10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

1/52

RASHOMON AND REPRESSION:

A MULTI-SOURCE ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIOUS EVENTS

by

CHRISTIAN DAVENPORT

Center for International Development and Conflict Management

University of Maryland

0145b Tydings Hall

College Park, MD 20742-7231

Email: [email protected]

Webpage: www.cdavenport.com

MARIKA F. X. LITRASBureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20531

Email: [email protected]

The research itself was supported by the National Science Foundation (SBR# 9617900). We have

benefited from comments from numerous individuals: Charles Tilly, Ron Francisco, Mark Lichbach, John

McCarthy, Kelly Moore, Will Moore, Lisa Baldez, Carol Mueller, Ted Gurr, Diana Mutz, and Darren

Davis (MEoS). While not guilty of any of mistakes or limitations contained within the paper, these

individuals have pushed us to improve the research in several ways and thus we owe them a large debt.

There is still some work to be done with the paper however and any comments would be welcome.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

2/52

RASHOMON AND REPRESSION

2

RASHOMON AND REPRESSION:

A MULTI-SOURCE ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIOUS EVENTS

Abstract

Current approaches to events-based data collection ignore the different perspectives that exist across

different data sources, which in statistical analysis can lead to measurement bias, invalid causal inferences,

and a limited understanding of why events occur. To investigate this problem, we analyze event coverage

of repression directed against the Black Panther Party (BPP) in Oakland, California from 1967-73, as

reported in five different newspapers. Results demonstrate that each source provides a different

understanding about how and why repression was used against the Black Panther Party and that the range

of this coverage (i.e., perspective itself) varies in a systematic manner.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

3/52


3

INTRODUCTION

The information that we rely upon to identify and understand political events often is compiled

from a variety of sources.1

At the same time, however, the content of each individual source is likely to

be influenced by the sources values, focus, or underlying agenda. As a result, it is common to find

conflicting interpretations of the same events across sources when chronologies are compiled for empirical

analysis. This phenomenon has been popularized in social science literature as the Rashomon effect

(e.g., Scott 1985, xviii; Mazur 1998).2

Rashomon has important implications for the way researchers gather, analyze and interpret data,

for many of the approaches currently applied do not attempt to understand the mosaic of perspectives

embedded in data compiled from multiple sources. For example, in the empirical study of contentious

politics (the subject of this investigation), individuals generally use one newspaper (e.g., McAdam 1982;

Tarrow 1989; Davis et al. 1998) or they combine multiple newspapers (e.g., Tilly et al. 1975; Beissinger

1998; Francisco 2000) to construct event sequences overlooking the issue of Rashomon. When

investigation across sources is made, they involve comparing: 1) two or more newspapers of a similar type

against one another (e.g, Jackman and Boyd 1979; Mueller 1997), or 2) multiple newspapers (aggregated

as a group) against some other kind of source (e.g., police records in the case of McCarthy et al. 1996).

Upon reflection, it is clear that neither approach allows us to investigate the differences and similarities of

alternative historical accounts recorded by distinct observers. Neither approach allows us to examine

different types of newspapers that might be predisposed to cover events in diverse ways. We thus end up

unable to understand the full mosaic of observation available at any one point, and unable to identify the

very structure underlying perspective itself. Our objective is to provide such an analysis.

In line with the suggestions of numerous scholars from a variety of theoretical and methodological

orientations (e.g., Scott 1985; Goodman 1994; King et al. 1994; Lustick 1996; Mazur 1998), we argue that

to address the Rashomon problem, each consulted source should be viewed aspotentially identifying a

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

4/52


4

unique event-sequence, resulting in data that measure alternative accounts of history. Based on our theory

ofSituationally Motivated Observation (SitMO), we propose that accounts of contentious events vary

in accordance to the focus of the source on authorities relative to dissidents (e.g., Sigal 1973; 1987;

Wolfsfeld 1997). Sources that focus on authorities lead information-providers to report and researchers to

find: 1) a greater number of events involving authorities relative to challengers, 2) attention to the more

bizarre, less commonplace authority and dissident activity, as well as 3) more robust relationships between

dissident and repressive behavior. Sources that focus on challengers, on the other hand, lead information-

providers to report and researchers to find: 1) a greater number of events involving dissidents relative to

authorities; 2) attention to more everyday/routine authority and dissident events; as well as 3) less robust

relationships between dissident and repressive behavior.

We empirically examine our theory and hypotheses through the analysis of five different news

sources and their coverage of weekly sanctions enacted by various police and court agencies against the

Black Panther Party (BPP) in Oakland, California from 1967 to 1973. These sources include: the

Berkeley Barb, theBlack Panther Intercommunal News Service, theNew York Times, Oakland

Tribune, and the Sun Reporter. The results of our analysis demonstrate support for the SitMO argument

and reinforce the importance of examining multiple perspectives in the collection and analysis of event

data.

The issues addressed above are developed across five sections of this paper. We begin with an

outline of alternative analytical approaches to events-based data collection as well as a discussion of the

different ways that researchers have dealt with the issue of multiple sources. In the second section we

put forth our theory ofSituationally Motivated Observation. Third, we present the various sources of

data used for the analysis, followed by the results of the empirical investigation. We conclude with a

discussion of how the Rashomon effect challenges existing research and offer suggestions to develop

further the line of inquiry initiated here.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

5/52


5

THE EMPIRICAL STUDY OF EVENTS

Those of us who seek to understand discrete occurrences of political phenomenon (i.e., events) in

a rigorous fashion normally sift through various sources to collect information about these instances as well

as information that assists us in explaining them. What we do with these data, after it is assembled, varies

depending upon our assumptions about history (whether it is singular or multiple) as well as the intentions

of those who record it (whether they are objective or subjective).3

A history that is believed to be both

unidimensional and objective, we refer to as the conventional tradition (e.g., Collingwood [1946] 1961;

Carr 1964); a history that is multidimensional and subjective, we refer to as the historiographical (e.g.,

Kruger and Mariani 1989; Trouillot 1995; Guha 1998).4

Both are discussed below.

Within the conventional tradition, it is assumed for purposes of analysis and interpretation that

history is of a singular configuration, representing one reality. Here, the past is treated as a fixed entity

that can be reconstructed piece-by-piece using a variety of sources. Though information-providers may

vary in quality and capacity, they are assumed to depict a common historical trajectory and a common

event-sequence. In the area of contentious politics, this treatment of history includes numerous examples:

Rummel (1964; 1996), Tilly et al. (1975), Tarrow (1989), Kriesi et al. (1992), Gurr (1993), Koopmans

(1995), Tilly (1995), Beissinger (1998), Francisco (2000), and Hocke (1998).

While those working within the conventional framework implicitly assume there is one history to

be told, they differ widely in the types, scope and providers of information they rely upon to examine

events. Some scholars, for example, maintain that there is usually only one information-provider that

covers a particular time period most comprehensively, eschewing the necessity for consulting multiple

sources (e.g., Jackman and Boyd 1979; McAdam 1982; Taylor and Jodice 1983; Davies 1989; Olzak

1992; Schrodt et al. 1994; Bond 1994; Jenkins 1998; Davis et al. 1998). Others argue for the use of

multiple information-providers combined into one database so that they may maximize coverage of events

(e.g., Feirabend et al. 1966; Tilly et al. 1975; Azar 1980; Taylor and Jodice 1983; Rummel 1996; Francisco

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

6/52


6

2000).5

Some engage in the competitive assessment of many sources to identify the best representation

of historical reality (e.g., Doran et al. 1973; Shaw and Anglin 1979; Gerner and Schrodt 1996; Huxtable

and Pevehouse 1996; White 1993; Sommer and Scarritt 1998).6

Finally, others perform bias

assessments of different information providers, demonstrating that discrepancies across sources are so

prevalent that efforts at data collection are na ve (Dangzer 1975; Snyder and Kelly 1977; Jackman and

Boyd 1979; McCarthy et al. 1996; Mueller 1997; Hocke 1998) or, at worst, a waste of time (Brockett

1992). One of the most recent efforts in this tradition has taken the largest step by investigating the

selection of contentious events not only against other contentious events but also against all recorded

events (Oliver and Myers 1999).

