February 7, 2025 • 28 mins
I speak with Dr. Jessica H. Beard, a trauma surgeon, researcher, and advocate for ethical reporting on gun violence. Dr. Beard, an Associate Professor of Surgery at Temple University and Director of Trauma Research, discusses her groundbreaking study on harmful news reporting of community firearm violence (CFV). Her research highlights how media coverage can exacerbate trauma and perpetuate racial disparities. We explore the role of journalism in shaping public perception and how evidence-based reporting can drive meaningful change.
đź”— Learn more:Â PCGVR | Temple Health | Dr. Beard on BlueSky
First, I’m joined by Nile Blass, a dedicated community organizer and political strategist with a passion for youth engagement and social equity. A Georgetown alumna, Nile has worked at the intersection of grassroots organizing and policy strategy, helping individuals and communities build power through advocacy and relational organizing.As we navigate a pivotal political moment—from ongoing confirmation hearings to executive orders and national events—Nile shares insights on what this time demands from us and how everyday people can engage in effective opposition
.đź”— Follow Nile Blass:
đź”— Learn more:Â PCGVR | Temple Health | Dr. Beard on BlueSky
First, I’m joined by Nile Blass, a dedicated community organizer and political strategist with a passion for youth engagement and social equity. A Georgetown alumna, Nile has worked at the intersection of grassroots organizing and policy strategy, helping individuals and communities build power through advocacy and relational organizing.As we navigate a pivotal political moment—from ongoing confirmation hearings to executive orders and national events—Nile shares insights on what this time demands from us and how everyday people can engage in effective opposition
.đź”— Follow Nile Blass:
- Bluesky: @backwardriver.bsky.social
- LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/nblass
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning. You're listening to Insight, a show about empowering
our community. I'm Lorraine Ballad Morrel. Credible reporting is critical,
but when does reporting on gun violence cause more harm
than good? I speak to doctor Jessica Beard from the
Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting about a new study
that shows that TV coverage can retraumatize survivors and reinforce
(00:21):
negative stereotypes, and she also talks about what we can
do about it. First, as the nation absorbs the massive
sea change resulting from the election of President Trump, an
activist offer some advice. Today, we're joined by Now Blass,
a dedicated community organizer and political strategist with a passion
for youth engagement and social equity. Nile has worked at
(00:45):
the intersection of grassroots organizing in policy strategy, helping individuals
and communities build power through advocacy and relational organizing. As
we navigate a pivotal political moment from ongoing confirmation, here
brings to executive orders and recent national events. Now it
will show her. Now will share her insights on what
(01:07):
this time demands from us and now everyday people can
engage in effective opposition. Now we're excited to have you
here with us today, and let me begin by asking
this question. We are in a politically charged moment, with
confirmation hearings, executive orders, and major policy shifts. What are
(01:28):
the most urgent issues you think people need to be
paying attention to right now?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Yeah, so I think this has now become like a
common part of the conversation.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
But the speed in which we're seeing executive orders.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
The the guity when it comes to execution, are we
talking about headstart or we talking about medicaid? When it
comes to the stocking of federal funding. Part of that
is an attempt to dissuade and confuse the opposition, because
if we're putting forward litigation, if we're trying to mobilize
in person and rallies in front of USAD, knowing what's
happened is paramount to that, right, So we have to
(02:02):
know that this is all strategic. But I've been thinking
a lot about what people's role is, and I think
that what we have to lean into is the idea
that it's completely different for each of us. There are
different institutional and individual and community commitments and points of
action that we could be considering. So on the minutire
right when you're looking at independent media and responsible journalism.
(02:22):
Do you have a journalist who might have lost their
job at the Washington Post or other spaces that are
shifting towards not let's say, partisan, but not factual and
compromising narrative. Do they have a newsletter that you could
be signing on to. Do they have a GoFundMe where
you could be supporting them?
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Right?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Are you supporting Wikipedia and other form or archive history
which has been really essentral to some of the data
that's being deleted from the CDC. An example that I
talk about a lot is you know, I have family
who are in food deserts, both urban and rural. Right,
And so the one full stop shop they have for
not just groceries, but pharmaceuticals and other things is there Walmart?
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Right?
Speaker 2 (02:59):
And Walmart one of the corporations, one of the minority corporations.
We can talk about that like that narrative between what's
actually happening, what we actually are seeing. But as one
of the corporations that has explicitly stepped back from some
of its DIA commitments, is it my ask of those
family members to ban themselves from that? And I take example.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
In support of that resource locally.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
No, that might be something that I'm able to do
in DC where I have different opportunities farmers markets and
through that nature. Just because they can't do that doesn't
mean there aren't different ways they could be investing into
their local networks, but that it can be promoting reliable
information with their individuals, preparing to help voter register, and
doing even non voter but advocacy power building activities in
their communities.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So, I feel like that was a little bit of
a hodgepodge answer, but I really think that the call
to action for everyone should be intentional and specific towards
what you can give, and what you can give.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Consistently and what you can support other people in giving.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
I love that answer because everybody has an individual capacity
for moving forward in organizing resistance. So I wonder if
you could talk about some mistakes that people make in
organizing resistance.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yeah, So, I think sometimes there's being gratified and then
there's being effective. And so we have a lot of
balls in the air right now, and so part of
that is claiming and reclaiming narrative and verbiage. Right, So,
when we're talking about DEIA, for example, while we can
say that there's an attack on it, that it's systematic,
(04:26):
that it's not really an attack on DiiA.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
It's so much as it is an attack.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
On women and minorities and other people in positions of
power and decision making, right, Like if we actually granule
it down and call.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
It what it is.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
I guess actually an analogy that I just came up
with is that we don't trust the lion to tell
you how scary it is and what it can do, right,
We actually.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Have to look at what's happening.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
So when we're looking at the DII and the Dustbin narrative,
what we're actually seeing is that even the Heritage Foundation
is conceding of all these fortune five hundred companies, four
hundred and eighty six still have inclusion statements. Right, So
that's the first thing that we have to be there
on like what's actually happening and what narratives are we combating.
But I think another mistake that we're making is that
(05:06):
it's not enough to be right the I told you so.
