“Did you see that video of that officer throwing a woman to the ground? She was pregnant, right?” – “Yes, intense! But I also read that that officer is now being threatened, that also goes too far.” – “Oh really? Jesus man, what gets into people?” Such a conversation must be the dream scenario of the police communications department, after one of its employees has crossed the line.
The story was initially unambiguous: a pregnant woman was indeed thrown to the ground in an asylum center in mid-May. That is not a nice story for the police, it caused a lot of outrage in the Netherlands and abroad. And it’s on screen, so there’s no denying it. So what do you do as a spokesperson? You put a second story next to it. A story where the officer is not a perpetrator, but a victim. If you now Google the incident, you will come across headlines such as “Police receive threats via social media following arrest in Zeist asylum seekers’ center”, (De Volkskrant), “Police receive threats on social media after Zeist arrest” (NOS) and “Police receive ‘severe threats’ on social media after arrest in Zeist” (Nu.nl).
The fact that an officer is threatened says nothing about the incident that gave rise to that threat
The same happened after images emerged in January of a police officer kicking a woman in Utrecht and hitting her with a baton. Google that event and you will read “Officer goes into hiding with family after commotion about arrest in Utrecht” (Heart of the Netherlands), “’Shitload of threats’ for officer who used violence against women under Utrecht’s Bollendak” (A.D) and “Officer who used violence against women in Utrecht is threatened, police say” (NRC).
A story about police violence is contrasted with a story about aggression against the police. In America the police responded Black Lives Matter of Blue Lives Matter. The problem with that is that the second story is irrelevant to the first story. The fact that an officer is threatened says nothing about the incident that gave rise to that threat. And no matter how bad it is when people are threatened; it’s not necessarily newsworthy. People are constantly threatened online for all kinds of things. Unfortunately, if you’re the subject of a fuss, there’s a good chance it will happen. So why is it news if the first reason is that the police have misbehaved?
The story is brought out to level the narrative: this may be bad, but this is not okay either. On the surface it is now a story with more nuance, with different sides. And it’s not just the police who are involved. DJ Ruud de Wild was under fire in March because he did not take documentary maker Julie Ng seriously in an extremely unpleasant conversation on the radio and only made jokes about stereotypes of Asian food, after which Ng filed a complaint about racism with the NPO. De Wild apologized in a statementbut especially took a lot of time to discuss the threats against him. The fact that he subsequently left the studio during the broadcast was in protest against those threats; not because he started to reflect after he himself had missed the mark.
This creates a battle for victimhood; whoever is seen as a victim has the sympathy of the audience. ‘Officer kicks woman’ becomes ‘police are threatened after fuss about arrest’. Media must be reluctant to simply copy this type of ‘news’ and make it part of the narrative. It may feel awkward to just ignore it, but in cases like this it’s nothing more than a diversion.