Though the dominant position within the literature, the conventional approach does not stand alone.

The historiographical approach also concerns itself with understanding events through the analysis of

historical data principally of a qualitative variety (e.g., Said 1978; Scott 1985; Duffy 1994; Guha 1998;

Rosenau 1992; Goodman 1994; Trouillot 1995; Cohen 1997; Mazur 1998). In contrast to the conventional

tradition, the historiographical approach maintains that there are a multitude of perspectives that one could

bring to bear on any historical event. In turn, there are many histories and, therefore, multiple realities that

exist at any one time and place.

Not only are the assumptions underlying the data collection different from the conventional

traditional but so are the objectives of research. Within this area, as opposed to addressing a tightly drawn

research question and answer, much of the research seeks to emphasize the complexity and diversity in

event-sequences that underlie human experience and historical recollections of these experiences. To this

end, multiple sources are consulted but each is kept independent from one another for analysis and

interpretation. Simply, each history is discussed without referencing the others. Again, there is some

variation here. Guided by the principles identified above, some authors discuss merely one perspective

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

7/52


7

alluding to another (e.g., the subaltern juxtaposed against the dominant [e.g., Guha 1998]); others

discuss multiple perspectives simultaneously (e.g., Scott 1985; Goodman 1994; Mazur 1998).

This brief discussion of the study of events demonstrates the various ways researchers have dealt

with the multiple source issue. As one can discern, some homogenize differences while others celebrate

and reify them. While each tradition addresses particular research questions and concerns, neither

(viewed individually) assists us with the Rashomon problem since neither approach facilitates substantive

and rigorous comparison of individual sources. In order to move in this direction, we suggest that both

analytic traditions should be used together. If possible, analysts should try to combine the conventional and

historiographical approaches by examining multiple sources separately, followed by a systematic

comparison of outcomes (Lustick 1996). According to Rashomon this seems to be the only way to

understand events. The logic behind such an endeavor is addressed below.

UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATIONS FOR OBSERVING REPRESSIVE EVENTS

Few would argue with the point that different types of newspapers describe contentious political

events in different ways. These differences, we suggest, are likely to vary according to the focus placed

by the newspaper on authorities relative to dissidents. Simply, the reporters vantage point likely

influences what they pursue, what they observe, what they write, and inevitably what we as researchers

use within our investigations. In the case of a mass arrest at a protest, for example, news sources focused

on authorities are likely to report more about police activity relative to protest behavior. News sources

focused on challengers, on the other hand, are likely to give less attention to police activity and more to

detailing what the protestors engaged in. For news sources equally interested or disinterested in both

actors (the idealized situation of the impartial or objective news organization), one might expect

relative balance between authority and dissident coverage. All of these responses could be made to the

same event stimulus.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

8/52


8

It is within this context that we can understand the principle ofSituationally Motivated

Observation (SitMO). SitMO is grounded in the theory that all social actors, including the media, are

situated within an authority pattern ranging from being affiliated/interested with those in power (i.e.,

superordinates) to being affiliated/interested with those subject to power (i.e., subordinates).7

Viewed

here, social actors perceive contentious political events in ways that are consistent with their position on

this continuum as this reflects who they come to see as newsworthy as well as who they develop contacts

with (Sigal 1973; 1987; Oliver and Myers 1999), and what the audience and sponsors (very frequently

advertisers) expect them to discuss (Schudson 1995). These perceptions are then reinforced through time

pressures and habit (Tuchman 1978).

Compelled by all of these factors, news organizations tend to simplify how they collect information

as well as the way in which they write stories, principally highlighting one actor that they deem to be most

important (e.g., authorities or challengers). In this context, the other actor (e.g., challengers or authorities)

is merely used in a juxtapositional manner within the narrative construct in order to provide an explanation

for the principle actors behavior, e.g., conveying that they are merely responding to the other (e.g.,

Barkin 1984).8

The narrative style in which contentious politics is discussed thus influences the data that

social scientists can use.

This view of newspapers as cultural products significantly deviates from the older perspective

where newspapers are believed to reflect what actually takes place in the world. Operative within these

older conceptions of how information comes to newspapers (which were quite influential on the earlier

studies that relied upon these data), there is an opinion that more reporting moves toward greater

comprehensiveness. Within more recent work, however, there is an acknowledgement that more

reporting may move toward greater variation in what is reported. Within this view, certain actors and

events within society are visible to those who seek them and, by the very nature of the process; others

are made to disappear (Trouillot 1995). This view of newspaper coverage is important for it diminishes

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

9/52


9

the scope of information likely to be reported by any one news organization. Consequently, the reported

information emerging from the array of situated observers influences the ways in which authority and

dissident events can be covered as well as the inferences that can be drawn from these sources. A more

detailed discussion of the spectrum of observation is described below.

THE MEDIA MOSAIC

Within the communication literature there are at least four different types of newspapers:

mainstream, alternative, community and dissident (e.g., Zubrzycki 1958-9; Rivers and Rubin

1971; Spates and Levin 1972; Spates 1976; House of Commons 1977; Kessler 1984; Stansfield and

Lemert 1987; Lee and Solomon 1992; Wachsberger 1993).9

These presses can be differentiated from one

another according to the objectives pursued, the audience sought, the principle content of the papers

distributed information, and the division of labor within the organization.

By far, the most familiar type of newspaper is the mainstream press. These organizations

attempt to distribute general information of an entertaining and eye-catching variety to an audience

which can vary significantly in their demographic characteristics, but that is generally composed of the

average citizen or above this categorical designation. The purpose of the distribution is to inform the

reading audience as well as deliver them over to the sponsors of the news organization (i.e., advertisers)

so that they may sell their products. Within these organizations, there is a high degree of

compartmentalization across different functions. For example, here one will likely find individuals that

uniquely handle news collection, editing, distribution, management, advertising and so forth. The sheer size

of the organization likely varies in accordance to the size of the targeted market and amount of

sponsorship received from advertising dollars; generally they will tend to be larger than the other

organizations we discuss.

The second category of newspaper is referred to as the alternative or underground press.

The main objective of this newspaper is to distribute specific political, economic and cultural information

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

10/52


10

relevant to improving the condition of a broadly defined group of individuals. The audience here generally

falls outside of the economic and political demographic targeted by more mainstream organizations as they

tend to be poorer, less active in conventional political behavior, and (in the American context) inclined

towards beliefs of the political left (e.g., the hippies, the underclass, the disenfranchised). The messages

distributed here are explicitly more critical of the status-quo, less entertainment oriented, aimed to raise

awareness, facilitate activism and bring forth some form of social change broadly defined. Within

alternative presses there is less of a division of labor. The primary reason for this is that they tend to

have smaller staff sizes than that found within more mainstream newspapers.

The community or grassroots press is similar in many respects to the alternative press in

that these organizations are concerned with distributing specific political, economic and cultural information

relevant to improving the condition of a defined group of individuals. Their division of labor also tends to

be less sophisticated. The community press, however, is different than the alternative press in that

the groups they target are smaller in nature and they are less concerned with challenging authorities than

with providing information that meets the needs and interests of their community.

In contrast to the others, the radical press is distinctive by its sense of militancy and direct

affiliation with a challenger to the status quo, i.e., a social movement. These newspapers do not simply

exist to distribute information, but to convey a message from those who lead to those who follow. In many

ways, radical presses are full service operations. The dissident press is the mouthpiece for social

change; it provides an organizations objectives, their assessment of relevant problems the diagnostic

function, their remedy for the problems identified a prognostic function, and is a device for recruitment

as well as retention within the social movement organization itself. In almost all circumstances, the

division of labor within these organizations is not clear, though frequently social movement members jointly

serve as the news collectors, editors, distributors, and primary audience.10

MEDIA COVERAGE THEMES

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

11/52


11

Newspapers not only vary along the characteristics identified above, but also with regard to the

focus and frequency with which they cover contentious politics (the specific news items with which we

are concerned). The focus of coverage, as discussed above, refers to the emphasis placed on authorities

relative to challengers in the reporting of contentious politics. The frequency of coverage refers to the

absolute number of contentious political events reported, which we assume will vary with the scope of

newspaper content (in terms of geography, number of social movements covered, or topics addressed).

