Bias in the narrative and the optics: Deconstructing the local news coverage of the Patrick Lyoya legal case

On Wednesday morning, the Michigan Court of Appeals heard arguments from the lawyers representing the former GRPD cop Christopher Schurr, who shot Patrick Lyoya in the back of the head, along with someone from the Kent County Prosecutors office, which charged Schurr with second degree murder in this case.

There was a panel of three judges that heard from both sides of the case, Kathleen Feeney, Colleen O’Brien and Brock Swartzle. These appellate panel members will make a determination on whether or not a trial should move forward in the case against Christopher Schurr’s killing of Patrick Lyoya.

You can watch the court proceeding from Wednesday morning, by going to this link. 

In addition, to the recording of the proceedings, the four major daily Grand Rapids commercial news agencies reported on this story, MLive, WOODTV8, WZZM 13 and WXMI 17. What follows is a deconstruction of the coverage.

With the MLive story, there is a fair amount of biased coverage, beginning with the headline, which read, Ex-Grand Rapids police officer acted reasonably in fatal shooting of Patrick Lyoya, attorney tells appeals panel. Having a headline which centers the legal argument that favors the ex-cop Christopher Schurr is deeply problematic, since it sets a clear tone for the story and frames the issue in support of what Schurr did to Patrick Lyoya. 

In addition, the MLive article leads with commentary from Schurr’s lawyer, along with the fact that there is way more space devoted to comments from Schurr’s lawyer, as opposed to comments from the lawyer with the Kent County Prosector’s office. 

Lastly, at the end of the article, it stated: 

The Michigan Fraternal Order of Police, Grand Rapids Police Officers Association and Michigan Association of Police Organizations have filed amicus curiae briefs in the appeals case arguing that the charge should be dismissed.

Unfortunately, the MLive article does not provide adequate context for these police groups, how much they influence public policy with campaign contributions to political candidates, nor do they provide hyperlinks to the three websites.

The Channel 8 story was not much better than the MLive article. There is the story that was broadcast, but also a written version of the story, which has a headline stating, Court hears ex-officer’s appeal in Patrick Lyoya case. 

The WOODTV8 story is 2 minutes and 33 seconds in length. After providing a basic upfront narrative, the channel 8 reporter then cites some of the arguments from Schurr’s lawyer, followed by 22 seconds of Schurr’s lawyer making comments. In contrast the reporter used less commentary from the lawyer with the Kent County Prosecutor’s office, followed by 18 seconds of hearing that lawyer. One other difference, is that with the lawyer from Kent County Prosecutor’s office, the footage is from behind her, so viewers aren’t looking at directly at the lawyer as she speak, but with Schurr’s lawyer, the footage that channel 8 used was outside of the courtroom, where the lawyer was facing forward, as if talking to the public. Therefore, the optics of how this story was constructed plays a role in how the public navigates this story. 

In the case of WZZM 13, there was less bias in how the story was presented, being more rooted in the legal process of the case. The channel 13 story did lead with comments from Schurr’s lawyer, but both lawyers in this case were only heard while they addressed the appellate panel. This means from a TV/video viewer perspective, both lawyer had their backs facing the public.

The WXMI 17 story was significantly different than the rest of the coverage, in that they posted the video of the entire legal proceedings at the top of the page, followed by a short narrative of the legal case.

At the bottom of the page for Fox 17, they also ran a short video, where people can hear chanting from those who support Patrick Lyoya. As you can see from the still image here it says there were supporters from both sides, but only at the end is the footage of Schurr supporters, even though they are not identified. 

Several of the news outlets mentioned that it might take months for the three judges panel to make a ruling on this case. It has already been 18 months since Patrick Lyoya was shot in the back of the head by Christopher Schurr, but there is no clear timeline for when a trial might happen, or even if a trial will ever happen.