While important when it comes to pushing against the misinformation,
what's actually happening in the reality of the field, that's important,
But what we really need to be doing is breaking
down people's misconceptions, their concerns and actually relating them to
what they should be doing and what's actually.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Happening to them in their communities.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Right, So it's not just enough to be like you
voted for this thing and this is why this is happening,
and now you're losing medicaid. Like that can maybe be
gratifying when you feel like you're on the right side
of the political argument, but that's not actually moving people,
and not just moving your opposition, but moving the people
who are going to be misaligned. So we have undocumented
neighbors or people who formally were documented, who were legally
(05:45):
here and are having temporary and even long term protections
and rights.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Of staying revoked. Right.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
We have Muslim and Arab neighbors, we have black and
brown neighbors, we have queer neighbors. All of them are
being attacked in different points and positions.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
So instead of going to a group of people who
we don't feel can be moved, because we're an economy
of time and resource, every conversation needs to be something
that progresses us, whether it's to a local action to
a national action.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
When we have that limited amount of reach. Individually and institutionally.
We need to be building coalition. We need to be
going to people who are responsive, who can be negotiated with,
who are, if not in concern of the nation itself,
in concern of their community, and can be compelled to
action and education and research. Right, So, I think those
are the two things we need to know who we're
talking to. We need to know who in our communities
(06:32):
we're coalescing around and.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Who we're engaging and supporting.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
And we need to know that we have to I
guess if the joke is standing on business, but we
also have to know what we're advocating for and what's
actually happening, and when there is this gray area between
the two, that we're bridging that gap in ways that
are really accessible for other people to kind of understand
and hop in on.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Now, Trump's recent executive orders and memos have sparked controversy,
as have his remarks on the DCA plane collision. How
do these actions fit into the larger political strategy we're
seeing play out, and how should communities respond?
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, So I think first and foremost, there's this narrative
that I've been seeing, and I think that it's the
core of what I want to say here, which is
these last few weeks have been dizzying, but it's time
to get up off the mat. We had our moment,
and we're already seeing people do it right. So I
think even just this morning, we have the City of
Baltimore in coalition with different restaurants, with higher education officials
(07:28):
with workers, So we're seeing class consciousness intersections there suing
to or rather putting forward a complaint when it comes
to the anti DiiA. They're saying that it's overreaching of
presidential authority and that it's going to have severe consequences, right.
And that's same as the temporary freezes that we're seeing
on the attempt to freeze federal grants from the Trump administration, right,
and the retraction of the MEMBO, and even the retraction
(07:49):
of the retraction of the retraction of Tuskegee Airmen, and
some of the training information that our armed forces.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Are putting forward right.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
So, what I think is that we're seeing this level
of what can we do within possible reason to deny
people points of access, And some of it is stretching
the legality of the Constitution, and some of it is
straight and legal, like I've even forgot, like we're I
think Public Citizen is suing the Treasury Department when it
(08:18):
came to JOJ employees and their access to people's private
information and securities, and not just people's personal information, but
access to the systems that decide and help forward state
funding from the federal government to state governments.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
So even that conversation is going to be really complicated,
right because if I'm saying you have to put forward
a voter ID law to get your Social Security and
Medicaid funding, what is that then do to the state
argument that we were just happening about, like Roe v.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Wade and state rights for abortion and things that nature.
What I think we're.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Seeing is a blitz that is supposed to bring to
form as much confusion as possible, so that if you
are in a position of leadership, especially because we have
to be protective of our federal servants, because those are
really going to be the lie between whether or not
a random twenty four year old who's taking a semester
off from telecommunications can get access to your Social Security
and whether or not they're going to be like, hey,
(09:10):
I have to say that you don't have access to
the system, right, So I think we're seeing attempts to
really push the institutions, but we're also doing things that
don't really have a mandate, that don't really have explicit
purpose other than transforming the cultural conversation. You're not going
to ban trans people from existing, but what you can
do is take transitioned individuals and put them in the
(09:31):
opposing gender prisons, which puts them in danger.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
You can, as they attempted to do, erase.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Them from data sets with the CDC, because if we're
not actually naming these different races and communities of people,
if we're not tracking the different impacts of them, the
ideas we can institutionally pretend that they don't exist. So
we have a lot of cultural and social change and
deciding of rhetoric that we have to push against.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
But we also have them constraining as.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Much as possible the constitution to see what they can
do in latitude, especially because we're currently seeing congressional leadership
deny their constitutional responsibility to advise to mandate the actual
allocation of funding. In the absence of that, it almost
seems like the president is trying to.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Legislate, which is problematic as we can.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
See definitely looking ahead Nile, What should people be doing
now to prepare for upcoming elections and legislative battles? How
can they move from passive concern to meaningful action.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
A phrase that I've coined a lot is this idea
of not being hit by slow moving train, right. And
I think that we're really in this unique moment with
Product twenty twenty five, not just that, but the memos,
with some of the conversations that we're hearing from federal agencies,
from whistleblowers. We know what's on the table, right, So
for example, when it comes to voting rights, we know
that it's a House leadership priority to put forward the
Save Act, and the Save Act we know, Well, if
(10:46):
you don't know, That's one of the things that I
ask is that you're consistently up to date on reliable.
If it has to be non partisan, make it nonpartisan,
If it has to be independent, especially in this moment,
make an independent, but being very consistent in the media
and the updates and the congressional and other federal and
state level, the local, all these different intersections of what's
happening in your communities.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Being up to date with that right.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Because if we're thinking about the Save Act, in all
likelihood it's going to pass right just because we have
a trifected government. That doesn't mean that there's not going
to be some judicial or state based intervention later down
the line.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
But we know this might explain I'm sorry, explain the
Save Act.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
So technically we already have a requirement of verification when
it comes to whether or not you're a citizen in
advanced view voting right. This doesn't take the form of
having to have documentation like a birth certificate, documentation that
we know is not wildly accessible to different communities of people.