We suggest that there are basically four themes that describe these two dimensions: Statewatch,

Advocacy, Balance, and Accidental Tourist.

As one might decipher from the label, information sources that fall into the Statewatch category

present event-sequences that focus more on the behavior of authorities involved in contentious political

events than on challengers. Authority behavior may include raids, arrests, court sanctions and the like.

The second coverage theme, Advocacy, occurs where sources focus more on the actions of dissidents

than authorities. Dissident actions may include statements, protests, organizational change, and so forth.

Differing from the previous two coverage patterns, the Balance theme represents a situation where

coverage of authority and dissident behavior is relatively equal. The focus of this coverage theme is less

about disposition toward authorities or challengers in the number of events reported than it is about

covering both societal actors equitably.11

Finally, the Accidental Tourist coverage theme is found in

sources where attention to contentious political events is minimal relative to other sources. In essence, if

the scope of the paper is too broad in geography and/or subject matter, then it will be unable to devote

special attention to authority and dissident events with any high degree of frequency (e.g., McCarthy et al.

1996; Mueller 1997; Hocke 1998). Accidental Tourism is thus noted by a principle of infrequent and

sporadic.

(Insert Figure 1 About Here)

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

12/52


12

Figure 1 summarizes our placement of how the four types of news sources might correspond with

the four themes of contentious news reporting. Here, the proportional coverage between dissidents and

authorities (along the x-axis) is plotted against the overall frequency with which events are reported (along

the y-axis). Upon observing the figure, the overlays should not be controversial. Mainstream newspapers

are generally expected to focus on the contentious behavior of governments at a relatively low frequency.

For these papers, governments are commonly viewed as their primary subject and source for news (e.g.,

Sigal 1973; 1987) and it is not expected that they would pay too much attention to their dark side

(Chomsky 1989).12

By contrast, an alternative press is expected to highlight protest activity in order to

cultivate social change and a dissident paper is expected to focus either on themselves or the enemy

(the political authorities) both would be observed at relatively high levels for this is basically all that

these information-providers cover. Finally, a community press is expected to highlight both actions equally

as they attempt to fathom what is going on, how it relates to them, and what they should do without having

a particular focal point during the struggle.13

While the overlay above is not particularly provocative, controversy appears to lie within the

measurement error that these different overlays introduce into the analysis and how the interpretation of

events is expected to vary. Researchers typically maintain that combining information derived from

different data sources is favorable because more observations increase precision of the estimates, and bias

within component sources cancels out. This approach is the dominant position that governs current uses

of data within events-based research.14

What we are arguing, however, is that perspective within

individual sources should not be cancelled out. Borrowing from the historiographical approach to

studying events, events should be examined and understood from the perspective of the information-

provider (Duffy 1994; Lustick 1996). According to their degree of focus on authority behavior, the

analysis of individual sources should result in coefficients that vary in significance, direction, and

magnitude, each source telling a different empirical story but a story with an intelligible underlying

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

13/52


13

structure one that can only be detected when time-series are examined one at a time. On the other

hand, if all sources tell the same empirical story and do not vary according to SitMO, this bodes well for

the conventional approach to studying events and the methodological soundness of combining data sources

for analysis and interpretation.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Having identified our theoretical orientation, below we identify the particular case that we

investigate, the specific newspapers whose content is analyzed and the operationalization of dependent as

well as independent variables.

CONTENTION AND THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY

Coverage of the Black Panther Party (BPP) and its interaction with political authorities in the Bay

area during the 1967-1973 period provides an ideal case through which to demonstrate the importance of

exploring source perspectives in data collection and empirical analyses. The BPP was a dissident group

established in 1966, beginning in the Bay area (i.e., Berkeley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Richmond, San

Francisco, San Jose, and San Mateo) and later expanding to chapters throughout the nation up into the

mid-1970s (e.g., Jones 1998).15

The groups founders, Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale and other

predominantly African-American women and men sought to address various problems in their community:

police brutality and economic inequality, first and foremost.16

The broad outline of the BPP-authority relationship is simple enough. The BPP used numerous

strategie s to achieve their objectives: e.g., carrying weapons, boycotting opponents, running educational

facilities, as well as using symbols of defiance and revolution. The authorities responded to this

organization from almost its inception. By the time Hoover had classified them as the greatest threat to

the internal security of the country (U.S. Congress 1976, 188) in 1968, a large number of organizations at

the local, state and federal levels seemed to direct some attention to the organization. Police and court

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

14/52


14

officials within as well as outside of the Bay area positioned themselves against the BPP and certain

aspects of their agenda, in defense (or offense) of existing organizational structures, priorities and

practices. These authority agents employed numerous means toward their end: e.g., raids, arrests, court

orders, special grand jury investigations, etc. This situation possessed all the elements of a typical state-

dissident interaction (e.g., Franks 1989; Della Porta 1995; Davenport 2000).

Equally as important, the group as well the actions undertaken by authorities against them received

local, national, and in some cases international media attention across a broad array of news organizations.

Indeed, in many respects, the organization was adopted as the poster child for Black nationalism, radical

thought and the victim of state repression (respectively). This is one explanation for the continued interest

in and parodying of the organization.

NEWSPAPER SELECTION

To examine source perspectives in reporting during 1967-73 period, we coded authority and BPP

event coverage in five newspapers selected to represent a range of news organizations and press styles

varying in ethnic, ideological, and geographic dimensions. As one survey of the Bay-area media identifies

(i)n overview, the nine-county bay area (Alameda, Contra Cosa, Marin, Napa, San

Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma) seems to be awash in

newspapers. It is served by 28 dailies (10 morning, 18 evening a total daily circulation

of 1.6 million), plus 96 weeklies and over a dozen papers that are published monthly or

two or three times a week, a few of them in exotic languages: Chinese, Portuguese,

Spanish and Radical. Since many of these papers appear far (and profitable), one could

easily assume that the nearly 5 million Bay Area residents are being informed up to their

eyeballs. But news coverage is not neatly geographic, with each paper covering its own

ground. Nearly every newspaper pushes its circulation range as far as it considers it

financially feasible and then attempts to cover the news in the circulation area. In many

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

15/52


15

cases, the result is thin coverage nearly everywhere. Not even the home city is reported

thoroughly (Rivers and Rubin 1971, 9-10).

Faced with such a prolific newspaper environment, our selection of news sources was based on the

following criteria: 1) the newspaper had to be published in English, 2) it had to be at least a weekly

publication, guaranteeing some consistent news coverage of Bay-area events (especially in Alameda and

San Francisco counties),17

3) the newspaper had to be published for the full time period of interest (i.e.,

from 1967 to 1973), 4) it had to be available either in microfiche or some archive, and 5) the newspaper

had to be mentioned by historians of the time period or the media, activists or authorities from the Bay

indicating that it was not some obscure publication that no one had ever heard of (at the time or since).

With these criteria five newspapers were identified: theBerkeley Barb, theBlack Panther

Intercommunal News Service, theNew York Times, Oakland Tribune, and the Sun Reporter.

A major component of the SitMO argument lies in the positioning of these papers within the

organizational categories identified above. Much of the analysis is invalidated if this is done poorly or in a

way that cannot be replicated elsewhere. For this task, we used the papers comments on their own

objectives/markets in conjunction with historical analyses about the U.S. news media to guide these

assignments. This proves to be extremely informative as the papers themselves and researchers generally

identify to which audience and sponsors the paper attempted to serve, the message that they wished to

cultivate in distributed information, as well as the division of labor structuring their organizational personnel.

