The 1968-2024 Democratic convention mash-up turned out to be largely a media creation.
The whole world was watching Chicago last week, and what it saw was a joyous celebration in a beautiful city, not one wracked by chaos and violence like back in 1968.
The whole world was watching Chicago last week, and what it saw was a joyous celebration in a beautiful city, not one wracked by chaos and violence like back in 1968. I’m sure that was a disappointment for protest organizers who had promised 1968 2.0 as well as for Donald Trump and his MAGA hordes, who no doubt hoped for imagery they could distort.
The vibrant, happy convention proved yet one more blow to the credibility of some news outlets that spent months regurgitating 56-year-old videos and grainy photos of Chicago police clashing with anti-Vietnam War protestors during the 1968 convention. Those “could it happen again” stories were everywhere, especially in the last few weeks.
As a former television news producer, I get it. That 1968 stuff is powerful, especially when you mix it with the claims from 2024 protest organizers that the very same level of tumult was going to happen all over again. Yet 2024 is not 1968. Journalists, once again, should have known better, and their misguided speculation further wounds their already hemorrhaging credibility.
You don’t actually have to be old enough to remember the 1960s to learn the differences. Five minutes online would suffice. In 1968, young Americans were being drafted and sent to war in Vietnam. Our government had not made a compelling case for that war, yet over half a million conscripts were sent overseas to fight. The country had seen widespread protests over the war, and the presidential candidates differed about what we should do. But 2024 shares none of those traumas.
In 1968, Americans were still recovering from an era of mass protests and political violence. The Civil Rights movement had achieved significant victories, but the backlash was fierce. Rev. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. They both had been leaders of young Americans, who were left feeling abandoned, attacked and frustrated at every turn.
In 1968, party leaders controlled the nomination process, leaving anti-war Americans little say in the process. And, of course, police tactics in 1968 were entirely different than today. The trauma leading up to the 1968 convention was far deeper and far wider, and there were far fewer opportunities to heal than we have today.
Reporters are not historians, but ignorance of history can lead them astray, especially when they insist on making historical analogies. It’s better to focus on the news they are trained to report. Had they done so, they might have reported on police reforms in Chicago and elsewhere. They might have reported on changes in the nominating process that give dissenting voices more opportunity to be heard. They might have reported on the disparate impact the Gaza war and the Vietnam War have on ordinary Americans. They might have reported on the differences between an administration who tells the truth about a war and one that lies about it.
Instead, too many hyped the potential for violence in the streets. And once again, they have been to look like fools.
Media critic Max Tani of Semafor noted: “It’s been really, really mellow in comparison to some of these stories that people were writing about how the convention was gonna be just like the chaos of 1968. That narrative ended up kind of being something that the media created.”
He’s right. The 1968-2024 mash-up turned out to be largely a media creation. I’d argue that Chicago’s 1996 Democratic convention made for a more meaningful comparison with the 2024 gathering. But the delegates doing the Macarena as they renominated Bill Clinton and Al Gore probably weren’t as sexy as the 1968 police vs protestor pandemonium, especially for a news media obsessed with clicks. What does it mean for journalism and for democracy when the big stories in the news are actually just media creations? Nothing good.
It wasn’t just the over abundance of 1968 remembrance stories that created a false reality. Just as they do with crazy right-wing sources, the media once again amplified voices making claims that lacked any real credibility. The convention chaos myth was peddled by DNC protest organizers. For months, they told every microphone they could find that something big was going to happen in Chicago with comments like “make it great like ’68” and to “make bruises from Chicago police batons the 2024 back-to-school fall fashion.”
It’s fine to quote these folks, I am not arguing for censorship. But oh, how bored I am saying this again: Journalism is not stenography. Where’s the context? Where’s the evidence?
More signs than protestors at the Democratic convention in Chicago last week.
Have we learned nothing since Donald Trump lied about the size of his inaugural audience? Certainly, the reporters who publish these statements and headlines without any effort to wrap them in reality have not: “I don’t think it is unreasonable to say 40,000 or even 50,000 people will be outside of the DNC,” and “Palestinians Promise Largest Protests Ever As DNC Descends On Chicago.” Months of news coverage like that puts an entire city on edge. And it was just the reporting, not anything in the real world, that caused such anxiety.
Tens of thousands of protestors didn’t come to Chicago last week. There were fewer than 100 arrests and few injuries. The Chicago Police Department was actually complimented for its handling of the smaller than expected protest rallies. In reality, it was nothing like 1968, as Cameron Joseph of the Christian Science Monitor reported:
“Organizers had predicted last week that the protest might draw as many as 40,000 people – four times the number of anti-Vietnam War protesters that showed up in Chicago in 1968. But Monday’s turnout, at most a few thousand, was small enough that hundreds of protest signs sat unused in piles.”
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank ridiculed the 1968 protest comparisons:
“The 1968 riots brought 15,000 demonstrators and hundreds of arrests amid police brutality and tear gas. The trial of the organizers — the Chicago Seven — became the stuff of legend. But, walking all around the United Center security perimeter on Tuesday, I couldn’t find a single protester, much less a Chicago seven. Instead, in Union Park, epicenter of the week’s protests, I found a dog fetching a ball and 18 cops lounging on benches in the shade, their bikes parked in a line. I asked how the protests were going. ‘Just the birds and the bees,’ remarked one.”
I think there are some important lessons here for the news media, if they have any interest in learning them. Looking back for historical connections is a good idea, but it requires some effort. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch had an interesting piece on a 81-year-old suburban Chicago man who put down his camera to join the 1968 protests. But too many other news stories seemed to just recited old tropes about 1968 instead of breaking any new ground like Bunch did.
Both America and Chicago have changed in important ways in the more than half a century since 1968. I wish more journalists had interviewed historians and sociologists to talk about those changes. On top of it being an interesting topic, doing so might have prevented them from exaggerating news rather than reporting it.
Jennifer Schulze is a Chicago journalist reporting on journalism. Follow Jennifer on Threads @newsjennifer_schulze or Twitter/X @NewsJennifer.