Rhetoric of the Riot: An Interpretive Study of Newspapers

INTRODUCTION
In each year, the number of events that demand a media frenzy are far too many to count.
Such events are afforded the attention of the media because of the publicity attributed with their
occurrence. This applies to all forms of media including newspapers and magazines. The entity
of the media takes it upon itself to be the force of documentation for all those susceptible to its
influence. Here, the force of rhetoric comes into play. Each media outlet coins a term used for the
entirety of the coverage of said event. The sheer force of the media permits that all the details of
an event fall within a single label. Under this umbrella of sorts, categorization of any event by a
single phrase is very much accepted and not the subject of scrutiny. In retrospect, the label
bestowed upon an event is often just as important as the particulars of that event. Its exigence
relates to our need to critically analyze this aspect of language because of the ongoing habit of
attaching labels to situations. These labels indicate how there are different perceptions by
different groups depending on various factors. In this case, the events of 1967 caused newspapers
on both national and local levels to react to mayhem unfolding in the streets of the model city.
The goal of my research is to ascertain the different references to the events of 1967 on
the part of newspapers and magazines. More specifically, my aim is to uncover all, or any,
interesting patterns in the ways that newspapers and magazines specifically described the events
of 1967. Furthermore, it is my hope that I would be able to show how their language works
specifically with the definitions of the terms found in scholarly literature. To reiterate, whether
that event is accurately portrayed with this label or not is not the focus of this research. Rather, it
is my intention to acknowledge the various interpretations of that summer of 1967 by both
national and local newspapers. This topic of rhetorical awareness will drive my inquiry into two

common labels, riot, and rebellion, used by media outlets to refer to the events. On further study,
it is apparent that there are variations of the two labels and this data would also be included in
any patterns discovered.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The events of 1967 were publicized immensely, catching the attention of many media
outlets. At the time, these events stirred up debate surrounding the controversial term to associate
with what had happened. Social scientists were the first to take a scholarly approach that would
help define the possible definitions used to refer to 1967. Each of the following headings indicate
a label that social scientists have deemed a possibility when referring to any urban violence
plaguing an American city throughout the sixties. It is important to note that these are not the
only options as evidenced by many distinctions found in my research.
Civil Disturbance. The first of many definitions is that of civil disturbance. This
terminology encompasses the idea that this type of event is devoid of any racial overtones as
the justification for taking to the streets (Grimshaw 4). Social scientists depict this disturbance as
an outpouring of raw anger at not making it in America; a complete breakdown of the well-oiled
machine of a society. An application of this term is aimed to avoid racial labeling to ensure no
further escalation (Grimshaw 5). Overall, usage of this term is to maintain a neutral affiliation to
not inspire further violence. Thus, this point of view does not point the blame towards any one
group and in retrospect, does not acknowledge any wrongdoing that might be happening
(Grimshaw 5).
Racial Revolt. This second term is not concerned with maintaining neutrality but rather
hopes to instigate the discussion of race. Usage of this term is often substituted with those of

rebellion and black revolt (Grimshaw 5). This label is only used to describe a disturbance that
has racial undertones in that there is a party fighting for the fulfillment of its demands. Social
scientists explain that the application of such powerful language is to accomplish one of two
purposes, the first being to pose a threat (Grimshaw 5). This threat comes in the form of tactical
awareness, ensuring that the opposite party is aware of the measures that will be taken. The
second purpose surrounds the question of survival (Grimshaw 5). In this case, a group feels the
pressure of persecution, enough to believe that this form of violence is the only way to guarantee
the survival of their race.
Class Assault. This term was later coined because of the economic undertones evidenced
by the looting on 12th street in 1967. Before this incident, it had not been considered as a
plausible definition due to the disbelief that economic disparities would be the sole motivation
behind a disturbance (Grimshaw 6). Those characterized by this term rarely develop with two
opposing forces. Rather, there is a unified front with both communities searching for personal
gain. There is no racial motivation or a sense of dissatisfaction with treatment by others. It is
simply an opportunity provided by the strength in numbers and lack of authority figures around
to dissipate the looting (Grimshaw 6).
General upheaval. In addition to the above definitions, one scholar deemed it crucial to
include this subset of definitions that encompasses the remaining phrases. Upheaval in this case
was defined as any disturbance that was powerful enough to trigger the amassing of thousands
(Goldberg 116). Another aspect of such a disturbance is the increase of lawless activity in
addition to the exhaustion of city resources (Goldberg 116). This generality of a massively
complicated series of events led to further distinctions of the types of riots that could be
described.

