Sorry, kids: A real movement needs more than hurt feelings
nypost.com
nypost.com
Hype up a 'movement' or protest until it is able to hit critical mass. Have nothing but encouraging words to share. Then when it is mostly self-sustaining and has a large group of people who have invested too much to back down, start fighting against the movement. Fan the flames to create two groups on both extremes ("pro-movement" and "grow up already") shouting over each other, not accomplishing anything and reaching no agreements.
Neutrality doesn't sell as well as extremism. This has happened with every protest/movement in recent memory. They jump from one movement to the next because as the fire dies out the clicks stop coming in.
1) Release 3-5 articles all supportive and encouraging and downtalking any other sides. Fire them off daily or weekly at the start of a movement.
2) Spin around a month or two later and post little positive coverage and now post the other side(s) arguments while downtalking the movement. A complete tailspin from the first step.
If 1 & 2 don't have that month period between and happen at the same time - I see it as giving a voice to both sides. If 1 and 2 have a large time gap between them, it's setting up a fire then fanning the flames.
In recent memory, outside of "fringe" or "everyone discards it as a right wing nutjobs newspaper" (Breitbart) there has never been negative/critical coverage of any school "protests". All MSM has nothing but positive things to say until the movement is dying out/people are forgetting about it at which point they become highly critical, piss off those in the movement, and fan the flames a while longer.
It's something I see time and time again. It's the timing that is suspicious. Not necessarily the articles themselves.