From existing literature, one can easily determine that theBerkeley Barb was an alternative

newspaper published weekly in Berkeley, California.18

It was founded in 1965 by Max Scheer, a long-

term Bay-area radical, and discussed events relevant to counter-cultural attacks on America (e.g.,

instances of draft card burning, boycotts, rallies, and demonstrations). The paper (principally directed by

the personality of Scheer himself), espoused an interest in the little movements that are divergent from

the mainstream of society (Peck 1985, 30). Indeed, labeled the Hefner of the underground, theBarb

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

16/52


16

served as a convening point for radical culture as it covered everybody from civil rights movements, to

anti-war groups, to the new left, to anyone taking a position of any kind against the status quo. Given the

focus on challengers, the dissatisfied and the marginalized more often than on authorities, this paper likely

falls within the Advocacy coverage theme.19

In addition, we expect it to be identified as an Accidental

Tourist since the broad scope of groups covered in the paper is likely to preclude extensive coverage of

the Black Panther Party.

TheBlack Panther Intercommunal News Service (BPINS), founded in 1967 in Oakland,

California, was published weekly by the Black Panthers (after 1968) for distribution to members as well as

non-members in the Bay area and throughout the United States (Abron 1993).20

The paper clearly fits

within what would be categorized as a dissident press as it was created by a social movement

organization for the primary purpose of delivering the BPP message. With regard to the particular way in

whichBPINScovered contentious events, we suggest that it will fall within the Advocacy coverage

theme because its primary objective was to establish and maintain its organizational identity, recruit

members, provide information about political events, generate revenue, and most importantly, convey the

organizational message21

(Davenport 1998, 197). Such emphasis is expected to result in comprehensive

coverage of BPP events in addition to some coverage of authority behavior taken against them.

The next paper considered by this research is theNew York Times (NYT). This source is

designated as a daily, mainstream newspaper. It was founded in 1851 and since then has maintained a

national as well as international circulation and an interest in local political behavior outside of New York.

TheNYTis characterized by several traits that identify its organizational structure and its likely position

with regard to the most appropriate coverage theme.

The paper was run by a family (made up of the Ochs and Sulzbergers [Tifft and Jones 1999]),

which espoused a belief in political moderation. The family was generally zealous about maintaining a

patriotic posture (Shephard 1996, 209) and frequently supportive of government in any way possible,

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

17/52


17

attempting not to embarrass it.22

In addition to pursuing businesspersons as readers and supporters

(Dinsmore 1969, 22), the paper most clearly solicited that patronage of intelligent Americans, who desire

information rather than entertainment, who want the facts unadorned and who placed first their country

and the freedoms which it guarantees (Shephard 1996, 75). This practice frequently led to the neglect of

more marginalized populations within American society. In following with these traits, we expect the

paper to fall within the Statewatch category. The discussion in the literature also led us to conclude that

the Times would likely fall within the Accidental Tourist categorization for after reading this material it

becomes clear that the likelihood of poor, working class individuals, living in California, espousing leftist

ideas, engaged in a wide variety of activities, decreased the likelihood of them receiving consistent NYT

attention. Additionally, theNYTwas oriented to the East Coast (being based in New York City) and it

concerned itself with the largest number of topics relative to any of the newspapers discussed within this

research.

The fourth newspaper examined is the Oakland Tribune. From available information we have

been able to discern that this source was a daily, mainstream paper run by one of the Bay areas wealthiest

families, the Knowlands (Rivers and Rubin 1971). In the sixties and seventies, this paper normally

espoused a pro-authority message, speaking out against free speech activism and most dissident activities

in general. The level of hostility shown by the paper to participants in contentious political behavior as

opposed to those who employed more acceptable tactics was well understood by movement participants

across the spectrum as well as their general readership at the time. Indeed, the paper was frequently

targeted for protest activities because of various positions taken within the paper itself (Pearson 1994, 70-

1),23

and consequently, it was commonly identified as the Bay area mouthpiece for the status quo. In

addition to its pro-authority, anti-movement orientation, the newspaper also was disposed to report

government activities since many of the Tribunes staff were consistently assigned to cover activities

occurring in the courts and other government agencies.24

This practice should significantly increase the

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

18/52


18

opportunity to generate news about authority-related behavior. Because of these characteristics, we

anticipate that the Oakland Tribune will fit within our conception of Statewatch" coverage.

The final newspaper used by this research is the Sun Reporter, a moderate,25

weekly, newspaper

which served the greater Oakland-San Francisco Black population since its founding in 1944. Covering a

variety of matters consistent with what has been labeled the Black press (e.g., Wolesley 1972),26

this

source addressed numerous subjects regarding African-American cultural life (e.g., announcements of

community activities), information about civil rights struggles related to improving the African-American

condition, and legal/political issues such as Affirmative Action. Given the papers concern about general

issues of African-American life rather than issues of contentious politics more exclusively, the

classification of this newspaper seems to fit with the Balance coverage theme. The breadth of this

community coverage, however, and the complexity that normally exists with a message being put forth by

African-Americans within a contentious political context (Goodman 1994), leaves our expectation of

frequency unclear. On the one hand, the paper might cover the BPP because it was an extremely

important subject for African-Americans in the Bay and elsewhere. Alternatively, the paper may shy

away from the BPP because it was too controversial. The depoliticization of African-American messages

is also something of a historical pattern albeit one that is generally overlooked.

CODING, MEASUREMENT AND MODEL SPECIFICATION

The data used to investigate our hypotheses are drawn from a larger research effort undertaken

by one of the authors of the current article [reference to author withheld].27

This effort is comparable to

other human-coded,28

events-based data collection efforts (e.g., Tilly et al. 1975; McAdam 1982; Taylor

and Jodice 1983; Tarrow 1989; Beissinger 1998; Davis et al. 1998; Oliver and Myers 1999), albeit

somewhat more focused in terms of the number of groups and number of years being observed. The data

collection proceeded as follows: all articles within the five newspapers between 1967 and 1973 were read

and coded except editorials, sports pages, personal ads and advertisements. This information was

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

19/52


19

aggregated by the week for each newspaper (N=364 per paper).29

Coders30

identified all events31

which

involved the BPP in the Bay Area32

as well as all actions that police agencies and courts at the local,

state, and federal levels took against the Bay Area Panther organization.33

Coders also recorded the date,

time and place (street address and/or county) of each event, the name and estimated number of the actors

involved, and the objectives of the events if available.

In this analysis, authority behavior is operationalized by two separate dependent variables, 1)

weekly coverage of police sanctions, and 2) weekly coverage of court sanctions used against the Black

Panther Party between 1967-1973. Police sanctions refer to raids, physical searches, detentions and

investigations, while court sanctions refer to trial appearances, court rulings regarding BPP motions and

court sentences.34

The police and court indicators are analyzed separately in an effort to reflect the differences in

police and court sanctions highlighted in the anecdotal literature concerning the BPP (e.g., Jones 1988;

1998; Seale 1991; Pearson 1994; Newton 1996). We examine, for example, whether the police were

more likely to receive attention in the media over the courts, and how well BPP activities account for

police sanctions relative to court sanctions across the five papers. Individuals within media/communication

studies identify that news organizations, especially of the mainstream variety, frequently have personnel

stationed at the courts and thus tend to routinely cover judicial activities at court locations compared to

police activities which can occur anywhere in the city. By contrast, we do not expect dissident or

alternative presses to station personnel in courts and other government agencies, but rather to focus

their attention on challengers and authorities out in the Bay area. In addition, the qualitative literature on

the Black Panthers identifies battles with the police and interactions with the court with varying degrees of

emphasis (e.g., Churchill and Vander Wall 1990; Seale 1991; Pearson 1994; Newton 1996). At certain

points, it appears that many of the BPP encounters with authority were police-related (e.g., the shooting of

officer Frei by Huey P. Newton, the shooting of Bobby Hutton, and numerous raids on Black Panther

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

20/52


20

schools and educational facilities). At others, however, it appears that much discussion is directed toward

interactions with the court system (e.g., the extradition of Bobby Seale in March of 1970; the conviction of

David Hilliard to 6 months in December of 1969). Although occasionally these two acts of repression

overlap, they were generally held as distinct when discussed in the literature.