Riots as Political Confrontations. Such riots included those with a political aspect. This
aspect is the single most important motivation of this urban upheaval. Included is the explicit
political confrontation between Negro leadership and civil authorities, (Goldberg 119). Violence
was just a byproduct of rising tensions whereas organization was the goal.
Riots as Expressive Rage. This type of riot was characterized by the behavior of its mob
which is a wandering street mob, angry, drunken, milling about, lacking leadership or
direction, (Goldberg 120). There are no underlying motivations whether it be racial, economic,
or political. It is simply uncontested acts of vandalism.
Riots as fulfillment of anticipations. This final category is unique in that such
disturbances explode because of shows of force by the police force (Goldberg 120). Such
anticipatory action antagonizes rioters into action on a milder scale.
METHODS
Sampling Method. The method of data collection I chose to pursue was categorized as
being an interpretive study of historical documents. Initially, this definition seemed correct in
answering my question. However, I soon realized that it was indeed too broad of an approach.
Instead, I decided to conduct similar research with the exception that the historical documents I
would analyze would be that of newspapers and magazines only. There were a series of questions
I asked when considering this definition including:
-

When was this document published?

Does it specifically reveal a pattern of rhetoric?
Where was it published? How far away from Detroit?

As a result, I concluded with close to 30 documents, published both nationally and locally. It was
a decision on my part to include documents published on a national level, simply to analyze
whether a pattern exists with distance as an impeding factor. These documents were outsourced
from the outlets listed below:
-

Detroit Free Press

Battle Creek Enquirer
Lansing State Journal
The Times Herald
The Chicago Defender
The Chicago Tribune
The Washington Post
The Los Angeles Times
The New York Times
Norfolk Journal and Guide

Most of the documents were published during the week of July 23 rd. The rest of the documents
were published in the few months after, with the latest publication being that of October 12th.
RESULTS
Analysis of these documents revealed several patterns in the rhetoric used by newspapers
and magazines to describe the summer of 1967.
Pattern 1. First, most newspapers, both local and national, applied the term riot and its
many constituents to the events of 1967. In this case, 76% (23) of the sources analyzed used the
term riot to describe the events of 1967. There was a surprising pattern when it came to the
diversity of the constituents applied by these newspaper sources. First, the term riot was often
complemented with further description such as that of the costliest urban riot (Rogers and
Bruckner G1). Second, there was indirect references to the riot using various terminology rather
than that of riot, such as Detroits worst urban violence of postwar times (Conlon A12). More
examples include those that went on to describe this event as the worst riot in history

(Collision of Subtle Forces 6) or as the most sophisticated riot (Detroit Riot is History's
Most Damaging 1). Third, the rhetoric was universal all throughtout. Most newspapers included
various mentions of the terms riot-torn, riot scarred, bloody riot and guerrilla war. Lastly, it was
difficult to pinpoint a distinct pattern when it came to the phrase racial violence. It was used
interchangeably with the word riot. Entire articles would refer to the event with this terminology
and later apply the term riot, despite not indicating any racial undertones to their argument. For
example, in an article in the Washington Post, the author uses the term riot-torn Detroit and
later uses racial outbreaks to describe what happened (Glass and Lewis 1). There was no
article that definitively used the phrase racial violence without any mention of riot. As such, it
was hard to determine whether this was a simple alteration of language for the sake of diversity
or that of purposeful belief.
Pattern 2. In the case of the second term, rebellion, there was minimal use of such terms
in comparison to that of the term riot. Minimal in this case indicates that of all the sources, only
23% (7) sources mentioned this terminology. Its usage in each source was limited to a maximum
of two mentions in the entire article. It is more interesting to note that not one source referred to
the events of 1967 as a rebellion or insurrection. The application of these terms was limited to
one of two purposes only: black militancy and insurance claims. Every mention of black
militancy was paired with this rhetoric. For example, in an article in the Detroit Free Press, a
Black Power activist is quoted saying, The white man calls it a riot. Bull, that just makes it
easier to rationalize it. It was a rebellion, (Friedman 2A). In an article in the New York Times,
Adam Clayton Powell, a Black Power leader, is quoted saying that riots are a necessary phase
of the black revolutionnecessary, (Powell Calls Riots 'Necessary' Now 18). Yet again, in the
Battle Creek Enquirer, Stokely Carmichael talks about preparing groups of urban guerrillas

