The Standing Rock Protest: Covering the Coverage

Mike McCleary | Bismarck Tribune Dallas Goldtooth, a member of the Lower Sioux Dakota Nation in Minnesota and of the Indigenous Environmental Network, shouts to the crowd gathered at the Seven Councils Camp north of Cannon Ball about Wednesday’s (Aug. 24) delayed decision by a federal judge on the injunction against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

For more than two weeks, thousands of Native Americans and their allies have camped near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, on the Sioux Standing Rock reservation. They’re speaking out against the Dakota Access pipeline, which would be 1,170 miles of pipeline going from the Bakken to other pipelines in Illinois. Demonstrators are saying the pipeline is environmentally dangerous, as it threatens their access to water. In addition, they deem it culturally dangerous, as it would disrupt Sioux burial grounds. As of Tuesday afternoon, six additional tribes joined the protests.

As a journalism review, we need to examine the issues that have come up surrounding the coverage of this event. It’s something that’s relatively close to home and touches on similar issues that Montanans care about — native rights and environmental protection. We need to also cover the other side — what will this pipeline do for the northwest’s economy as a whole? As MJR staff members, we need to cover this because a large part of the dialogue has questioned why the media haven’t been as present. We will discuss why the media do and don’t cover protests, and what that means for journalists.

Our approach will be delivering active social media coverage over the weekend while the reporters are at Standing Rock, quickly followed by a piece on MJR’s website about their experience, which will culminate in a print story about the media’s role, as well as a multimedia package that tells the story of how all these components (protesters, citizens, journalists and companies) come together.