And also, when we're thinking about in person voter registration,
the type of information that the average person who may
(11:41):
have been willing to get registered to vote and to
act on, like, you know, their right to engage in democracy,
wouldn't because now the stranger needs me to give them
the Social Security card, and why am I going to
do that at tabling at a grocery store. When we
think about those barriers and intersections, we have to think about,
if we know this is happening, what conversations are we
happening within our communities, within our institution, right So if
(12:02):
we know that that's going to be dealing with really
sensitive materials and we still need to vote to register people,
do we have like churches, community service members, community representatives,
and matriarchs who can be creating spaces of maybe if
you don't trust the tabling, you trust it here and
you can come into this community space.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
And still vote to register. Right, if we know that
ICE is going.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
To be raiding urban and rural environments, are we doing
community door to door trainings around how do you talk
about your undocumented neighbors?
Speaker 3 (12:30):
How do you intervene in ways that don't also put
you in danger? Right?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Are we calling and preparing scripts for people to call
their congressional representatives to show up in person, not just
to the nation's capital, but to their local state based
offices to talk about not just what they don't want
them to pass, but the opposition that they want to
put forward. Are you calling your senator and congress person
and asking them I think sometimes we devalue like the
radical power of stalling, like we can't stop everything, but
(12:57):
I need you to oppose every nomination.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
I need you to fill a buster as much as possible.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I need you to make it incredibly painful and explicit
that the denial of my rights as a citizen or
just as a resident of this country. Because what makes
its amazing is that we're more than just our literal
legal citizen when it comes to the economy, when it
comes to.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Our culture, all that stuff. Are you a stop gap?
The consequence of.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Not being a stop gap is being primary. So I
also think that like putting forward the power that we
have down the pipeline of these are who I have
to rely on. Here's who I'm supporting, Here's who I'm
acting being to act, But I also have the game
plan in the absence of their action, because the absence
of your action has a consequence information action. Just being
really intentional on what you could be doing person to person,
(13:42):
I think is just what comes to mind.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
I love it. So if people want to check out
some websites or resources, do you have any recommendations that
they could check out?
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Yeah, so one.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
I'm not here to representing the league, but I do
think vote four one one is really great, especially in
the states that are going to having upcoming state legislator
based elections, because even as we're looking two years ahead
for the midterm, is this becomes the state rights conversation.
Who's flipping your state house and senate matters, gubernatorial representative matters, right,
So being aware of that and having access not just
(14:16):
to who's going to be on the ballot, but surveys
when it comes to what they're saying, what they put
forward to like this is the moment where I really
need to.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Know where your stance is on reproductive health.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Right.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
So I think that's a really great resource.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
I also think that the way Back Machine actually, which
is the archive of based website that I was talking about,
has been doing a lot when it comes to preserving
a lot of the data and research around the differences
in even just how prescription drugs engage in male versus
female systems that are being erased from these key like
essential resources where we can otherwise access them, like making
(14:47):
sure that we're supportive of that right now. Like Phil
Lewis is an independent, culturally informed journalist who I love
and I follow up on his newsletter and I donate
when I can, I would also really recommend him.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
I would recommend even.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Just looking up locally based operating newspapers, right whether it's
like the Boston dot org, whether it's like the dcs here, like,
where can you be getting that more intentional community informed
reporting because that's probably going to have less bias and
less I guess performative focused then unfortunately what we're seeing
in a lot of our other national arenas of information.
(15:19):
So those are some of the resources that come to mind.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
That's great, and Billy Penn locally is a great news
source for the Philadelphia area now blasts dedicated community organizer
and political strategists. She's got a passion for youth engagement
and social equity. We thank you so much for providing
some ideas and options so that people can take action
because we're going to need to thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Nile, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
You're listening to insight. Doctor Jessica Beard is an Associate
Professor of Surgery and Director of Trauma Research at the
Lewis Kats School of Medicine at Temple University. She serves
as the Interim Trauma Program Medical Director at Temple University
(16:27):
Hospital and is a Stoneleigh Foundation Fellow. As Director of
Research for the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting, Doctor
Beard's work focuses on reducing the harms caused by community
firearm violence and its portrayal in news media. Her groundbreaking
research has been supported by the National Institutes of Health,
(16:48):
and she's authored studies examining the intersection of gun violence,
public health, and media reporting practices. Doctor Beard is joining
us here to tell us about a recent study defining
harmful news reporting on community firearms violence. What led you
to pursue this research.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
Thank you for that introduction, Lorraine, and it's great to
be here. So we've been doing research looking at how
our patients or fireminjured people feel or respond to news
reports about their injury. We've also looked at the actual
news reports in Philadelphia, and so what we've been kind
of doing with this research is developing science and developing
(17:26):
our understanding of what harmful reporting is, largely at the
individual level, how people who've been shot are harmed by
news reports.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
And there's a really.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Strong precedent for doing research on reporting in order to
change journalistic practices, and that's specifically when it comes to
reporting on suicide.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
And one of the things that really helped is.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
To define what is harmful, and that's what led us
to this research. Kind of modeling our work around the
suicide research and the information that they have there and
that's what we did in the study was talk to experts,
have experts do several rounds of surveys to define what
is harmful reporting.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I wonder if you can talk about some of your
key findings, the most significant harmful news content elements identified
in your study, and how did these elements impact individuals
and communities.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Yeah, and just for a little bit of background, this
study is called a Delphi Consensus study, and the group
of experts include people who've been impacted by gun violence,
fire injured people and their loved ones, journalists who are
reporting on gun violence, and also scholars. So we defined
expertise broadly and we were able to come to a
(18:44):
consensus with this group of experts. And this is anonymous,
so that each person has an equal voice and there's
not one voice overpowering everyone. And the experts determined that
there are twelve harmful news content elements that could cause
harm across.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Three different levels.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
And we thought including the three different levels was important
because we had looked, again, as I mentioned, largely at
the individual level and potentially at the community level, but
there's also sort of the larger discussion around how news
impacts our society, and we thought that those news content
elements would be different across those three levels. And this
gets into how journalists think about news reporting. They may think, well,
(19:26):
reporting on this shooting for public safety, but maybe including
the name of the treating hospital is going to hurt
the person that the news report is about. We also
asked the experts to grade the severity of harm, So
how severe was the harm potentially to be caused by
graphic content versus episodic framing. Episodic framing means when the
(19:48):
news report just talks about the single shooting event without
its context or its root causes. And you asked what
are the most harmful news content elements? So there were
three that were perceived or thought to cause harm, severe
harm at all three levels, so severe harm to individuals
who've been shot in their loved ones, at the community level,
(20:09):
to the community impacted, and at the society level. And
those were graphic and explicit content, usually like a video
or audio of a shooting, which we do see in
news reports in Philadelphia about gun violence. The episonic framing,
and then stories that do not explore solutions.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
How did the perspectives of those with lived experiences of
community firearm violence shape the outcomes of your research.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Well, I think they were really important to include obviously
in this study. Was the perspective of our patients from
our previous research as well. That informed the harmful news
content elements that we started the first survey with. And
I think what we found in one of the outcomes
was that severe harm was mostly seen in the news
(20:56):
content elements at the individual level. So eight of the
twelve news content elements were thought to potentially cause severe
harm at the level of the fire injured person and
the co victim. And I think that's reflective of the
involvement of our lived experience experts. We didn't look it's
a small sample size, just twenty one people, but again
(21:18):
their expertise is very important, and that's actually a normal
sample size for a study like this, so we weren't
able to kind of parse.