The independent variables coded to account for police and court sanctions used against the BPP

include several indicators of dissident behavior as well as lagged repressive activity. This orientation is

consistent with existing literature. Much investigation exploring the importance of various structural

factors in models of state repression consistently point to the behavior of challenges and prior repressive

activity as the most important explanatory variables (e.g., Hibbs 1973; Ziegenhagen 1986; Henderson

1991; Alfatooni and Allen 1991; Poe and Tate 1994; Davenport 1995; 2000). This finding has held across

time, space and context. Indeed, it is one of the most invariable statistical findings in the literatures of

political science and sociology.35

The nature of domestic challenges, however, is the subject of much debate. Many conceive of

domestic threats as strictly behavioral phenomena, where government officials monitor overt contentious

activity (e.g., Franks 1989; Davenport 2000). Others conceive of challenges as rhetorical phenomena

(e.g., Bowers et al. 1971), where government officials monitor what dissidents say. In both situations, if

behavior and/or pronouncements exceed specified parameters, then challenges are perceived and

repression is applied. We operationalize both behavioral and rhetorical dissident events as independent

variables in our model.

Black Panther behavior is measured by newspaper coverage of BBP events, which were

classified into five categories: 1) dissent, 2) statements, 3) criminal activity, 4) shootings, and 5)

organizational cohesion. The first category,Dissent, is in line with previous research and measures the

frequency of Black Panther Party demonstrations, rallies, and boycotts. Statements refer to rhetorical

activities by the Panthers about different issues and/or actions, Criminal Activity to events such as

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

21/52


21

robberies and hijaking, and Shootings to firearm altercations with the police.36

We also include in the

model, types of dissident behavior where the effect on protest policing is less certain but were an intricate

part of the BPP repertoire of activity. Specifically this considers instances Organizational Cohesion

such as meetings, parties, and other events at which members gather.37

Two additional independent variables included in the model are lagged measures of police and

court sanctions. These variables are used consistently within the human rights and repression literature

(e.g., Hibbs 1973; Poe and Tate 1994; Davenport 1995; 1999; Moore 1998) and are deemed important

because they capture the influence of bureaucratic inertia. This principle stipulates that once agents of

repression become accustomed to its application, they continue its use out of sheer habit, a means of

protecting previous gains, and/or because they become desensitized to its negative aftereffects. Though

the use of different types of lagged repression within the same equation is not standard (i.e., lagged court

repression in an equation explaining police repression), anecdotal accounts of repressive behavior directed

against dissidents do suggest that there might be an impact (Goldstein 1978; Donner 1990).

INVESTIGATING REPRESSION OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY THROUGH THE

RASHOMON KALEIDOSCOPE

Based on the media coverage concepts of focus and frequency discussed above, our analysis is

twofold. We first examine the distribution and frequency of event coverage concerning authority and BPP

events in each of the five newspapers to examine how each paper conforms to the media coverage

themes. Second, we examine whether and to what extent the differences in coverage matter for our

model about why police and/or court sanctions varied during the time period.

To estimate the causal effects of challenger behavior on repressive activity, Poisson and Negative

Binomial regression models are used (Long 1997, chapter 8), the specific approach being determined by a

likelihood ratio test.38

The methodological techniques are employed in order to estimate a maximum-

likelihood regression where the dependent variable is a non-negative count indicator. Research by Krain

(1997), drawing on the work of King (1989), has identified that previous investigations of repression have

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

22/52


22

not well addressed the problem of left censoring and that improper specification might be the result. To

address these issues, Poisson and Negative Binomial regressions were deemed the more appropriate

strategy of estimation.

To examine the focus of authority relative to dissident events, indicators of BPP activity

(statements, organizational change, dissent, etc.) and the two repression measures (police and court

sanctions) are summarized in Figure 2.

(Insert Figure 2 about here)

What is immediately discernable is the skew in the distribution across each of the five sources; simply,

contentiousness tends to be polarizing in its observation.39

One can see that we faired quite well in our

expectations.

The mainstream presses (theNew York Times [NYT] and Oakland Tribune [OT]), for instance,

provide more coverage of authority behavior relative to BPP activity. These newspapers are

characteristic of the Statewatch coverage theme, as predicted. We did not expect however the wide

range in the frequency of coverage. Relative to the Oakland Tribune, which reported a total of 610 state

and BPP events combined, theNew York Times reported only 219 events, suggesting that theNYT, with

its national rather than local scope, presents a combination of the Statewatch and Accidental Tourist

coverage themes. The Tribune clearly is not an Accidental Tourist, in fact one might refer to them as

an Obsessive Local.

By contrast, event coverage in theBerkeley Barb (which advocated support for all dissident

organizations) and theBlack Panther Intercommunal News Service (the actual voice of the Black

Panther Party) is skewed towards BPP over state coverage the Advocacy theme.40

Regardless of

specific orientation, both provide information about dissidents in excess of the attention given to authorities.

In terms of coverage frequency, we were further correct in our expectation that the Berkeley Barb, an

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

23/52


23

alternative press, would fall into the Accidental Tourist coverage theme since it paid less attention to the

protest behavior of any one social movement organization.

Finally, the Sun Reporterprovided authority and dissident coverage most evenly, but with a small

(231) absolute number of events. It falls into the Balance, Accidental Tourist coverage theme. This

paper covered contention in a relatively fair manner, but paid little attention to authority and BPP events

overall relative to the local, mainstream newspaper or the dissident press.41

Having identified that differences exist in the coverage themes generated by diverse news

sources, quantifying Rashomon, we next examine whether and to what extent these reporting practices

influence our understanding of 1) why repression used against the Black Panther Party varied over the

time period, and 2) the magnitude at which it was used. To investigate the issue of source specific

variance with regard to causal inferences, each measure of applied sanctions is regressed on lagged

repression and different aspects of BPP activity, across each of the five time-series. We first discuss the

causes and magnitude of police repression followed by court sanctions.

ANALYZING THE HISTORIES OF PROTEST POLICING

According to the results presented in Table 1, and similar to what was discussed above, it is clear

from the intercepts that different papers varied in the amount of attention they paid to repression. All

variables held at 0, police repression is least likely to appear in the New York Times followed by the

Berkeley Barb , the Oakland Tribune, and the Sun Reporter. Repression is most likely to be identified

in theBlack Panthernewspaper. Interestingly, the only dissident activity that predicts police repression

against the Panthers, regardless of source, is shootings with authorities. Clearly this is an event not

overlooked by anyone and it transcends the situational motivations of information sources. The magnitude

at which repressive events are reported in response to a shooting, however, varies across papers;

Rashomon does have substantive influences. For example, the Oakland Tribune equation reveals that

every shooting provokes about 1repressive events.42

TheNew York Times predicts nearly 1 instances

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

24/52


24

of police repression for every shooting and theBerkeley Barb nearly 1 event. The Sun Reporterreports

that nearly an event of police repression will occur for every shooting and the Black Panther 1 full event.

These significant differences in magnitude across papers are important, for they reflect the attention to

certain aspects of dissident-state interactions by some papers more than others.

(Table 1 about here)

The findings in Table 1 demonstrate that the authority and/or dissident events that a source pays

attention to drives what it reports, and what it reports determines what we as researchers examine. For

example, we suggested earlier that theNew York Times covers contentious political events that are large

and/or bizarre in nature. We find support for this claim in Table 1, where shootings and BPP dissent

(which led to nearly a repressive event for every protest event) are the only significant predictors of

police repression. According to this source, other forms of BPP activity in the organization itself or out in

the community take place without repressive consequence. The implications of BPP activity, according to

theNew York Timesreporting of events, are that as long as the organization refrained from shootings and

dissident behavior, its members were free to propagate, assemble, organize, and participate in the political

process as they pleased. Even BPP criminal activity as reported in the Times did not significantly predict

police sanctions. One could conclude from this that criminals are criminals, BPP members or not (a

finding at odds with more anecdotal research on the subject).

Apart from shootings, the Oakland Tribune reveals that lagged political repression was an

important determinant of later repressive activity. Here, in line with arguments about news routines, once

the media has covered police repression they are more incline to highlight this behavior afterwards. This

leads researchers to identify bureaucratic inertia as an important influence.

