Antifa and Media Bias: How Antifa Violence is Whitewashed in the American Mainstream Media

“The most insidious power that the news media has is the power to ignore.” — Chris Plante

The American mainstream media routinely ignores the violence of the anti-government, anti-capitalist, anti-Constitution group of anarchists collectively known as “Antifa”. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has tracked Antifa for years, but does not list it as a ‘hate group’ (for whatever reason). Media outlets in Europe will describe Antifa and its violent antics in some detail, but the U.S. mainstream media whitewashes its behavior.

A review of the coverage of several media outlets was performed. The consolidated links for the first 20 articles reviewed is listed below. Detailed explanations of some of the biases apparent in the articles follows in a separate section.

Consolidated List of Links

1. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1708/12/cnr.13.html

2. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-is-antifa-trnd/index.html

3. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/police-response-charlottesville-trnd/index.html

4. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html

5. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-supporters-idUSKBN16B0O8

6. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-idUSKCN1AZ0BU

7. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-congress-idUSKCN1AW2PJ?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5994fe7e04d30131742243a2&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

8. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-idUSKBN1AS05T?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Social

9. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2017/aug/23/protests-at-donald-trump-rally-in-phoenix-in-pictures

10. http://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/Boston-Free-Speech-and-Antifa-Supporters-Clash-in-the-Boston-Common-422192423.html

11. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/who-antifa-meet-radical-neo-nazi-fighting-militia-n793241

12. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-charlottesville-thousands-expected-attend-boston-counter-protests-right-wing-n793756

13. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-the-alt-left-trump-was-talking-about/

14. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boston-free-speech-rally-thousands-take-to-the-streets-in-rival-protests-live-updates/

15. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explaining-antifa-protests-wake-charlottesville/story?id=49249602

16. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/anarchists-respond-to-trumps-inauguration-by-any-means-necessary.html?mcubz=0

17. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-protests-unite-the-right.html?mcubz=0

18. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/theories-meaning-trump-many-sides-remark.html?mcubz=0

19. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/

20. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/16/a-history-of-the-alt-left-where-did-anarchists-and-the-antifa-come-from/?utm_term=.0abec94e3e0e

Detailed Explanation of Bias in Listed Articles (sorted by media outlet)

CNN

CNN has been whitewashing Antifa violence. Do a search online for Antifa on CNN’s website. The coverage will be scant and biased, even though Antifa has been perpetrating violence for years. CNN also has been deceptively editing and reporting to make it appear Trump hasn’t condemned racism and hatred. CNN did belatedly cover Antifa in some detail here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUu46J_OHQ4 (August 19th)), but still seemed to whitewash their violence initially (Tapper talking about Antifa fighting with store windows during Trump’s inauguration).

Examples of CNN’s bias:

1. A discussion of Charlottesville violence:

In the very first paragraph of the CNN transcript, CNN starts out whitewashing the violence from the left. It emphasizes KKK/Nazi/white supremacists, but then just talks “counter protesters”. The whole segment has twenty-five mentions of “Nazi”. Thirty-two mentions of “white supremacists”. Two mentions of “KKK”. One mention of “Antifa”. One mention of “Progressives”.

In the transcript, it clearly states that Trump “condemned hate and violence and bigotry”, but then the reporter states, “I want to note that I have asked several White House officials where the president stands on white nationalism” and that the White House didn’t respond. However, there are clips available on the Internet of Trump condemning racism, bigotry, and hatred. The statement by the reporter is inflammatory and just biased reporting, because the reporter doesn’t acknowledge the fact that Trump has already condemned this behavior.

Whitewashing Antifa and trying to link Trump to Nazis is a CNN mainstay. Just two examples: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-african-american-history-museum-denounces-anti-semitism-racism-it-n723521 & http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html (notice in this second article that CNN again runs a video about Nazis that they use to try to blunt Trump’s condemnation of racism).