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Out who said what and that kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
But I think that the perspective of those with lived
experience added a lot of richness and real integrity to
this research.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
How does reducing harmful news reporting on community firearm violence
contribute to addressing health disparities, especially in marginalized communities.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
I think That's a great question, and it's one that
we think about a lot. One of the things that
our patients told us in our study where we interviewed them,
was that they were worried that harmful reporting, episodic reporting
that's present gun violence as an inevitable thing that we
can't solve, could actually be fueling a cycle of violence,
(22:07):
could actually be contributing to gun violence that has never
been researched. We don't know the answer to that question.
We are seeking to do research on that, but I
think if we can transform that narrative to one that's
not going to cause that harm, not going to harm individuals,
not going to harm society, then I think we could
potentially work on decreasing gun violence. The other concern is
(22:30):
that if we know that reporting is causing harm to
fire injured people, we know that's a disparity. That's a
help disparity because most of the people who get shot
in Philadelphia and around the country in interpersonal violence or
community fire and violence are.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Black people and Latin X people. So this frankly.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
Racist narrative that exists in news reports, especially kind of
sensationalized and these episodic reports, is directly harming this group
of people. So addressing that, making that better, that is
the work of dismantling structural racism.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
So what role do journalists and media outlets play and
reshaping the narrative around firearm violence and what practical steps
can they take based on your research?
Speaker 4 (23:16):
The power is all in the hands of the journalists,
and we know at the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence
that there are many journalists who are telling deeper stories
about gun violence.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
So we see the good and.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
Great reporting and we're really motivated by that, but we
also see these episodic crime stories every day on TV news,
and so I think, you know, rethinking those narratives, reshaping
those narratives to ones that explore root causes and solutions.
Speaker 5 (23:43):
One that include narrators besides the police.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
That was another news content element that was considered harmful.
Stories that include the perspectives of firearm injured people and
their loved ones, to emphasize the humanity of the victims
of gun violence and the human toll that gun violence takes.
Those are ways that the narrative can be transformed. At
the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting, we do have
(24:07):
a toolkit for better gun violence reporting it's a document
that includes recommendations that are evidence based regarding dues and
don't so certain language to include or not include, context,
to include, how to actually talk about the root causes
and solutions in a very simple way in order to
deepen the narrative and kind of push up against some
(24:29):
of the stereotypical or biased narratives that exist. And how
to when you actually have to go to a crime
scene to report, because journalists will have to do that,
how to look for community context and seek alternative narrators.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Doctor Bird, I wanted to also touch on where people
get information, because when we talk about reporting, we often
think about television, news, newspapers, maybe even the radio. But
we are finding more and more that people are consuming
information and news, whether it's accurate or inaccurate, through social
(25:06):
media and other forms of digital access. And I wonder
if you can talk a bit about what rule that
has in terms of our own perception about gun violence,
and how that contributes to this false narrative or how
it might hurt again in terms of being able to
(25:26):
address the issue of gun violence.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
At PCGBR, in our research collaborative, we've largely focused on
traditional news reporting and legacy media sources, and we chose
to do research looking at how local TV news reports
on gun violence because the communications research would show that
most people are still getting their news from the television,
(25:50):
and a lot of TV news is repurposed for digital sources,
and we see it present and social media as well.
Speaker 5 (25:57):
When we've evaluated social media page, when we.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Asked our patients, most of them are still utilizing television
for their news source. So I think that's kind of
the argument for being interested in TV news. I think
there are other great news sources that explore gun violence
more deeply, specifically dedicated to reporting on gun violence, like
(26:21):
the Traits for example, that folks can get their news from,
and be sure that there's a lot of research that's
gone into that. In terms of social media, it's a
really big question. I think, again, we're interested in TV
news because it does show up.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
On social media, but the question about.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
How social media impacts people's behavior and perspective on the
world is really unknown, and from what I understand, though
I'm not an expert, highly complex, and it hasn't been
a place that we've focused our research, but it's definitely
a place that we're interested in looking at going forward.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Doctor Bard. If people want more information on the research
that you've conducted and perhaps some feedback and suggestions about
how media can be better in terms of reporting on
gun violence, where do they go?
Speaker 4 (27:09):
So, the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting has a website.
It's PCGVR dot org. All of our research is available there.
There's a page about our collaborative research team. We have
actually four research studies that have been created by the collaborative.
They're all published in open access journals. So when you
(27:30):
go to those studies, you should be able to click
on them and download the entire pdf and read it.
And we do that on purpose. We're not just putting
our research published in a journal for nobody to read.
We want people to read this work. There are other
resources for journalists to join in a collaborative effort. A
group of gun violence prevention journalists are working together, so
(27:50):
that's really exciting. Also available on the website, and we
have a newsletter that you can sign up for that
gives weekly updates about the gun violence in Philadelphi and
then also more nationally.