TheBerkeley Barb, with its attention to the social movements and groups of the New Left

provides still another version of history concerning authority-BPP events. According to this source, events

related to the organizational cohesion of the BPP, in addition to shootings with authorities led to protest

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

25/52


25

policing. Compared to the previous two papers, theBerkeley Barb paid more attention to the social life of

the Panthers breaking the public-private divide. As a result of this observation, one gets a richer

understanding of the importance of the internal dynamics of the organization as well as police attention to

these dynamics. From this newspaper, we know that one meeting, or member gathering resulted in about

.10 police sanctions. This finding becomes interesting to the extent that it complicates our conception of

what authorities find threatening. As it stands, much literature suggests that authorities respond to overt

manifestations of political behavior used by challengers (e.g., Hibbs 1973; Davenport 1995; Francisco

1996; Moore 1998). In fact, all empirical studies of state-dissident events lead to this conclusion as the

types of behavior identified outside of the overt, protest realm are never examined for causal impacts.

Our findings demonstrate, rather, that authorities might respond to a wide variety of activities, only some of

which fall into the conventional category generally highlighted by researchers (e.g., Franks 1989) and

news organizations. Again, lag police repression is found to have an impact on repressive behavior.

Likely responding to the tempo of state activity and the perceived relevance of this activity as a news item

after it has initially taken place, this information-provider highlights prior activity of repressive agents as an

important determinant.

Revealing the complexity inherent to a message targeting politically moderate African-Americans

in a situation of high black-white tension, the Sun Reporterends up telling yet another different story of

authority-BPP interactions. Similar to the other papers, the Sun Reporterhighlights that shootings with

authorities are an important predictor of police sanctions used against the Panthers at about an event per

shooting. Similar to theNew York Times, one reading the newspaper would conclude that police activity

was likely enacted during weeks when protest was present (at .17 per event). In contrast to the other

papers, however, the Sun Reportershows BPP criminal activity to be an important predictor of police

sanctions (at about an event per criminal act). Here, the intersection of African-American criminality,

the criminal justice system, and individuals engaged in challenging the political system in some manner,

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

26/52


26

represented a topic that would resonate well with their audience. Simultaneously, one captures issues that

have historically been relevant to urban African-Americans.

Finally, theBlack Panther Party Intercommunal News Service (BPINS) focused almost

exclusively on the activities of the BPP. As the mouthpiece of the dissident organization, the paper

concerned itself less with authority-BPP events than it did with the ideologies, positions, and activities of

the movement itself. From the perspective of theBPINS, only coverage of authority shootings and lagged

police activity significantly influenced coverage of police sanctions, as one police shooting and prior

repressive activity resulted in approximately one and police sanctions, respectively; in this case, police

repression is merely the result of a reactive and habituated police organization caught within the dynamics

of a highly contentious interaction with the BPP organization. Overall, one should put these findings in

perspective for the model applied to data generated from theBPINSdid poorly in predicting police

sanctions with an R2

of .05, the lowest of all the data sources considered. Consequently, the Panther

source would provide a great deal of information about what the BPP engaged in but it would provide very

little insight into why they were sanctioned by the police at least with the explanatory model considered

in this study.

EXPLORING THE HISTORIES OF COURT SANCTIONS

An analysis of repressive behavior enacted by the Bay-area courts against the Black Panther

Party clarifies further how the situational motivations across different information sources drive empirical

results. Court sanctions are unlike protest policing that are often the immediate reaction to some

perceived threat to public safety and/or illegal behavior. Rather, court sanctions are the pre-scheduled

judicial response to an already known (although not necessarily reported) event, civil or criminal, and the

person(s) involved in that event. Unlike police sanctions that often take place in private view, court

sanctions tend to be aired in public as they take place in an environment frequently observed by reporters

looking for news. The ability to predict court sanctions from event based information sources depends

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

27/52


27

largely upon whether these sources routinely pay attention to authority-dissident interactions in the judicial

arena, or whether a particular event gains enough public interest to warrant special coverage by the

media. Table 2 demonstrates these patterns in varying degrees across the five information sources used

in this study.

(Table 2 about here)

Again, observing intercepts one can gain a general sense of the distributions identified in Table 2.

All variables held at 0, court repression is least likely to be observed in the Berkeley Barb followed by the

BPINS, the Sun Reporter, and theNew York Times. The most consistent observation of court-initiated

sanctions is observed in the Oakland Tribune. With reference to causal effects, the most consistent

finding across equations (in two out of three models) is the impact of lagged court activity in the New York

Times (at .38 court sanctions per prior event) and the Oakland Tribune (at approximately 1 court

sanction per prior event). This finding makes sense for it is expected that information-providers focused

on state organizations would identify this behavior as an important determinant.

What we might not have expected is the importance of BPP rhetoric in the NYTand Oakland

Tribune in predicting court sanctions (at about 1events per statement). It would be difficult to infer from

these results that BPP dissent directly influences judicial decision making, but we imagine that BPP

rhetoric, which often took place outside and around courts, influenced newspaper coverage of judicial

decisions concerning Black Panther members. The role of rhetoric in these models is important, for it

suggests that BPP activity brought additional attention to authority-BPP events in the judicial context that

was already subject to public observation and scrutiny within the mainstream news media.

The final pattern that strikes us from these results is how poorly the models perform using data

generated from the Sun Reporterand theBPINS, accounting for 3% and 1% of the variance

respectively. According to these models nothing accounted for court sanctions. These findings are

intriguing for unlike the models estimated for police behavior when one consulted the BPP and the Sun

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

28/52


28

Reporterregarding insight into what courts were doing against the Panther organization, the sources were

simply left in the dark again, at least from the model estimated here.

CONCLUSION

Within the case of political repression directed against the Black Panther Party, this article set out

to examine whether or not the selection of a data source influenced what was reported by that

information-provider and what was concluded when these data were examined for causal relationships.

The article further attempted to provide some understanding into how information-providers varied across

both observation and inferences by discussing what we referred to as Situationally Motivated

Observation. Empirical results suggest that source selection does matter.

In accordance to a newspapers focus on authorities relative to challengers, different types of

events are emphasized. Sources that focus on the status quo tend to highlight the behavior of authorities,

while sources favoring challengers tend to focus on dissident action; Simply put, focus breeds polarized

observation which becomes manifest during periods of contention. Different newspapers also tend to vary

in terms of derived causal influences across independent variables. In sources with disproportionate

authority coverage, police sanctions against the BPP were the result of a narrow set of factors (e.g.,

dissident provocation in the form of shootings, protest, or lagged police activity). These activities,

moreover, accounted for a good third of repressive events experienced by the Panthers during this time

period. In sources with more balanced or disproportionate dissident coverage, we find that police and court

sanctions were the result of a wider range of factors not only more contentious behavior (e.g., shootings,

dissent and lagged police repression) but also of more routine, everyday activities such as party gatherings,

funerals, and criminal activity. Similar to the findings of Oliver and Myers (1999), we find that there is

different coverage allocated to private, non-message oriented events and that these coverage patterns

have important implications for investigating behavior using these data. Court sanctions also reveal

important differences. As found, within most dissident-oriented sources, there are no variables

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

29/52


29

consistently accounting for court repression. Within authority-oriented source, prior court activity leads to

subsequent court behavior which is quite reasonable.

With these findings, one could conclude that the insights provided by both conventional as well as

historiographical analytic approaches to studying events are relevant, for there are certain aspects of

contentious relations that are held in common across various social actors and certain aspects of these

relations that are held uniquely. This sounds innately logical for many have argued that social conflict is

fundamentally about consensus (or unity in perception) and deviance (diversity in perception). Indeed, this

research presents us with a more pluralistic investigation of state-dissident interactions, where different

authorities and challengers compete with one another in a context of multiple viewing publics each

with varying takes on what is going on (Duffy 1994). These takes are unified in many ways. For

example, all publics within the authority-BPP example found that police repression was increased when

shootings took place and all identified that statements made by the BPP were irrelevant to the actions

undertaken by authorities. Other aspects of the conflict are quite distinct. For example, instances of

organizational cohesion increase police repression in theBerkeley Barb time-series, whereas in the case

of the Oakland Tribune BPP statements increase court repressive behavior. Additionally, one can find

even broader distinctions. For example, in this research ethnic affiliation appeared to be important in so

far as the actions of the court were well documented within the white sources, but of little priority within

the African-American sources. This finding was unexpected but may be important for further

investigation as it reveals that different observers may focus on completely different aspects of a problem.