2. Even discussing Antifa itself on August 14th, the network tried to blunt its coverage:

The CNN story “What is Antifa” is presented with a video called “Perspective on Charlottesville violence”, which primarily talks about KKK/Nazis/white supremacists, not about Antifa. This comes off as an attempt to blunt, or whitewash, Antifa’s violence by contrasting it against the KKK/Nazis/white supremacists. The piece itself says “members of a controversial opposing group, known as Antifa, also showed up to condemn hate and racism”. However, Antifa doesn’t just “show up to condemn” anything. They’re an activist group that shows up for action, not condemnation. That’s clear, and it’s even emphasized in the quote from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism Director in the piece that Antifa wants to “…not only become prominent through violence…”. It’s also clear from the “Why are they controversial?” section. The piece demonstrates Antifa whitewashing because it initially presents Antifa’s presence at the Charlottesville event as one of “showing up to condemn”, when the writer knows ahead of time that Antifa shows up to fight.

3. On August 14th, CNN (in an uncharacteristically unbiased fashion) reported that “two groups” were involved in the fighting and both groups were blaming the police. However, many of the videos that auto-play around this article try to downplay the fact that “both sides” were engaged in fighting and that “skirmishes erupted between white nationalists and members of Antifa”. The videos appear newer than the August 14th article, so while CNN reported on the 14th that two groups were involved, reporting after the 14th tries to downplay that fact.

4. CNN just did this story on Tuesday (August 18th): “Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement”.

First, CNN originally published the piece as “Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement: Activists seek peach through violence”.

“Piece through Violence” Headline

When people made it clear this 1984-type headline pointed out exactly why Antifa shouldn’t be ignored in regards to their part in the violence in Charlottesville, CNN changed the headline.

It’s clear from the original headline that CNN knows Antifa intentionally uses violence to get what they want. It’s also clear that CNN knows that Antifa has been engaging in violence for months or years (and it’s known about their violence all along). They even mention Antifa’s actions at Trump’s Inauguration in January. Since they know all of that, why did they de-emphasize Antifa’s violent role in Charlottesville before, during and after the awful event? Why did they not point out that Trump knows about Antifa’s antics at his Inauguration, and maybe that’s one of the reasons he refused to ignore their part in the violence in Charlottesville?

Reuters

Reuters whitewashes Antifa in the U.S. using a number of methods. Most importantly, it barely even mentions it in its stories. Do a search for Antifa on the Reuters site. There don’t appear to be many stories (especially U.S.-based stories). Some show up, but when you click on the articles to read them, you find that the word Antifa isn’t in the article, or it’s in quotes, as if Antifa is not a real group or movement. You can tell that Reuters knows what Antifa is, because their German and U.K. based stories mention it, or mention Black Bloc.

5. Many aspects of this story (”In day of pro-Trump rallies, California march turns violent“) show bias and are written in a way that emphasizes “Trump people” and de-emphasizes the origins and intentions of the “counter protestors”.

a. The URL shows the emphasis (it’s supposed to be about the rallies (right?), but it mentions “Trump supporters” instead).

b. The first sentence (Trump supporters ‘clashed with counter-protestors’) demonstrates how throughout the piece, Trump supporters are almost always named first, implying they are the aggressor.

c. There’s a description of an elderly Trump supporter being bashed, but there isn’t a description of his basher at all (no statement on their age, race, size, affiliation…nothing).

d. The story specifically mentions “One Trump supporter who took part in the violence came equipped with a baton, a gas mask and a shield emblazoned with the American flag”, but the story doesn’t ever mention the weapons his/her opponents wielded.

e. In the slideshow of pictures, one picture shows what they say is a Trump supporter with pepper spray, but they never mention the Communist flag in the background, indicating Communists were in attendance. As a matter of fact, no breakdown of who the “counter-protestors” are is given.

6. Piece is called “Boston march against hate speech avoids Charlottesville chaos“

a. The piece implies the original rally in Boston was a “hate speech” rally, but never actually describes any hate speech whatsoever. It also fails to independently describe the organizer (Joey Gibson, who is not white and who is “ pro-gay rights, against the Patriot Act and against the War on Drugs” ), or those in attendance on the “free speech” side (beyond implying they’re advocates of hate speech). As a matter of fact, they know that most of the speakers at the free speech rally were people of color (and there was even a transgender speaker), but they don’t state that in the piece. They do quote U.S. Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, who makes it clear the rally isn’t about “hate speech”, but that’s near the description of the Boston rally and they move immediately on to Texas, without providing additional evidence that he’s correct. The paragraph in which Ayyadurai is quoted should have rightfully been placed in the first paragraph, alongside the “hate speech” assertions, so that the article was clear as to what was going on.

b. The piece describes “Some people dressed in black with covered faces”, which is clearly a description of Antifa or Blac Bloc adherents, but Reuters doesn’t say, or even speculate.

c. The piece says “protesters threw rocks and bottles of urine at police dressed in riot gear”. It doesn’t make clear in any way that “free speech” proponents were not involved in the rock/urine throwing. It also doesn’t explain why “protesters” were throwing rocks and urine at police, without actual Nazis/KKK/white supremacist instigation.