Speaker 5 (28:01):
And then the resources and activities of PCGBR.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
All right, thank you so much, doctor Jessica Beard, Associate
Professor of Surgery and Director of Trauma Research at the
Lewiscat School of Medicine at Temple University, Interim Trauma Program
Medical director at Temple University Hospital, and director of Research
for the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting. Thank you so.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
Much, Thank you for having me full.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
You can listen to all of today's interviews by going
to our station website and typing in keyword Community. You
can also listen on the iHeartRadio Appy Words Philadelphia Community Podcast.
Follow me on Twitter and Instagram at Lorraine Ballard. I'm
Lorraine Ballard Morrow, and I stand for service to our
community and media that empowers. What will you stand for?
(28:48):
You've been listening to Insight and thank you.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
E A. G. L.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Eus Ells
Good morning. You're listening to Insight, a show about empowering
our community. I'm Lorraine Ballad Morrel. Credible reporting is critical,
but when does reporting on gun violence cause more harm
than good? I speak to doctor Jessica Beard from the
Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting about a new study
that shows that TV coverage can retraumatize survivors and reinforce
(00:21):
negative stereotypes, and she also talks about what we can
do about it. First, as the nation absorbs the massive
sea change resulting from the election of President Trump, an
activist offer some advice. Today, we're joined by Now Blass,
a dedicated community organizer and political strategist with a passion
for youth engagement and social equity. Nile has worked at
(00:45):
the intersection of grassroots organizing in policy strategy, helping individuals
and communities build power through advocacy and relational organizing. As
we navigate a pivotal political moment from ongoing confirmation, here
brings to executive orders and recent national events. Now it
will show her. Now will share her insights on what
(01:07):
this time demands from us and now everyday people can
engage in effective opposition. Now we're excited to have you
here with us today, and let me begin by asking
this question. We are in a politically charged moment, with
confirmation hearings, executive orders, and major policy shifts. What are
(01:28):
the most urgent issues you think people need to be
paying attention to right now?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Yeah, so I think this has now become like a
common part of the conversation.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
But the speed in which we're seeing executive orders.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
The the guity when it comes to execution, are we
talking about headstart or we talking about medicaid? When it
comes to the stocking of federal funding. Part of that
is an attempt to dissuade and confuse the opposition, because
if we're putting forward litigation, if we're trying to mobilize
in person and rallies in front of USAD, knowing what's
happened is paramount to that, right, So we have to
(02:02):
know that this is all strategic. But I've been thinking
a lot about what people's role is, and I think
that what we have to lean into is the idea
that it's completely different for each of us. There are
different institutional and individual and community commitments and points of
action that we could be considering. So on the minutire
right when you're looking at independent media and responsible journalism.
(02:22):
Do you have a journalist who might have lost their
job at the Washington Post or other spaces that are
shifting towards not let's say, partisan, but not factual and
compromising narrative. Do they have a newsletter that you could
be signing on to. Do they have a GoFundMe where
you could be supporting them?
Speaker 3 (02:37):
Right?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Are you supporting Wikipedia and other form or archive history
which has been really essentral to some of the data
that's being deleted from the CDC. An example that I
talk about a lot is you know, I have family
who are in food deserts, both urban and rural. Right,
And so the one full stop shop they have for
not just groceries, but pharmaceuticals and other things is there Walmart?
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Right?
Speaker 2 (02:59):
And Walmart one of the corporations, one of the minority corporations.
We can talk about that like that narrative between what's
actually happening, what we actually are seeing. But as one
of the corporations that has explicitly stepped back from some
of its DIA commitments, is it my ask of those
family members to ban themselves from that? And I take example.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
In support of that resource locally.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
No, that might be something that I'm able to do
in DC where I have different opportunities farmers markets and
through that nature. Just because they can't do that doesn't
mean there aren't different ways they could be investing into
their local networks, but that it can be promoting reliable
information with their individuals, preparing to help voter register, and
doing even non voter but advocacy power building activities in
their communities.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So, I feel like that was a little bit of
a hodgepodge answer, but I really think that the call
to action for everyone should be intentional and specific towards
what you can give, and what you can give.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Consistently and what you can support other people in giving.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
I love that answer because everybody has an individual capacity
for moving forward in organizing resistance. So I wonder if
you could talk about some mistakes that people make in
organizing resistance.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yeah, So, I think sometimes there's being gratified and then
there's being effective. And so we have a lot of
balls in the air right now, and so part of
that is claiming and reclaiming narrative and verbiage. Right, So,
when we're talking about DEIA, for example, while we can
say that there's an attack on it, that it's systematic,
(04:26):
that it's not really an attack on DiiA.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
It's so much as it is an attack.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
On women and minorities and other people in positions of
power and decision making, right, Like if we actually granule
it down and call.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
It what it is.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
I guess actually an analogy that I just came up
with is that we don't trust the lion to tell
you how scary it is and what it can do, right,
We actually.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Have to look at what's happening.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
So when we're looking at the DII and the Dustbin narrative,
what we're actually seeing is that even the Heritage Foundation
is conceding of all these fortune five hundred companies, four
hundred and eighty six still have inclusion statements. Right, So
that's the first thing that we have to be there
on like what's actually happening and what narratives are we combating.
But I think another mistake that we're making is that
(05:06):
it's not enough to be right the I told you so.
While important when it comes to pushing against the misinformation,
what's actually happening in the reality of the field, that's important,
But what we really need to be doing is breaking
down people's misconceptions, their concerns and actually relating them to
what they should be doing and what's actually.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Happening to them in their communities.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Right, So it's not just enough to be like you
voted for this thing and this is why this is happening,
and now you're losing medicaid. Like that can maybe be
gratifying when you feel like you're on the right side
of the political argument, but that's not actually moving people,
and not just moving your opposition, but moving the people
who are going to be misaligned. So we have undocumented
neighbors or people who formally were documented, who were legally
(05:45):
here and are having temporary and even long term protections
and rights.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Of staying revoked. Right.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
We have Muslim and Arab neighbors, we have black and
brown neighbors, we have queer neighbors. All of them are
being attacked in different points and positions.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
So instead of going to a group of people who
we don't feel can be moved, because we're an economy
of time and resource, every conversation needs to be something
that progresses us, whether it's to a local action to
a national action.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
When we have that limited amount of reach. Individually and institutionally.
