Modern Day Policing and Freedom of the Press

The declaration “with liberty and justice for all” so visibly enshrined in the American consciousness has an unsettling track record of troubling behavior directed against journalists. Katherine Jacobsen, U.S. Research Associate with the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), recently sat down with Dave Mayers of VICE and Andy Mannix of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, to explore the influence of policing on modern-day reporting. 

Jacobsen begins her report by looking at the dramatic increase in police infringements on press freedom following the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and the subsequent civil rights protests. The summer of 2020, which saw numerous marches and public demonstrations, also saw violence directed towards journalists, which was systemically catalogued by the CPJ. Jacobsen seeks to situate this violence towards the press not only within a period of civil unrest but also a period of radical police militarization. 

The roots of this phenomenon can be traced back to 1990 when the first Bush administration passed an act allowing the military to send unused equipment to municipal law enforcement to better police drug-related offenses. This act was further expanded in 1997 with the now-infamous “1033 Program,” which broadened the situations in which such military-grade equipment could be used. As a result, police officers who at one point were armed with a gun and a badge quickly evolved into a group that resembled militarized special forces. Armed with high-powered rifles and armored vehicles, as well as officers eager to put them to use, municipal police forces’ methods of policing took a turn towards the violent. Some insist, however, that today these tools are needed to effectively protect the community. 

The effects of such militarization can be seen with Dave Mayers, who chimes in with details of his experiences in Minneapolis. Reporting on the city-wide protests alongside his crew, Mayers was stopped by an officer from the Minnesota State Patrol. “They raised their weapons at us and not like tear gas — these were rifles. When they raised their rifles, that’s when I got scared,” he remembers. All the journalists in the party were then hand-cuffed with zip ties and brought to a local jail, where they were kept for several hours. The charge? Violating curfew, which Mayers points out, did not apply to members of the press. While the charges were eventually dropped, the event casts a shadow on the freedom of journalists to do their job, and the ability of police officers to enforce the law objectively and fairly. Critics of the police argue that even if a curfew violation were legal grounds for arrest (which in this case it was not), the violent reaction on the part of the officers far exceeded the threat posed. Andy Mannix adds his experience of being struck by a rubber bullet and tear-gassed, before explaining how difficult it was to interview police officers afterward.

While arguments range back and forth across political aisles, within town councils, and on online message boards, the reality for journalists on the ground like Mayers is clear: fear reigns supreme. Journalists today cannot be secure in the knowledge that a press badge will guarantee them fair treatment. In fact, Jacobsen says, “At CPJ, we found that, in some cases, police targeted reporters on purpose.” She concludes by emphasizing the role of journalists in a functioning democracy. At the Committee to Protect Journalists, we continue to monitor police violations against journalists at U.S. protests like the ones in this piece. On our website, cpj.org, you can find the latest information about press freedom issues around the world, along with features and analysis,” she says. Fair reporting is a hallmark of a stable democracy. While some like Mayers are doubtful that change will occur, articles such as this one are small yet important first steps that shed light on a growing problem. What remains is the larger task of effecting tangible change.