and how the price of rebellions is a high price that one must pay, (Stokley Carmichael Sees
Guerrilla 1). Repeatedly, this pattern became apparent. The only discrepancy I encountered was
the use of insurrection with the issue of insurance claims. In several articles, the focus was on the
terminology associated with what had happened and how this would impact insurance coverage.
This issue caused one author to question what happened by saying, Were we involved in a riot
or an insurrection? (Baird 34). The same author states, Losses arising from insurrection,
rebellion. are listed as perils not covered in standard fire insurance, (Baird 34).
Pattern 3. The terms riot and rebellion were not the only answers. Many newspapers
applied different terms to describe their take on what Detroit 1967 was. One of the common
terms was that of anarchy. In the Lansing State Journal, an article written by D.J.R. Bruckner
starts out by saying, What happened in Detroit this week was not a race riot. After the first two
days, it was not a riot at all. He goes on to state that it became the highest development so far
of the new anarchy that takes over, (Bruckner 12). This subset follows the format of stating an
argument with no racial undertones followed by the declaration of a new type of civil
disturbance. This is evident is yet another article in the Times-Herald which first states, there
was nothing racial about it followed by the declaration of lawlessness in the streets (Lay
Blame to Hoodlums, Hatemongers 12). Another term applied to the event is that of a tragedy
implicated by the mob mentality. Dr. James H. Laird writing for the Detroit Free Press starts out
by saying, Detroit has suffered a tragedy of major dimensions. This is enforced by his
statement that there is something frightening about a mob, which no longer acting under the
guidance of reason, becomes a thougthtless destroyer, (Laird 25). The final description
attributed with the events of 1967 included the reaction of an author of the The Chicago
Defender who deemed there to be no simple answer. According to him, Was it a fight between

whites and Negroes? . A general rebellion against the status quo? Everyone has answers. But
who really knows? (Was Detroit's Madness A Race Riot? 31).
DISCUSSION
Significance of Findings. Sidney Fines Violence in the Model City dedicates a chapter to
decipher the language behind the summer of 1967. He questions the controversy surrounding this
issue by saying, Was it, indeed, a riot at all, or was it, as at least some blacks to this day prefer
to label it, a rebellion? (Fine 351). This encompasses the focus of my research. Whereas Fine
was searching for a definite answer, my goal was simply to document patterns I observed. The
patterns outlined above left room for evaluation of newspaper rhetoric. Furthermore, the bulk of
my research revealed the agreement between rhetoric used by newspapers at the time and the
definitions provided by the scholarly literature.
There has yet to be a definitive answer to what happened on 12 th street in the summer of
1967. The newspaper sources that I interpreted pushed against this claim and managed to set a
precedent with 76% adopting the term riot as the key rhetoric associated with this disturbance.
This indicates that there was a national acceptance of this term since location of publication had
no bearing on the language used. Initially, I did not expect to find this coherence evident across
the U.S. due to the difference of demographics. Before data collection, I was at a
misunderstanding, believing that those located far from the events would not offer up the strong
language they did. I thought that those newspapers located closest to the events would be
considerate of all views. Rather, it was as if all the newspaper sources had originated from a
single source based on their similarity. Pattern 2 was much more intriguing knowing that the only
consideration of the word rebellion was with black militancy and fear of insurance payout as the
common denominators. The fact of the matter is that this label is very powerful. It projects the

