Media's role in shaping perceptions of traffic violence

If it's not victim-blaming, it's killer-downplaying.

Here’s how journalists tend to report on traffic violence:

• "The pedestrian, who may have been distracted by their phone, died at the hospital."

• "The cyclist, who was wearing a helmet, will be buried Friday."

• "The driver, who remained at the scene, fears they will suffer nightmares."

• “Police officers, who tried to console the driver, said drugs and alcohol did not appear to be factors.”

The story of Magnus White is the latest illustration. 

Media empire ESPN pulls in 100s of millions of dollars every year in sponsorship deals with auto makers, auto insurance, gas stations, tire manufacturers, etc. So perhaps the way they reported driver-vs-cyclist violence shouldn't be a surprise:

The force of the collision sent White, who was wearing a helmet, off the roadway and into a fence. He was pronounced dead at a hospital. 

The driver of the Toyota was not injured.

The New York Times was more direct in their soft pedaling:

After tossing around potential phrases to describe a teenager killed by a driver in their social media posts, the paper of record landed on "died while training."

Anyone who considers themselves a safety advocate needs to understand that details like bike helmets, earbuds, flip-flops, and dark clothing aren’t the issue. Motorists are the issue. 

People driving cars are killing people walking and bicycling, and the societal response sounds like an Eeyore whimper, if that. It’s not a journalist’s fault that someone drove too fast, lost control, and clipped a bike. But the reporting—the story framing—makes all the difference in how people react to the tragedies.

Maybe if we start categorizing public safety reporting as a culture war issue, it’ll get the attention it deserves.