We need to be building coalition. We need to be
going to people who are responsive, who can be negotiated with,
who are, if not in concern of the nation itself,
in concern of their community, and can be compelled to
action and education and research. Right, So, I think those
are the two things we need to know who we're
talking to. We need to know who in our communities
(06:32):
we're coalescing around and.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Who we're engaging and supporting.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
And we need to know that we have to I
guess if the joke is standing on business, but we
also have to know what we're advocating for and what's
actually happening, and when there is this gray area between
the two, that we're bridging that gap in ways that
are really accessible for other people to kind of understand
and hop in on.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Now, Trump's recent executive orders and memos have sparked controversy,
as have his remarks on the DCA plane collision. How
do these actions fit into the larger political strategy we're
seeing play out, and how should communities respond?
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, So I think first and foremost, there's this narrative
that I've been seeing, and I think that it's the
core of what I want to say here, which is
these last few weeks have been dizzying, but it's time
to get up off the mat. We had our moment,
and we're already seeing people do it right. So I
think even just this morning, we have the City of
Baltimore in coalition with different restaurants, with higher education officials
(07:28):
with workers, So we're seeing class consciousness intersections there suing
to or rather putting forward a complaint when it comes
to the anti DiiA. They're saying that it's overreaching of
presidential authority and that it's going to have severe consequences, right.
And that's same as the temporary freezes that we're seeing
on the attempt to freeze federal grants from the Trump administration, right,
and the retraction of the MEMBO, and even the retraction
(07:49):
of the retraction of the retraction of Tuskegee Airmen, and
some of the training information that our armed forces.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Are putting forward right.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
So, what I think is that we're seeing this level
of what can we do within possible reason to deny
people points of access, And some of it is stretching
the legality of the Constitution, and some of it is
straight and legal, like I've even forgot, like we're I
think Public Citizen is suing the Treasury Department when it
(08:18):
came to JOJ employees and their access to people's private
information and securities, and not just people's personal information, but
access to the systems that decide and help forward state
funding from the federal government to state governments.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
So even that conversation is going to be really complicated,
right because if I'm saying you have to put forward
a voter ID law to get your Social Security and
Medicaid funding, what is that then do to the state
argument that we were just happening about, like Roe v.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
Wade and state rights for abortion and things that nature.
What I think we're.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Seeing is a blitz that is supposed to bring to
form as much confusion as possible, so that if you
are in a position of leadership, especially because we have
to be protective of our federal servants, because those are
really going to be the lie between whether or not
a random twenty four year old who's taking a semester
off from telecommunications can get access to your Social Security
and whether or not they're going to be like, hey,
(09:10):
I have to say that you don't have access to
the system, right, So I think we're seeing attempts to
really push the institutions, but we're also doing things that
don't really have a mandate, that don't really have explicit
purpose other than transforming the cultural conversation. You're not going
to ban trans people from existing, but what you can
do is take transitioned individuals and put them in the
(09:31):
opposing gender prisons, which puts them in danger.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
You can, as they attempted to do, erase.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Them from data sets with the CDC, because if we're
not actually naming these different races and communities of people,
if we're not tracking the different impacts of them, the
ideas we can institutionally pretend that they don't exist. So
we have a lot of cultural and social change and
deciding of rhetoric that we have to push against.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
But we also have them constraining as.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Much as possible the constitution to see what they can
do in latitude, especially because we're currently seeing congressional leadership
deny their constitutional responsibility to advise to mandate the actual
allocation of funding. In the absence of that, it almost
seems like the president is trying to.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Legislate, which is problematic as we can.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
See definitely looking ahead Nile, What should people be doing
now to prepare for upcoming elections and legislative battles? How
can they move from passive concern to meaningful action.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
A phrase that I've coined a lot is this idea
of not being hit by slow moving train, right. And
I think that we're really in this unique moment with
Product twenty twenty five, not just that, but the memos,
with some of the conversations that we're hearing from federal agencies,
from whistleblowers. We know what's on the table, right, So
for example, when it comes to voting rights, we know
that it's a House leadership priority to put forward the
Save Act, and the Save Act we know, Well, if
(10:46):
you don't know, That's one of the things that I
ask is that you're consistently up to date on reliable.
If it has to be non partisan, make it nonpartisan,
If it has to be independent, especially in this moment,
make an independent, but being very consistent in the media
and the updates and the congressional and other federal and
state level, the local, all these different intersections of what's
happening in your communities.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Being up to date with that right.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Because if we're thinking about the Save Act, in all
likelihood it's going to pass right just because we have
a trifected government. That doesn't mean that there's not going
to be some judicial or state based intervention later down
the line.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
But we know this might explain I'm sorry, explain the
Save Act.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
So technically we already have a requirement of verification when
it comes to whether or not you're a citizen in
advanced view voting right. This doesn't take the form of
having to have documentation like a birth certificate, documentation that
we know is not wildly accessible to different communities of people.
And also, when we're thinking about in person voter registration,
the type of information that the average person who may
(11:41):
have been willing to get registered to vote and to
act on, like, you know, their right to engage in democracy,
wouldn't because now the stranger needs me to give them
the Social Security card, and why am I going to
do that at tabling at a grocery store. When we
think about those barriers and intersections, we have to think about,
if we know this is happening, what conversations are we
happening within our communities, within our institution, right So if
(12:02):
we know that that's going to be dealing with really
sensitive materials and we still need to vote to register people,
do we have like churches, community service members, community representatives,
and matriarchs who can be creating spaces of maybe if
you don't trust the tabling, you trust it here and
you can come into this community space.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
And still vote to register. Right, if we know that
ICE is going.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
To be raiding urban and rural environments, are we doing
community door to door trainings around how do you talk
about your undocumented neighbors?
Speaker 3 (12:30):
How do you intervene in ways that don't also put
you in danger? Right?