belief systems of an entire community and yet it failed to gain the national attention of
newspapers. It seemed like there was an avoidance of acknowledging this term to not infuriate
matters. I come to this conclusion because of the vast details that came under the scrutiny of the
press. Columns of newspapers were dedicated to the increase of rat infestations and yet the
conversation never really started when it came to the possibility of rebellion. This was very
shocking to me as a researcher who expected an equal tally in the results between the terms of
riot and rebellion.
Another intriguing aspect was the emergence of a boatload of variations attributed with
1967. The creativity of authors came into play immensely especially with terms such as those of
Haze of Destruction (Lay Blame to Hoodlums, Hatemongers 12) and guerrilla warfare.
Reading this phrase for the first time, I thought nothing of it, deeming it the opinion of a single
author. Again, and again, this term would make a subtle appearance, appearing innocent enough.
However, these newspapers were one of the main sources of information that reached millions.
The application of terms such as guerrilla warfare seemed far-fetched. More importantly, this
type of language plants a seed of hate against black militancy groups. It then becomes a we vs.
them mentality, riot vs. rebellion, attribution that fails to solve the very divide that led to this
disruption. I cannot ascertain for the motives of this creativity, whether the sole purpose was
meeting a quota or not, but the point being is that this pattern of coverage is unique and
dangerous.
The scholarly literature provided seven definitions agreed on by social scientists as
appropriate categories of civil disturbances. I took it upon myself to compare these definitions
with the terms used by the newspaper sources and it came as a shock that there was major
agreement between them. As expected, newspapers did not outright state the precise phrases of

the scholars but the terms they did apply were very similar if not identical in some cases. Of the
seven definitions, three were not considered by the newspapers I poured over: civil disturbance,
riots of fulfillment of anticipations and class assault. Articles did not apply the term civil
disturbance probably because of the emanating neutrality conveyed in the word civil. Similarly,
the term of class assault did not take form in these articles as well because of the agreement of
sorts that the underlying cause could not simply be that of economic disparities only. The
classification of riots as fulfillment of anticipations might have been looked down upon if
published. It might be thought of as a deliberate attack against the police force, the very people
put in place to act as protectors. The definitions stated in the articles were consistent throughout.
Every mention of race riot corresponded with the definition of racial revolt. The term riot
mimicked the use of general upheaval and the use of rebellion paralleled the meaning of riots as
political confrontations. Riots as expressive rage was referred to using the term of mob (Laird
25). Overall, there was 57% (4/7) comparability between both sets of rhetoric associated with
1967.
Limitations of Data Collection. My research is limited for several reasons. First, there
was a limitation when it came to collecting data from different newspapers. I had access to a
limited amount of newspapers. Analyzing 30 newspaper articles does not depict the entirety of
the press. Even then, the vast amount of information made it impossible to include every possible
description out there. My research methods could have limited the available resources simply
based on the search criteria I entered. Third, there was evidence of interchangeable use of terms
by newspapers. Thus, these newspapers did not contribute to our overall understanding of
newspaper rhetoric. The last factor that came into play was that of inconclusive results. Here, it is
important to note that I came across several newspaper articles that had me shaking my head.

