Skip to main content

In regards to the #OccupyWallStreet protest, several people I know have asked the question "What are they protesting?" or "What do they want?"

It's no wonder they're asking this question. The media, if they've covered the event at all, has largely portrayed the protests as scattered, small to non-existent, hippie street freak sit-ins with no goals or objectives.

Yet if I look at recent conversations I've had with people from across the political spectrum, the protests seem to be having a more far-reaching impact than this narrative.

First, let's look at some of the media coverage.

Tina Susman from the LA Times wrote:

"How about some specific demands, a long-term strategy, maybe even … office space?"

Nate Jones in the Metro wrote:

"We know the protesters currently hanging out in downtown Manhattan are against Wall Street -- that's right in the name. But what are they for?"

Gina Bellafonte, in perhaps the most disdainful article in the NY Times called the movement "a noble but fractured and airy movement of rightly frustrated young people."

But at least they've written about the movement. The protest has been going on for 3 weeks and the Associated Press only has 2 articles about it. One focuses on investigating the NYPD for pepper spraying and the other says little more than "the protest continues".

The coverage in the mainstream media is largely non-existent or is spreading this narrative about hippie protesters with no apparent goals. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece that discusses this media coverage in more detail.

A movement stirs

Yet something else is happening.

Daily my friends on Facebook are posting links to the protests or information about the protests.

Ann Kruetzkamp, a friend of mine from NY, posted an excellent series of pictures of the event (both this past weekend's protest at the Brooklyn Bridge and the ongoing protest in Zucotti Park) which tell a different story than the media.


Another, posted this meme which has been making the rounds. The protest also spawned a 100-comment discussion thread amongst my friends on the topic of more equitable taxation. The subject even came up with my family at a recent dinner.

It seems like people are having conversations again about Wall Street and their role in the financial crisis. Conversations which never really took place in the way they should have after the bank meltdown.

Conversations which may have been held in private but not en masse because our "liberal" media relegates the stories to the back pages.

If the Tea Party sneezes, the media seems to jump on the story about "taxes" or Tea Party influence or the ever-present Republican vs. Democrat story with the new Tea Party twist.

Yet we never really had a conversation about how Wall Street avoided any consequences as a result of the financial meltdown, about how the same people are in charge, or about how Wall Street has returned much as it was before the crisis.

Or even about the influence of money on politics or the increasing inequality of wealth or about jobs.

Where is the "liberal" media?

Or is this perhaps what the protest has made absurdly clear? That there is no "liberal media".

There's only corporate media owned by the likes of GE, Disney, Gannett, ClearChannel, NewsCorp, Time-Warner, and Hearst.

And while apparently it's OK to provide ad nauseum coverage of Tea Party protests, it's not OK to cover a Wall Street protest in anything but an unfavorable light lest 'ye offend the "job creators".

Yet the conversations are taking place anyways. They're taking place online, at work, and en masse.

It feels like a breath of fresh air.

If #OccupyWallStreet only accomplishes changing the conversation from the officially blessed narrative du jour, it's been successful.

If we realize from this event that we're going to have to evangelize and tell these stories ourselves to our friends and family, it's done something truly significant.

Originally posted to akadjian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:11 AM PDT.

Also republished by Occupy Wall Street.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Although in the news media (0+ / 0-)

    It's not about offending the 'job creators', it's about the advertisers.

    The problem with 100% commercial news sponsorship is that our media will go silent on any story that's contrary to the financial interests of their sponsors. And correspondingly, they'll amplify any story that's in their sponsors interests.

    Dandy if all we care about is plane crashes and celebrity panty sightings. But it's useless for investigating corporate wrongdoing, and always will be.

    A necessary part of correcting the influence of money on politics is correcting the influence of money on news media. They go hand in hand. We need a BBC equivalent.

    •  You should write ads for NPR (0+ / 0-)

      Agreed Brix-  I believe it is very much about not offending the sponsors (or the hand that feeds them so to speak) - the most egregious example being the story about Monsanto's rbGH growth hormone which was "re-written"after Monsanto objected.  

      In addition to supporting organizations like NPR which aren't dependent on advertisements, I believe there are a couple easy things everyone can do to help make a better media:

      1) Don't click or share the scandalous stories - sometimes I think half the links to the latest outrageous statement are from liberals who are offended. This only adds advertising dollars to the coffers.

      2) Share the good stories.

      These are easy wins and it's been exciting recently to see this happening more and more. If it happens enough, traditional media becomes largely irrelevant

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site