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Are we calling and preparing scripts for people to call
their congressional representatives to show up in person, not just
to the nation's capital, but to their local state based
offices to talk about not just what they don't want
them to pass, but the opposition that they want to
put forward. Are you calling your senator and congress person
and asking them I think sometimes we devalue like the
radical power of stalling, like we can't stop everything, but
(12:57):
I need you to oppose every nomination.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
I need you to fill a buster as much as possible.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I need you to make it incredibly painful and explicit
that the denial of my rights as a citizen or
just as a resident of this country. Because what makes
its amazing is that we're more than just our literal
legal citizen when it comes to the economy, when it
comes to.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Our culture, all that stuff. Are you a stop gap?
The consequence of.
Speaker 2 (13:20):
Not being a stop gap is being primary. So I
also think that like putting forward the power that we
have down the pipeline of these are who I have
to rely on. Here's who I'm supporting, Here's who I'm
acting being to act, But I also have the game
plan in the absence of their action, because the absence
of your action has a consequence information action. Just being
really intentional on what you could be doing person to person,
(13:42):
I think is just what comes to mind.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
I love it. So if people want to check out
some websites or resources, do you have any recommendations that
they could check out?
Speaker 3 (13:52):
Yeah, so one.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
I'm not here to representing the league, but I do
think vote four one one is really great, especially in
the states that are going to having upcoming state legislator
based elections, because even as we're looking two years ahead
for the midterm, is this becomes the state rights conversation.
Who's flipping your state house and senate matters, gubernatorial representative matters, right,
So being aware of that and having access not just
(14:16):
to who's going to be on the ballot, but surveys
when it comes to what they're saying, what they put
forward to like this is the moment where I really
need to.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
Know where your stance is on reproductive health.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
Right.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
So I think that's a really great resource.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
I also think that the way Back Machine actually, which
is the archive of based website that I was talking about,
has been doing a lot when it comes to preserving
a lot of the data and research around the differences
in even just how prescription drugs engage in male versus
female systems that are being erased from these key like
essential resources where we can otherwise access them, like making
(14:47):
sure that we're supportive of that right now. Like Phil
Lewis is an independent, culturally informed journalist who I love
and I follow up on his newsletter and I donate
when I can, I would also really recommend him.
Speaker 3 (14:57):
I would recommend even.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Just looking up locally based operating newspapers, right whether it's
like the Boston dot org, whether it's like the dcs here, like,
where can you be getting that more intentional community informed
reporting because that's probably going to have less bias and
less I guess performative focused then unfortunately what we're seeing
in a lot of our other national arenas of information.
(15:19):
So those are some of the resources that come to mind.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
That's great, and Billy Penn locally is a great news
source for the Philadelphia area now blasts dedicated community organizer
and political strategists. She's got a passion for youth engagement
and social equity. We thank you so much for providing
some ideas and options so that people can take action
because we're going to need to thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Nile, thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
You're listening to insight. Doctor Jessica Beard is an Associate
Professor of Surgery and Director of Trauma Research at the
Lewis Kats School of Medicine at Temple University. She serves
as the Interim Trauma Program Medical Director at Temple University
(16:27):
Hospital and is a Stoneleigh Foundation Fellow. As Director of
Research for the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting, Doctor
Beard's work focuses on reducing the harms caused by community
firearm violence and its portrayal in news media. Her groundbreaking
research has been supported by the National Institutes of Health,
(16:48):
and she's authored studies examining the intersection of gun violence,
public health, and media reporting practices. Doctor Beard is joining
us here to tell us about a recent study defining
harmful news reporting on community firearms violence. What led you
to pursue this research.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
Thank you for that introduction, Lorraine, and it's great to
be here. So we've been doing research looking at how
our patients or fireminjured people feel or respond to news
reports about their injury. We've also looked at the actual
news reports in Philadelphia, and so what we've been kind
of doing with this research is developing science and developing
(17:26):
our understanding of what harmful reporting is, largely at the
individual level, how people who've been shot are harmed by
news reports.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
And there's a really.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Strong precedent for doing research on reporting in order to
change journalistic practices, and that's specifically when it comes to
reporting on suicide.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
And one of the things that really helped is.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
To define what is harmful, and that's what led us
to this research. Kind of modeling our work around the
suicide research and the information that they have there and
that's what we did in the study was talk to experts,
have experts do several rounds of surveys to define what
is harmful reporting.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
I wonder if you can talk about some of your
key findings, the most significant harmful news content elements identified
in your study, and how did these elements impact individuals
and communities.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
Yeah, and just for a little bit of background, this
study is called a Delphi Consensus study, and the group
of experts include people who've been impacted by gun violence,
fire injured people and their loved ones, journalists who are
reporting on gun violence, and also scholars. So we defined
expertise broadly and we were able to come to a
(18:44):
consensus with this group of experts. And this is anonymous,
so that each person has an equal voice and there's
not one voice overpowering everyone. And the experts determined that
there are twelve harmful news content elements that could cause
harm across.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Three different levels.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
And we thought including the three different levels was important
because we had looked, again, as I mentioned, largely at
the individual level and potentially at the community level, but
there's also sort of the larger discussion around how news
impacts our society, and we thought that those news content
elements would be different across those three levels. And this
gets into how journalists think about news reporting. They may think, well,
(19:26):
reporting on this shooting for public safety, but maybe including
the name of the treating hospital is going to hurt
the person that the news report is about. We also
asked the experts to grade the severity of harm, So
how severe was the harm potentially to be caused by
graphic content versus episodic framing. Episodic framing means when the
(19:48):
news report just talks about the single shooting event without
its context or its root causes. And you asked what
are the most harmful news content elements? So there were
three that were perceived or thought to cause harm, severe
harm at all three levels, so severe harm to individuals
who've been shot in their loved ones, at the community level,
(20:09):
to the community impacted, and at the society level. And
those were graphic and explicit content, usually like a video
or audio of a shooting, which we do see in
news reports in Philadelphia about gun violence. The episonic framing,
and then stories that do not explore solutions.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
How did the perspectives of those with lived experiences of
community firearm violence shape the outcomes of your research.