7. “Violence prompts U.S. Congress to discuss militant threats” never mentions Antifa, or any other left-leaning domestic terror or hate group. It does specifically call out white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups.

8. “At least one dead as white nationalists ignite Virginia clashes” never mentions Antifa, or any other left-leaning domestic terror or hate group, although it’s clear the writer knows they were there because it mentions the tell-tale “black-clad” description. It talks about how the “black-clad anti-Trump protesters” ran rampant following Trump’s inauguration, but in this article it implies all of the violence that occurred “for hours” came from the neo-Nazis.

9. Reuters even tried to get away with calling Antifa “peace activists” (shown in figure below), but was forced to retract the tweet when people protested.

Reuters Calls Antifa “Peace Activists”

The Guardian still has the “peace protestors/activists” story up on their website. The Antifa flag is clearly showing in one of the photos, but beyond that one photo, no mention of Antifa shows up. Again, the piece talks about “Trump supporters” clashing with people (thus implying they were the instigators), and gives no explanation for why the police would throw teargas. They imply it was just to disperse the crowds, not in response to anything from the demonstrators.

NBC Boston

10. In “Pro-Trump Conservatives and Liberal Anti-Fascists Clash in Boston Common”, unlike CNN and Reuters, NBC Boston was clear about Antifa being at the Boston rally. However, it didn’t mention the Communists and Socialists. It did call out the different groups that were on the “Free Speech” side.

NBC

11. NBC covered Antifa on August 16th, but in the piece it claims Antifa primarily rose in response to Trump’s election. A web search will clearly show Antifa in the U.S. pre-dates Trump’s nomination, and even the SPLC has articles going back before 2009 on Antifa. NBC doesn’t go into any of that detail, or even have a second “expert” quoted to give a counter narrative about Antifa. Instead, a video shown with the article has Richard Cohen (SPLC) on, but they talk to him initially about white supremacists. The second person in the video is Mark Brey, a “pro” Antifa person. The SPLC has articles explaining on their own website that Antifa is an extremist group and its background. Richard Cohen never confronts the Antifa person directly with their history, which he knows very well. To the contrary, he lets Cuomo allow the Antifa proponent describe their own history (inaccurately). At one point in the video, Cuomo even appears to downplay Cohen’s concerns.

12. On August 18th, NBC did a piece on the Boston Free Speech rally and the counter rallies. The title of the piece is “Thousands Expected to Attend Boston Protests of Right-Wing Rally”. The organizers of the Free Speech rally did not call it a “right-wing” rally, and as a matter of fact one of the organizers, Joey Gibson, has said clearly that he is not a conservative. The writer of the piece describes (by name) some of the scheduled Free Speech rally speakers (the ones who are more “right leaning”), but doesn’t describe (by name) the libertarian speakers. There was also apparently a transgender speaker, but that wasn’t mentioned in the piece.

CBS

CBS also deals with Antifa by basically ignoring them (search for “antifa” on their www.cbsnews.com site, and very few articles are returned). Search for “black bloc” and you’ll get more, but mostly old pieces.

13. At the end of the piece “What is the “alt-left” Trump was talking about?”, CBS News makes a couple of assertions, without any actual evidence:

a. They imply Trump said that “most” of the “protesters” were armed, but he did not say that.

b. They state “While there were some Antifa protesters with batons, but they were vastly outnumbered by armed white supremacists. The white supremacists committed the worst acts of violence at the rally, including one who appeared to deliberately plow into counter-protesters with a car, killing one woman.” While the murder of Heather Heyer was of course the worst act, they give no actual evidence that any of the other acts committed by the white supremacists were worse than those committed by Antifa proponents. They just make the assertion, as if it is fact.

