent events can distort reality and mislead the public. For example, despite FBI data showing violent crime near a 30-year low in , 78% of Americans believed it was increasing. Protests often gain more attention if they involve spectacle, especially violence, like burning cars or confrontations with police.
However, peaceful protest is also newsworthy. When people gather respectfully to express their views, focusing solely on numbers or damage ignores the larger story. Citizen journalists play a vital role in expanding coverage to underserved areas and audiences.
Covering peaceful protests is important because they can signal to those with doubts that they are not alone. Even for those who associate protest with anti-Americanism, seeing a diverse group of people participating can be eye-opening.
This was evident last June, on President Donald Trump’s birthday, when demonstrations took place across the country. These protests were not about destruction but about expressing beliefs. They highlighted the freedom to speak out and declare independence.
The diverse motivations could be seen through .
“When cruelty becomes normal, compassion looks radical,” one sign in Austin, Texas, read.
A sign in Bowling Green, Kentucky, stated, “There are more of us than of them.”
“Unpaid protesters,” read a sign in Houston, Texas.
In St. Paul, Minnesota, a sign asked, “Who would Jesus deport?” despite the protests proceeding after the cancellation after the recent assassination of state representative Melissa Hortman.
Across America, protesters held signs pleading to “Make America America Again.”
The variety of slogans demonstrated that this movement lacks a single ideology or identity, which is its strength.
Efforts to discredit the upcoming protests are already underway. Republican leaders have echoed House Speaker Mike Johnson’s characterization of the No Kings events as “hate America” rallies organized by “Antifa.” Meanwhile, demonstrations in Portland have featured protesters in inflatable animal costumes, offering a lighthearted contrast to the image of masked enforcement agents.
Nonviolence is both a moral principle and a strategic choice. It encourages wider participation, fosters solidarity, and reduces the risk of repression. This is particularly important given President Trump’s vows to deploy troops to “war-ravaged” to combat a nonexistent war. Nonviolent action is easier to plan, spread, and defend against vilification.
Erica Chenoweth of Harvard has shown that peaceful resistance is more likely to succeed than violent resistance because mass participation is more important than militancy. When ordinary citizens get involved, it creates a tipping point for political change. As demonstrated by civil rights protesters, a peaceful protest met with brutality can awaken a silent majority.
Chenoweth and her colleagues developed the “3.5% rule,” stating that historically, when 3.5% of a population participates in sustained civil resistance, dramatic political change becomes possible. In the U.S., that equates to approximately 11 million people.
Movements that reach this scale succeed not because of perfect alignment but because of unity of purpose. Building such a coalition requires solidarity, treating an attack on anyone as an attack on everyone, similar to NATO’s Article 5, but within a domestic political system, according to Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark.
Therefore, the differences among protesters are not a flaw but the central narrative.
The number of protesters is significant news, too many from too many places to be explained away by conspiracy.