Speaker 4 (20:34):
Well, I think they were really important to include obviously
in this study. Was the perspective of our patients from
our previous research as well. That informed the harmful news
content elements that we started the first survey with. And
I think what we found in one of the outcomes
was that severe harm was mostly seen in the news
(20:56):
content elements at the individual level. So eight of the
twelve news content elements were thought to potentially cause severe
harm at the level of the fire injured person and
the co victim. And I think that's reflective of the
involvement of our lived experience experts. We didn't look it's
a small sample size, just twenty one people, but again
(21:18):
their expertise is very important, and that's actually a normal
sample size for a study like this, so we weren't
able to kind of parse.
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Out who said what and that kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
But I think that the perspective of those with lived
experience added a lot of richness and real integrity to
this research.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
How does reducing harmful news reporting on community firearm violence
contribute to addressing health disparities, especially in marginalized communities.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
I think That's a great question, and it's one that
we think about a lot. One of the things that
our patients told us in our study where we interviewed them,
was that they were worried that harmful reporting, episodic reporting
that's present gun violence as an inevitable thing that we
can't solve, could actually be fueling a cycle of violence,
(22:07):
could actually be contributing to gun violence that has never
been researched. We don't know the answer to that question.
We are seeking to do research on that, but I
think if we can transform that narrative to one that's
not going to cause that harm, not going to harm individuals,
not going to harm society, then I think we could
potentially work on decreasing gun violence. The other concern is
(22:30):
that if we know that reporting is causing harm to
fire injured people, we know that's a disparity. That's a
help disparity because most of the people who get shot
in Philadelphia and around the country in interpersonal violence or
community fire and violence are.
Speaker 5 (22:44):
Black people and Latin X people. So this frankly.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
Racist narrative that exists in news reports, especially kind of
sensationalized and these episodic reports, is directly harming this group
of people. So addressing that, making that better, that is
the work of dismantling structural racism.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
So what role do journalists and media outlets play and
reshaping the narrative around firearm violence and what practical steps
can they take based on your research?
Speaker 4 (23:16):
The power is all in the hands of the journalists,
and we know at the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence
that there are many journalists who are telling deeper stories
about gun violence.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
So we see the good and.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
Great reporting and we're really motivated by that, but we
also see these episodic crime stories every day on TV news,
and so I think, you know, rethinking those narratives, reshaping
those narratives to ones that explore root causes and solutions.
Speaker 5 (23:43):
One that include narrators besides the police.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
That was another news content element that was considered harmful.
Stories that include the perspectives of firearm injured people and
their loved ones, to emphasize the humanity of the victims
of gun violence and the human toll that gun violence takes.
Those are ways that the narrative can be transformed. At
the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting, we do have
(24:07):
a toolkit for better gun violence reporting it's a document
that includes recommendations that are evidence based regarding dues and
don't so certain language to include or not include, context,
to include, how to actually talk about the root causes
and solutions in a very simple way in order to
deepen the narrative and kind of push up against some
(24:29):
of the stereotypical or biased narratives that exist. And how
to when you actually have to go to a crime
scene to report, because journalists will have to do that,
how to look for community context and seek alternative narrators.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Doctor Bird, I wanted to also touch on where people
get information, because when we talk about reporting, we often
think about television, news, newspapers, maybe even the radio. But
we are finding more and more that people are consuming
information and news, whether it's accurate or inaccurate, through social
(25:06):
media and other forms of digital access. And I wonder
if you can talk a bit about what rule that
has in terms of our own perception about gun violence,
and how that contributes to this false narrative or how
it might hurt again in terms of being able to
(25:26):
address the issue of gun violence.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
At PCGBR, in our research collaborative, we've largely focused on
traditional news reporting and legacy media sources, and we chose
to do research looking at how local TV news reports
on gun violence because the communications research would show that
most people are still getting their news from the television,
(25:50):
and a lot of TV news is repurposed for digital sources,
and we see it present and social media as well.
Speaker 5 (25:57):
When we've evaluated social media page, when we.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
Asked our patients, most of them are still utilizing television
for their news source. So I think that's kind of
the argument for being interested in TV news. I think
there are other great news sources that explore gun violence
more deeply, specifically dedicated to reporting on gun violence, like
(26:21):
the Traits for example, that folks can get their news from,
and be sure that there's a lot of research that's
gone into that. In terms of social media, it's a
really big question. I think, again, we're interested in TV
news because it does show up.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
On social media, but the question about.
Speaker 4 (26:37):
How social media impacts people's behavior and perspective on the
world is really unknown, and from what I understand, though
I'm not an expert, highly complex, and it hasn't been
a place that we've focused our research, but it's definitely
a place that we're interested in looking at going forward.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Doctor Bard. If people want more information on the research
that you've conducted and perhaps some feedback and suggestions about
how media can be better in terms of reporting on
gun violence, where do they go?
Speaker 4 (27:09):
So, the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting has a website.
It's PCGVR dot org. All of our research is available there.
There's a page about our collaborative research team. We have
actually four research studies that have been created by the collaborative.
They're all published in open access journals. So when you
(27:30):
go to those studies, you should be able to click
on them and download the entire pdf and read it.
And we do that on purpose. We're not just putting
our research published in a journal for nobody to read.
We want people to read this work. There are other
resources for journalists to join in a collaborative effort. A
group of gun violence prevention journalists are working together, so
(27:50):
that's really exciting. Also available on the website, and we
have a newsletter that you can sign up for that
gives weekly updates about the gun violence in Philadelphi and
then also more nationally.
Speaker 5 (28:01):
And then the resources and activities of PCGBR.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
All right, thank you so much, doctor Jessica Beard, Associate
Professor of Surgery and Director of Trauma Research at the
Lewiscat School of Medicine at Temple University, Interim Trauma Program
Medical director at Temple University Hospital, and director of Research
for the Philadelphia Center for Gun Violence Reporting. Thank you so.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
Much, Thank you for having me full.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
You can listen to all of today's interviews by going
to our station website and typing in keyword Community. You
can also listen on the iHeartRadio Appy Words Philadelphia Community Podcast.
Follow me on Twitter and Instagram at Lorraine Ballard. I'm
Lorraine Ballard Morrow, and I stand for service to our
community and media that empowers. What will you stand for?
(28:48):
You've been listening to Insight and thank you.
Speaker 4 (28:52):
E A. G. L.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Eus Ells
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.