Skip to main content

View Diary: Occupy Oakland Declares Love on Oakland. (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why can't it define itself? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, elwior, JayRaye

    It can certainly influence the media coverage by approaching it with the idea that it will be slanted from the get-go, and try to overcome that with positive media.

    Unless Occupy doesn't really care about the image people have of it. Some in OO have told me, in response to concerns about diversity of tactics, that "image isn't everything."

    •  No, it can't. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alizard, JayRaye, jpmassar, AoT

      What you are suggesting would require Occupy to be able to exercise total control over every single person who attends an Occupy event.  That's impossible.  In addition, it would require Occupy to be able to keep people unaffiliated with the Occupy movement from claiming to act in Occupy's name.  That's also impossible.  What's needed here is for the media to show some responsibility, which isn't going to happen in all likelihood.  

      Occupy is upsetting to established power, in both its corporate and political incarnations.  Such a movement is going to be maligned from many sides.  Even on this site, which claims to be progressive, there are people expressing extreme antipathy for the Occupy movement, because they find it insufficiently loyal either to the president, or to the Democratic Party, or to whomever.  So Occupy is going to get a lot of bad press, and there isn't a whole lot it can do to change that.  

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 12:11:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  GAs could totally disavow violence, stating that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, ctami

        those that engage in it are not part of Occupy.  

        I think that's been done in NY and Boston, not sure about Oakland.  What I read is people violence ("they started it" kind of stuff) but that could be only here, I don't know.

      •  So Occupy is powerless? (0+ / 0-)

        All the bad press can only be mitigated through increased responsibility of the media?

        Sure, the "mainstream" press are going to get their accounts from the police blotter, and so will most likely reflect the police POV. But the alternative press here in the Bay Area has actually presented a fairly balanced portrayal of Occupy Oakland. What's wrong with trying to cultivate that more, especially given all the bad PR OO has gotten lately?

        Nobody is saying that Occupy has to "exercise total control" over participants; that would indeed be impossible in a movement which has anarchist roots. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be done.

        And people here on DK expressing doubts about Occupy are, I think, more concerned about violence in the protests rather than Occupy failing to meet some fealty test to Obama and/or the Democratic Party. The former is certainly the case with myself and other Oakland residents I've talked to, but YMMV.

        •  I'd say there's two groups who are against (0+ / 0-)

          Occupy.  One is the group you mention.  They have doubts, not just about the violence, but about the people involved, etc.  There is most certainly another group, far less vocal now than at the outset of the movement, that is very much against occupy because they aren't going about change the right way, which is to vote harder and be univocal in our support of the president.  The first group is generally reasonable, although some act trollish at times, but lots of people do that myself included.  The second really is pointless to engage with.

          I don't think the violence is necessarily the issue about 90% of the time, mostly because a good percentage of the people I've seen fretting about it never supported occupy and have just jumped on the band wagon.  Not that it isn't a valid problem, but it's really frustrating to have people who told me OWS would fail since before it even started try to give me advice about how we're doing it wrong.

          There are of course a lot of people who have genuine concerns about strategy and tactics.  What frustrates me is when that turns into "I can't support this movement because I think your strategy and tactics will probably fail."  If you don't want to support tactics because they are wrong, like in the case of violence, that's one thing, but if you just don;t like how we're going about it but support the same goals then I don't need to hear about how we're going to fail.

          Sorry for the ramble, it's really not aimed at you specifically, it just kind of came out here.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:51:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  If the Democratic Party has consistently (0+ / 0-)

      failed to define itself under media attack then why would we expect Occupy to fare any different?

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 11:54:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because Occupy (0+ / 0-)

        is not the Democratic Party. They are two different things.

        All "media" is not the same, just as all parties and movements are not the same. The Democratic Party has had a string of leaders who have been bad at messaging. Because of the very nature of the party, Democrats are not consistent in messaging like lock-step Republicans are (besides the fact that Repugs own their own TV network.) But I would argue that Dems are getting better at it, especially as the presidential campaign continues. It remains to be seen if Occupy will get better at it.

        Maybe Occupy doesn't care about spreading their message if all they are going to do is throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, the big, bad media misrepresented us again. That really sucks, but we can't do anything about it."

        •  The media's job is to misrepresent people (0+ / 0-)

          in what ever way sells the most papers or gets enough viewers.  The point was that having people in charge or even just in charge of PR doesn't make a damn difference, the media just makes shit up, unless you're a company, then you get a fair say every time.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:03:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Got it (0+ / 0-)

            As someone who has worked in media for 20 years, I'm glad to finally know what my job entails.

            •  I don't know about your job specifically (0+ / 0-)

              but if you think the media as an institution functions otherwise then you keep on believing that, I know what I see.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:33:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  To be clear, I don't think it's something you (0+ / 0-)

              as an individual do, or really any specific individual, with some exceptions.  It's a result of the media as an institution.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Mon Feb 13, 2012 at 04:43:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (123)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Law (26)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site