These examples had confusing language and were inconsistent in presenting a specific pattern.
Such an example is that of an article published in the Chicago Tribune. At first, the events of
1967 are referred to as Detroits little war (Thomis). Beyond that, the author then applies the
terms rebellion, race riot and that of looting festival. The article goes as far as titling this massive
array with the title of Detroit Holocaust (Thomis). Having trouble presenting a concise
overview of this article, I decided it did not pass the necessary checkpoints to make an
appearance in the results section.
Questions for Further Study. This study can be expanded upon in various ways. It might
be ideal for a researcher to compare the riots of 1967 with those of 1943. Here, there would be a
compilation of newspaper articles from both time periods. Analysis of these articles might depict
similar patterns to those alluded to above or completely different patterns. Furthermore, a
researcher could resort to questioning the correctness of each term applied to the riots and how
the usage of this term reveals patterns about the newspaper itself. Yet another technique would be
for the researcher to map out the application of a single term (whether it be riot or rebellion or
another term) across all the disturbances in the U.S. at a specific time. Further studies could then
compare the deviations in terminology from past to present day. These questions would require
the allocation of a substantial amount of credible resources but would still revolve around the
topic of newspaper rhetoric applied to disturbances.
CONCLUSION
The depictions of the Detroit civil unrest involved the application of various forms of
rhetoric. This terminology was interpreted from various newspaper sources and analyzed for
patterns evident. I found a total of 3 distinct patterns, each with supporting data from close to 30
newspaper articles. It was also apparent that there was similarity between the terms used by the

press and those of the scholarly literature, with a great deal of overlap. This research explores the
importance of rhetoric in the media and the difference in opinion when it comes to
documentation of a historic event. It was interesting to read through these articles some 50 years
later, noting the voice of concern evident throughout. What was more interesting was
deciphering the patterns that at times countered my predictions. Overall, it was an insightful
learning experience that had me looking closely at the labels we throw around today.

References
Angelo, Frank. "'Them'- A New Kind of Scare Word ." Detroit Free Press 30 July 1967: 20.
Baird, Willard. "Insurance Liability in Detroit Uncertain ." Lansing State Journal 27 July 1967:
34.
Bruckner, D.J.R. "Detroit 'War' Taught Hard Lessons." Lansing State Journal 30 July 1967: 12.
"Collision of Subtle Forces Contributed to City's Riot." Detroit Free Press 28 July 1967: 6.
Conlon, Michael. "Detroit: Part Three: Tense Negro Community; White Residents Uneasy." New
Journal and Guide 2 September 1967: A12.
"Detroit Riot is History's Most Damaging: Death Toll Passes Watts; Property Loss Up 4 Times ."
Chicago Daily Defender 27 July 1967: 1.
Fine, Sidney. Violence in the Model City. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2007.
Friedman, Saul. "Black Extremists Plan Their Next Battles ." Detroit Free Press 30 July 1967:
2A.
Glass, Andrew J. and Jesse Lewis. "Authorities and Troops In Violence-Torn Cities Watch for
New Unrest ." The Washington Post 26 July 1967: 1.
Goldberg, Louis C. "Ghetto Riots and Others: The Faces of Civil Disorders in 1967." Journal of
Peace Research (1968): 116-132.
Grimshaw, Allen D. "Three Views of Urban Violence: Civil Disturbance, Racial Revolt, Class
Assault ." American Behavioral Scientist (1968): 2-7.

Jones, Jack. "Crushed Detroit Mayor Ponders Causes of Rioting." The Los Angeles Times 30 July
1967: 1.
Laird, James H. "Biggest Casualities of Detroit's Riots ." Detroit Free Press 30 July 1967: 25.
"Lay Blame to Hoodlums, Hatemongers." The Times-Herald 25 July 1967: 12.
Lerner, Max. "A Syndrome, Not Just One Thing, Causes Race Riots ." The Los Angeles Times 30
July 1967: F7.
"Poll Blames Detroit Riot on Cop Curbs." The Chicago Tribune 28 July 1967.
"Powell Calls Riots 'Necessary' Now." The New York Times 27 July 1967: 18.
"Racial Violence Hits New Cities." The Chicago Tribune 28 July 1967.
Rogers, Ray and D.J.R. Bruckner. "New Spirit Stirs Detroit." The Washington Post 12 October
1967: G1. Newspaper.
Simpson, Roger. "Much of Riot Damage Covered ." Detroit Free Press 25 July 1967: 24.
"Stokley Carmichael Sees Guerrilla 'Fight to Death'." Battle Creek Enquirer 26 July 1967: 1.
Thomis, Wayne. "Detroit Holocaust." The Chicago Tribune 28 July 1967.
"Was Detroit's Madness A Race Riot?" The Chicago Defender 5 August 1967: 31.