As vote counting begins and the nation prepares for a transition of presidential power, newsrooms everywhere — but particularly in swing states, swing counties, state capitals and near Washington, D.C. — should have a strategy for covering political violence and threats of violence.

The stakes are high. Overstating threats of political violence can exacerbate the goal of the threats, which is to intimidate certain groups so they disengage from civic life. On the other hand, ignoring threats of violence that come from politicians or other influential people abdicates the responsibility of the press.

“Our media plays a crucial role in shaping how people perceive political violence and whether perpetrators of violence or threats achieve their ultimate aims,” said Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Threats and violence are often used to terrorize groups of people or public servants. … Understanding how violent groups try to use the media, and how to instead ensure reporting serves a broader public, is crucial for reducing targeted violence.”

Known facts about political violence

Political violence is rare in the United States. Threats of political violence are more common. And in political rhetoric, innuendo that dehumanizes people and groups of people can stoke violence.

One of the foundational questions of political violence is not how often it occurs but how many people support political violence in America. And there’s a big difference between how many people endorse political violence and how many people fear political violence. Poorly conducted surveys have inflated or conflated the risk. That’s dangerous because it makes violence feel inevitable and allowable. High-quality surveys consistently show minuscule (3 to 4%) support for violence across both parties. Yet, when researchers ask people if they expect violence, the number is much higher.

Given that people look to one another for social permission, reporting that people expect violence without also reporting that most Americans reject political violence is alarmist and sensational. This can create and reinforce a false perception of inevitability.

There’s been a spate of recent news stories reporting that lots of people are bracing for political violence. These stories accurately report public perception, but they don’t give consumers the complete picture.

It’s harder to find stories about people who say they condone political violence. The stories that do address the topic often downplay how small the numbers are.

This Vox story looks closely at a study identifying different types of people most likely to endorse political violence. In the seventh paragraph, an expert puts things in perspective. “‘I personally think that large-scale political violence is really, really unlikely. I feel more sanguine about that prediction, given our 2024 data,” Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the (University of California Davis’s Violence Prevention Research Program) told Vox. “But sporadic outbreaks, particularly if the battleground states remain really close — is it possible? Sure. Might there be attempts to intimidate election officials? Absolutely.’”

While acts of political violence are rare, threats are more common.

A whopping 40% of election officials report being threatened, which has led many to resign or opt to not seek reelection. The number of women and especially women of color who have been threatened is even higher — a potential crisis when 80% of election workers are women.

In addition to documenting threats, the press plays an important role in explaining the possible motives behind the threat as well as the response. Pulling back the curtain on political threats makes them less effective. Describing how police respond and how election officials continue to facilitate voting, tells the story that threats don’t work.

A newsroom plan

Here are some best practices endorsed by experts who study political violence:

• Provide the audience with an accurate picture of what your community believes. After decades of division, Americans hold distorted views about their political opponents, including when it comes to political violence. Most people guess the other side is 300 to 400% more likely to support violence than is, in fact, true — leading to each side inflating its own willingness. And the more news they consume, the more inaccurate they are about those on the other side. Remind news consumers of common identities and values that cross political divisions. Most Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different across race, class, sexual orientation and more. A majority of Democrats and Republicans believe voting, education and health care are “essential” rights. The vast majority believe that we must accept the outcome of fair elections, regardless of who wins.
• Report on those who deliberately stoke conflict, even if they are in positions of trust and authority. When these people are leaders in either governmental or social positions, there is a direct link between their rhetoric and acceptance of violence among their supporters. Importantly, they are not seeking to provide accurate or valuable information. Instead, they seek to misinform and drive false perceptions to garner personal attention and influence. Calling them out, clearly identifying how their words don’t match community values and needs.
• Go easy on words that evoke violence, particularly in headlines and social media text. Dehumanizing language such as “enemies,” “mobs” and “war” can be dangerous. This rhetoric, when used by pundits, political leaders and influential people, can encourage acts of violence and drive deeply inaccurate perceptions.
• Conflict stories, when reported with nuance and accuracy, lead to a more informed community. Studies have shown that more and more nuanced perceptions of conflict are actually valuable for reducing violence and animosity between groups. This notion of complicating the narrative can make for deeply compelling and newsworthy content, while also making it clear that the world is not us vs. them. Accurate stories portray complex characters and narratives. Getting more humanity into stories about conflict makes it more difficult for people to devalue groups they disagree with. For example, showing the suffering caused by armed conflicts can cause supporters of political violence to reassess their position.
• Accurate and informative historical comparisons will point out differences as well similarities. Putting major events such as protests and social movements in a historical context, as some organizations did during the 2020 protests, also helps make major issues feel more manageable, building a sense of agency and reducing fear.
• Best journalistic practices for covering other types of violence apply to political violence. The line between political violence and other kinds of threats and violence — including gun violence, mass shootings, and other hate-fueled violence — is often blurry. For instance, with the second attempted shooting of former President Donald Trump, a document was left behind, which newsrooms had to determine how and whether to cover.

This is a starting point. There are a number of organizations, including Protect Democracy and Over Zero, that offer detailed guidance for newsrooms on all aspects of covering political violence updated for this season. Elections SOS also offers election-related guidance that includes guidance around potential violence related to the election.

Preparing ahead of time to cover threats of violence, as well as the rare possibility of actual violence, will help journalists get accurate and helpful information to their audiences, without exacerbating the effect. This will help newsrooms fulfill their role as information providers in support of democracy.