These results challenge existing research to the extent that they compel us to disaggregate our

sources/datasets and explore Rashomon directly. As suggested from this research, we must consciously

pay attention to where we get information and attempt to explain what we observe, explicitly (King et al.

1994). Indeed, examining data generation is perhaps the best test of our theories of behavioral generation

(Lustick 1996). These results also challenge existing research to the extent that they move us to address

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

30/52


30

different questions about political repression. Specifically, we are led to ask: what explains repressive

behavior for the challengers (in this case the BPP)? Neither court or police behavior was well predicted.

What would/did this organization suggest was the reason for their repression and how does this alter the

model utilized here as well as elsewhere in the literature? What events are viewed comparably across all

actors? What events are seen in completely different ways? Which are ignored? More broadly, we are

also led to ask: what are the implications of source specific variance for social conflict itself? Does

greater variance in repressive coverage lead to more repression (in line with the view that authorities apply

sanctions to unify society) or is repressive behavior associated with less variance in repressive coverage

(in line with a view that authorities apply sanctions to divide society)? Such a line of questioning brings us

back to and provides a mechanism for rigorously investigating the conflict-consensus debate long ignored

by social science. Such a line of questioning also brings us back to democratic theory as it allows us to

examine the relative importance given to alternative historical accounts within the application of one public

policy output applied negative sanctions. Indeed, this research becomes important for it would allow us

to explore which source is most important in influencing the application and understanding of state

repression as well as the behavior of those challenging authorities.

Clearly, investigations of Rashomon can (and should) be extended beyond the one case provided

here in order to explore these issues further. It is our belief that the relevance of source specific variance

will withstand comparative investigation. We are confident that most would expect interactions between

the East Timorese and Indonesian authorities, Tamil Tiger and Sri Lankan authorities would be covered in

accordance with the SitMO model. The question remains, what does this variance mean for us

theoretically? In what manner will sources vary across these different cases? Are violent conflicts or

those that involve larger parts of the population subject to greater variance in the relative balance of

observed authority to dissident behavior? These questions will only be answered by changing the manner

in which we collect and analyze information. In many cases all that is needed can already be found in

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

31/52


31

existing data sets (e.g., the identification of sources which are used for information). Before we can get

to the point where Rashomon can be examined, however, we will first need to develop a willingness to

reflect about what might exist within as well as beyond our existing data collection efforts. Indeed, using

Hawthorn (1991) somewhat out of context, after reading our work one appropriately can conclude that

possibilities (still) haunt the human sciences. We merely seek to reverse the process and let the human

sciences haunt the possibilities for a while.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

32/52


32

References

Abron, J. 1993. "Raising the Consciousness of the People": The Black Panther Intercommunal News

Service, 1967-1980." In K. Wachsberger, ed., Voices from the Underground: Volume 1.

Insider Histories of the Vietnam Era Underground Press. Mica Press: Ann Arbor.

Alfatooni, Afra, and Michael Allen. 1991. "Government Sanction and Collective Political Protest in

Perifery and Semiperifery States: A Time Series Analysis." Journal of Political and Military

Sociology 19: 29-45.

Azar, Edward. 1980. The Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB). The Journal of Conflict

Resolution 24(1): 143-152.

Barkin, S.M. 1984. The Journalist as Storyteller: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. American

Journalism 1(2): 27-33.

Beissinger, Mark. 1998. Event Analysis in Transitional Societies: Protest Mobilization in the Former

Soviet Union. In Rucht, Dieter, Ruud Koopmans, and Friedhelm Neidhardt, eds.,Acts of

Dissent: New Developments in the Study of Protest. Berlin, Germany: WZB.

Black Panther Party. 1970. The Black Panther. Oakland: The Black Panther Party.

Brockett, Charles. 1992. "Measuring Political Violence and Land Inequality in Central America."

American Political Science Review 86(1): 169-76.

Bond, Doug. 1994. Protocol for the Assessment of Nonviolent Direct Action Codebook.

http://data.fas.harvard.edu/cfia/pnscs/DOCS/contents.htm.

Bowers, J., D. Ochs, and R. Jensen. 1971. The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control. Menlo Park:

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Carr, E. H. 1964. What is History? Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Chomsky, Noam. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. Boston:

South End Press.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

33/52


33

Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. 1990. Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against

the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Boston: South End Press.

Cohen, Paul. 1997. History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth . New York:

Columbia University Press.

Collingwood, R.G. [1946] 1961. The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Danzger, Herbert. 1975. "Validating Conflict Data." American Sociological Review 40: 570-584.

Davenport, Christian. 1995. "Multi-Dimensional Threat Perception and State Repression: An Inquiry Into

Why States Apply Negative Sanctions." American Journal of Political Science 39(3): 683-713.

Davenport, Christian. 1998. Reading the Voice of the Vanguard: A Content Analysis of the Black

Panther Intercommunal News Service, 1969-1973. In Charles Jones, ed., The Black Panther

Party Reconsidered: Reflections and Scholarship . Baltimore: Black Classic Press.

Davenport, Christian. 1999. Human Rights and the Democratic Proposition. Journal of Conflict

Resolution 43(1): 92-116.

Davenport, Christian, ed. 2000a. Paths to State Repression: Human Rights Violations and

Contentious Politics. Boulder:Rowman & Littlefield.

Davies, John. 1989. Global Event Data System Codebook. University of Maryland:

http://geds.umd.edu/geds/.

Davis, Darren. 1997. The Direction of Race of Interviewer Effects among African-Americans: Donning

the Black Mask. American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 309-22.

Davis, David R., Brett Ashley Leeds and Will H. Moore. 1998. Measuring Dissident and State Behavior:

The Intranational Political Interactions (IPI) Project," paper presented at the Workshop on Cross-

National Data Collection, Texas A&M University.

Della Porta, Donatella. 1995. Social Movements, Political Violence and the State: A Comparative

Analysis of Italy and Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

34/52


34

Diamond, Edwin. 1994. Behind the Times: Inside the New York Times. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Dinsmore, Herman H. 1969. All the News That Fits; A Critical Analysis of the News and Editorial

Content of the New York Times. New Rochelle: Arlington House.

Donner, Frank. 1990. Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban

America. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Doran, Charles, Robert Pendley, and George Antunes. 1973. A Test of Cross-National Event

Reliability. International Studies Quarterly 17: 175-203.

Duffy, Gavan. 1994. Events and Versions: Reconstructing Event Data Analysis. International

Interactions 20(1-2): 147-167.

Feirabend, Ivo, Rosalind Feirabend, and Betty Nesvold. 1966. Systemic Conditions of Political

Aggression (SCOPA). Ann Arbor: ICPSR.

Franks, C.E.S. 1989. Dissent and the State . New York: Oxford University Press.

Francisco, Ron. 1996. "Coercion and Protest: An Empirical Test in Two Democratic States." American

Journal of Political Science 40(4): 1179-1204.

Francisco, Ron. 2000. European Protest and Coercion Data Codebook. University of Kansas:

http://lark.cc.ukans.edu/~ronfran/data/index.html.

Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth, and Elizabeth Lasch-Quinn. 1999. Reconstructing History: The Emergence

of a New Historical Society . New York: Routledge.

Gerner, Deborah, and Phillip Schrodt. 1996. The Kansas Event Data System: A Beginners Guide with

an Application to the Study of Media Fatigue in the Palestinian Intifada. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Goldstein, Robert. 1978. Political Repression in Modern America: From 1870 to the Present.

Boston: Schenckman/G.K. Hall.

Goodman, James. 1994. Stories of Scottsboro. New York: Pantheon Books.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

35/52


35

Guha, Ranajit, ed. 1998. A Subaltern Studies Reader: 1986-1995. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Gurr, Ted. 1993.Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. U. S. Institute of

Peace.

Hawthorn, Geoffrey. 1991. Plausible Worlds: Possibility and Understanding in History and the

Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Henderson, Conway. 1991. "Conditions Affecting the Use of Political Repression."Journal of Conflict

Resolution 35: 120-42.

Hibbs, Douglas. 1973. Mass Political Violence: A Cross-National Causal Analysis. New York:

Wiley.

Hocke, Peter. 1998. Determining the Selection Bias in Local and National Newspaper Reports on

Protest Events. In Rucht, Dieter, Ruud Koopmans, and Friedhelm Neidhardt, eds.,Acts of

Dissent: New Developments in the Study of Protest. Berlin, Germany: WZB.

House of Commons. 1977. Royal Commission on the Press: Final Report. London: HMSO Cmnd.

2621.

Huxtable, Phillip, and Jon Pevehouse. 1996. Potential Validity Problems in Events Data Collection.

International Studies Notes 21(2): 8-19.

Iggers, Georg. 1997. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the

Postmodern Challenge. London: Weslayan University Press.

Jackman, Robert W. and William A. Boyd. 1979. "Multiple Sources in the Collection of Data on Political

Conflict." American Journal of Political Science 23: 434-45.

Jenkins, Craig. 1998. Mass Conflict and Civil Society in East Europe: A Codebook. Manuscript-

Codebook.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

36/52


36

Jones, Charles. 1988. "The Political Repression of the Black Panther Party 1966-1971: The Case of the

Oakland Bay Area." Journal of Black Studies 18(4): 415-434.

Jones, Charles, ed. 1998. The Black Panther Party Reconsidered: Reflections and Scholarship .

Baltimore: Black Classic Press.

Kessler, L. 1984. The Dissident Press: Alternative Journalism in American History. Beverly Hills:

Sage.

King, Gary. 1989. Event Count Models for International Relations: Generalizations and Applications.

International Studies Quarterly 33: 123-147.

King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference

in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Koopmans, Ruud. 1995. Democracy from Below: New Social Movements and the Political System in

West Germany. Boulder: Westview Press.

Krain, Mathew. 1997. State-Sponsored Mass Murder: A Study of the Onset and Severity of Genocides

and Politicides. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(3): 331-360.

Kriesi, H., Ruud Koopmans, J.W. Duyvendak, and M. Giugni. 1992. New Social Movements and

Political Opportunities in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research 22: 219-

244.

Kruger, Barbara, and Phil Mariani, eds. 1989. Remaking History. Seattle: Bay Press.

Lee, Martin, and Norman Solomon. 1992. Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in the News

Media . New York: Carol Publishing Group.

Lichbach, Mark. 1987. "Deterrence or Escalation?: The Puzzle of Aggregate Studies of Repression and

Dissent." Journal of Conflict Resolution 31: 266-297.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

37/52


37

Lichbach, Mark I. 1997. Social Theory and Comparative Politics. In Mark Lichbach and Alan

Zuckerman, eds., Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lustick, Ian. 1996. History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the

Problem of Selection Bias. American Political Science Review 90(3): 605-618.

Mazur, Allan. 1998. A Hazardous Inquiry: The Rashomon Effect at Love Canal. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

McAdam, Douglas. 1982. Political Process and the Development of the Black Insurgency, 1930-

1970. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

McCarthy, John Clark McPhail, and Jackie Smith. 1996. "Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias

in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982, 1991." American Sociological Review

61: 468-499.

Moore, Will. 1998. Repression and Dissent: Substitution, Context and Timing. American Journal of

Political Science 42(3): 851-873.

Mueller, Carol. 1997. "International Press Coverage of East German Protest Events, 1989." American

Sociological Review 69: 820-832.

Mungo, Ray. 1970. Famous Long Ago. Boston: Beacon Press.

Nardin, Terry. 1971. Violence and the State . Beverly Hills: Sage.

Newton, Huey. 1996. War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America. New York:

Harlem River Press.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

38/52


38

Oliver, Pam, and Daniel Myers. 1999. How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Location, and

Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events. American Journal of Sociology

105(1): 38-87.

Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.

Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.

Pearson, Hugh. 1994. The Shadow of a Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in

America. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Peck, Abe. 1985. Uncovering the Sixties: The Life and Times of the Underground Press . New

York: Pantheon Books.

Poe, Steven, and C. Neal Tate. 1994. "Repression of Personal Integrity in the 1980's: A Global

Analysis." American Political Science Review 88: 853-72.

Rivers, William, and David Rubin. 1971. A Regions Press: Anatomy of Newspapers in the San

Francisco Bay Area. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California.

Rosenau, Pauline. 1992. Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and

Intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rummel, Rudolph J. 1964. Dimensions of Conflict Behavior Within and Between Nations. In L. Von

Bertalanffy and A. Rapoport, eds., General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for General

Systems Research. Ann Arbor: Society for General Systems Research.

Rummel, Rudolph J. 1996. Death by Government. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Salmon, Lucy. 1976. The Newspaper and Authority . New York: Octagon Books.

Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Random House.

Schrodt, Phillip, and Deborah Gerner. 1994. Validity Assessment of a Machine-coded Event Data Set

for the Middle East, 1982-1992. American Journal of Political Science 38: 825-854.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

39/52


39

Schrodt, Philip, Shannon G. Davis and Judith L. Weddle. 1994. "Political Science: KEDS-A Program for

the Machine Coding of Event Data." Social Science Computer Review 12(3): 561-588.

Schudson, Michael. 1995. The Power of News. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Scott, James. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

Seale, Bobby. 1991. Seize the Time: The Story of the Black Panther Party . Baltimore: Black Classic

Press.

Shaw, Timothy, and Douglas Anglin. 1979. Global, Regional, and National Sources of Zambian Foreign

Policy Event Data: A Content Validation Test. In Don Munton, ed.,Measuring International

Behavior: Public Sources, Events, and Validity . Halifax: Center for Foreign Policy Studies.

Shepard, Richard F. 1996. The Paper's Papers: A Reporter's Journey Through the Archives of The

New York Times. New York: Times Books.

Sigal, Leon. 1973. Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking.

Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company.

Sigal, Leon. 1987. Sources Make the News. In Robert Karl Manoff and Michael Schudson, eds.,

Reading the News: A Pantheon Guide to Popular Culture. New York: Pantheon Books.

Snyder, David and William R. Kelly. 1977. "Conflict Intensity, Media Sensitivity and the Validity of

Newspaper Data." American Sociological Review 42: 1105-1117.

Sommer, Henrik, and James Scarritt. 1998. The Utility of Reuters for Events Analysis in Area Studies:

The Case of Zambia-Zimbabwe Interactions, 1982-1993.International Interaction 25: 29-59.

Southgate, Beverly. 1996. History: What and Why? Ancient, Modern and Postmodern Perspectives .

New York: Routledge.

Spates, J. 1976. "Counterculture and Dominant Values: A Cross-National Analysis of the Underground

Press and Dominant Culture Magazines." American Sociological Review 41(October): 868-83.

8/22/2019 10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

40/52


40

Spates, J. and J. Levin. 1972. "Beats, Hippies, the Hip Generation and the American Middle Class: An

Analysis of Values." International Social Science Journal24(4): 326-53.

Stansfield, Douglas, and J.B. Lemert. 1987. Alternative Newspapers and Mobilizing Information.

Journalism Quarterly 64: 604-607.

Suggs, H., ed. 1983. The Black Press in the South, 1865-1979. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press

Tarrow, Sidney. 1989. Democracy and Disorder: Protest and Politics in Italy 1965-1975 . Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Taylor, Charles, and David Jodice. 1983. The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tifft, Susan, and Alex Jones. 1999. The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind the New

York Times. Boston: Little Brown.

Tilly, Charles. 1995. Popular Contention in Great Britain 1758-1834. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Tilly, Charles, Louise Tilly, and

10.1.1.197.7174 (1)

Documents