14. In “Boston ‘free speech’ rally ends after counter-protesters take to streets”, CBS shows bias in several ways:

a. They never use the word Antifa, although Antifa adherents were clearly there (CBS mentions “black clad” protesters, instead of “Antifa”).

b. The writer describes what the protesters chanted, but never mentions what the “free speech” advocates actually talk about during the event.

c. They never ask about the organizers of the counter protesters, like they do the free speech organizer.

d. They note that the police asked “individuals” not to throw urine and bottles, but don’t expand on that and explain who the individuals were, or that throwing urine and feces is an Antifa/black bloc tactic that occurs at many events they attend.

ABC

15. ABC News has barely covered Antifa as well. In “Explaining antifa protests in the wake of Charlottesville“, discusses Antifa, but basically allows its proponents and co-protesters to define it for them, instead of seeking unbiased sources. Note, the SPLC is not quoted in this piece, nor is any recognizable expert that has studied Antifa in America. The piece doesn’t discuss Antifa’s propensity for violence (even advocacy of violence), beyond saying that “Some antifa activists ascribe to violence as a solution to combating the perceived threat of fascism, while others do not.” It never mentions things like Antifa proponents throwing urine bottles at police in Boston, rioting at Trump’s inauguration, etc. The auto-play video doesn’t discuss Antifa. Instead, it discusses white supremacy in America.

NY Times

16. The NY Times covered Antifa in February, 2017. They discuss how Antifa caused problems during the Inauguration, but completely glossed over the amount of damage done during the DeploraBall (all the piece says is they tried to “block the entrance” to the ball, but it’s clear from video taken at the time that more was done than just blocking entrances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTSFy7wXnSY). The piece also makes the assertion that Antifa is “disowned by all but the most radical politiicans” on the left, but provides no actual evidence to support that: no interviews/statements denouncing Antifa from Democrat/Socialist politicians, like Pelosi, Reid, Warren, Gutierrez, Obama, Cuomo, DeBlasio, etc.

17. In “A Far Right Gathering Bursts into Brawls”, the author clearly speaks of there being two sides fighting equally, but then inserts the familiar “white nationalists face off against…” phrasing, which sets up the racists as the natural instigators of the violence (which may be true, but which is not verified as being accurate in this instance). The article is speckled with several photos, but (beyond the first photograph) some of them are strangely cropped (you see Confederate flags and racists as aggressors, but no real markers of those who were there on the left who were being aggressive). Anyone who views actual footage of the events can see there were clearly two equal protagonists to the violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TWCEV5U09c.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-protests-unite-the-right.html?mcubz=0

18. The lead photo used for a NY Times piece entitled “One Theory Over Meaning of Trump’s ‘Many Sides’ Remark” is also strangely cropped. It shows national socialists and the Confederate flag, but although the piece is supposed to be discussing the “other side”, there are no photos of members of the other side at the Charlottesville rally. The author never acknowledges video that actually shows the “other side” as aggressors. The author also actually implies that “black-masked radical leftists who smash windows and hurl firebombs” can’t be an equal menace with racists. The author provides statistics on murders, but none on actual attempted murders or terrorist violence that fails (like the attack on Scalise and other law makers that were unsuccessful, or the attempt by a leftist to kill people at the Family Research Council facility, or the attempt in 2012 by Occupy “anarchists” to blow up a bridge in Cleveland).

Washington Post

19. The Washington Post ran a piece on August 16th that claims to define Antifa, but it’s written by Mark Brey, who is actually a self-admitted Antifa proponent (as is shown in the video NBC News presented in article #11). That is never revealed in the piece. Brey makes it clear Antifa proponents use violence, but makes a point to call out Trump’s “two sides” comment as if Trump were wrong.

20. In the first paragraph of “Anarchists and the antifa: The history of activists Trump condemns as the ‘alt-left”, the author adroitly forgets to mention that Antifa engaged in violence in Charlottesville. Note that she states that Antifa engaged in violence at the Trump Inauguration, and she notes that they toppled a Confederate statue in North Carolina. However, in Charlottesville, she doesn’t characterize their actions at all. She inserts Trump’s statement that they did, but never independently provides the reader with facts one way or the other. The author also only uses Antifa or anti-fascist proponents as authorities to quote. No countervailing arguments from a voice of authority (like the left’s SPLC) are presented.

)
    Azaelia Brambleburrن

    Written by

    Bible believing Christian just watchin' the body politic. Galatians 3:28 promoter. Recognizes that NoH8 usually means 'Don't hate me while I curse you out.'

    Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
    Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
    Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade