Skip to main content

In a year that was never short for news, Occupy Wall Street is still a very solid choice for the top U.S. story of the year. The editors of Time magazine agree:

OWS - Time
From having President Obama echoing its messaging to making even Republicans worried about looking like they favor the rich, Occupy Wall Street has profoundly changed our national political discourse. Kudos both to Occupy on another success, and to the editors at Time for making the right call.

Originally posted to Chris Bowers on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos, ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement, and Protest Music.

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

  •  OWS has come along way from being ignored. (22+ / 0-)

    I just hope Obama et al sees it as a political shift, not just an election strategy.

    These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

    by Nailbanger on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:04:11 AM PST

  •  On the right side of history. (24+ / 0-)

    That's what it looks like.

    Smartest thing ever = transcending party politics.

    Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world. Save the lives of the people and the future of the planet. Nationalize the banks.

    by Pluto on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:09:01 AM PST

  •  Was that the sound of Champagne (11+ / 0-)

    Or Limbaugh and O'liely going

    Response: If you "got it" you wouldn't be a republican

    by JML9999 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:10:31 AM PST

  •  "Occupy" is word of the year on Fresh Air (14+ / 0-)

    as of today. Fresh Air.

    The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

    by Positronicus on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:10:50 AM PST

  •  Congrats to Occupiers everywhere, (26+ / 0-)

    and a special hell-to-the-yeah for those Occupying K Street today.

    Go get 'em!

    Corporations are people, my friend Yeah, well, so's Soylent Green, so I don't find that very comforting. New video: Not Enough (HD)

    by Crashing Vor on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:11:07 AM PST

  •  To bad they didn't choose (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TBug, blue aardvark, Neon Mama, Dallasdoc

    the fact that it is 11:59 on the climate change clock.

  •  The Overton window... (15+ / 0-)

    I thought that it had been installed waaaaaaaaaay far to the right and then painted shut.

    Hmmm... could it be moving?

    Is that fresh air that I'm breathing?

    Has the narrative actually been changed?

    Me thinks so! : )

    Occupy your mind and your ass will follow!

    "I've been learning how to squirm without any perceptible movement." --- Terry Douglas

    by zorp on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:14:01 AM PST

  •  Wow. (20+ / 0-)

    Talk about changing the dialog.  We went from All Austerity All the Time (driven by the 1% tax cutters/government drowners), to economic inequality in a few short months.

    Color me impressed.  And pleased as hell.


    Republicans chap my ass


    by Marc in KS on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:17:07 AM PST

  •  Surely the death of OBL had to run a close 2nd. (8+ / 0-)

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:17:51 AM PST

  •  And, there's new NEWS from OWS (11+ / 0-)

    Occupy Wall Street is going in a different direction now.  I'm so damn proud of this movement it's pathetic.  Now, they're going after specific wrongs in this country and presenting remedies.

    HERE is the link on this.

    - If you don't like gay marriage, blame straight people. They're the ones who keep having gay babies.

    by r2did2 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:19:41 AM PST

  •  Couldn't agree more. (8+ / 0-)

    The DC dialogue has been changed and the talking points across the country. But the job is far from finished. I hope to hear that many of these bright caring people end up running for office in the country.

  •  Say what? (6+ / 0-)

    How could Time pick OWS over the Kardashian pseudo-marriage?

  •  How could they???? (7+ / 0-)

    Occupy doesn't have a message!  And and and.. they're stinky hippies! And, um, I don't like them, they're messing up my park. And and..

    Maybe they really have a message after all. :)

    ~ Nothing insightful to say ~

    by EagleOfFreedom on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:22:42 AM PST

  •  What will silence the naysayers? (6+ / 0-)

    So many people here have commented on how ineffective OWS is, and still do. They had SO much advice for OWS. Did OWS follow their advice? No. Did it accomplish more politically in two months than the armchair quarterbacks did in their entire lives? I believe so.

    I wonder, what would OWS have to accomplish for people to accept that the tactics it chose to use are PRAGMATIC because they WORKED. I don't think that OWS can ever win over some folks, because to be won over, those folks would have to admit that their own failed ideas are the furthest thing from pragmatic.

    •  What exactly have they accomplished? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, Deep Texan

      I am 100% in favor of OWS, but other than raising some consciousness in some folks, nothing has been done quite yet. I truly hope they are a harbinger of good things to come, but with Republicans and conservatives controlling Congress, at the very least, actual real world help won't be coming at all. Will OWS have enough staying power to last in the long term that it will take to fix this country? I'm not sold on that.

      •  changing the dialog is really big. (11+ / 0-)

        moving the window <-- that a way

      •  Armchair quarterbacks are jealous of success (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        katiec, glorificus

        Changing the national dialogue from "Austerity Forever" to "Reduce income inequality NOW" in under two months is not enough for you? Where would we be now without OWS?

        And what do you attack OWS with Speculation that it won't have the "staying power" to  get "real world help."

        Tell that to the families that OWS has protected from foreclosure.

        See, this is what I meant about failed ideas. You have no ideas about how to change anything. Your ideas have all failed to make the slightest impact. Along comes OWS and does what you simply can not do. So, you a little jealous maybe? I think a lot of armchair quarterbacks are a little jealous of OWS' success.

        •  Be careful... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          austerity is not dead yet.

          •  Austerity is pining for the fjords? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's not just asleep, look, it's been nailed to its perch! Talk of austerity in America has shuffled off this mortal coil. It's an ex talking point.

            •  Agree, but don't think it's gone for good. This (0+ / 0-)

              says nothing about OWS, only about the strength and power (including military) of the rulers of the universe.

              I have little doubt this is going to be a long fight.

              And OWS has been a magnificent warrior.

              •  They aren't powerful. Not really. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                katiec, rb608, Jlukes

                Here's my take. The strong give away what they have, as a brag, as proof of their strength. Only the weak and sickly demand that others take care of them, only the weakest refuse to share what they have.

                In their own minds, the one percent are weak and sickly. They are not strong. They have to seize every unfair advantage they can because they are so very, very weak at heart. Their behavior is the behavior of a sick or wounded animal. They know in their hearts that we can crush them at any time.

                We are the ones who are strong, who bear their indignities with stoicism until we can bear them no longer. We are the ones who prove our strength through sharing and cooperation. We do not need to use fear to command respect, we gain respect through strength of character.

                But there comes a time when continuing to put up with the whiny demands of a sick animal no longer proves our strength. At those times, we simply need to let that sick animal know who is really the boss, who is really the philanthropist, and who is really the charity case.

                The leaches at the top are still leaches. Parasites can't live on their own, they need the strength of their host.

        •  So, dialogue shifts are the barometer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          for success? I am looking for serious legislative victories that will actually help the country recover from decades of Republican abuse. As I said, I hope OWS can last to see/help cause that kind of thing happen. You simply aren't reading what I'm saying.
          How is my speculation an "attack", for chrissakes? OWS has been around for how long, exactly? And how long have we been getting killed by Republican policies? There is a long and brutal history of popular uprisings more widespread and powerful than this being crushed by established enemies, especially when all the money and the government is on that side.
          "My ideas"? You have no idea what "my ideas" are, since I've never spelled them out here, so I wonder what it is you think I'm saying.

          •  Dialogue shifts in TWO MONTHS (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Nothing has ever produced such a dramatic shift in such a short time. Nothing. Not the civil rights movement, not the free speech movement, not the anti-Vietnam war movement, nothing.

            What popular uprisings larger than this have been crushed? Name one.

            Your ideas have not worked. Do you know how I know? Because we are where we are. If your ideas, whatever they are, had worked, we would not be here.

            OWS is the best thing we have going right now. It is new, fresh and original. It is the best chance we have at winning back our country. In fact, I don't see any other options but OWS. Nothing else has had the slightest impact, because everything else was planned for.

            Your doubt and skepticism do not make you seem pragmatic or logical because as far as I can tell, your doubt and skepticism are based on fantasy, not reality. I haven't heard one logical reason why you would question OWS.

            •  Ever heard of the French Revoution of 1789? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan

              How about the one from 1830? Or those all over Europe in 1848? No? Perhaps you're not a fan of 18th-19th century history . . . How about Hungary in 1956? Czechoslovakia in 1968? No? Maybe European history isn't your bag, at all. Let's see . . .
              Chechnya in the 1990s? The Kurds against Saddam Hussein earlier that decade? Tiananmen Square? Do I really have to go on?
              C'mon, SethRightmer. I have no beef with OWS; I was sincere in my original question: what have they done so far? I admit they have forced people to change the content of discussion. But that's it. Is that a lot? I don't know, because I don't know how many people that includes. Any Republicans in office? I highly doubt it, although they may be forced to answer to some more dissenters when they come home for electioneering. I hope so, at any rate.
              They are at the starting blocks, but you seem to think they are winning the race already!
              As far as my ideas go, they have never been tried. Is that my fault? Perhaps; I am only one person, and fairly beaten down because my entire adult life has been lived under the thumb of conservatives and Republicans at the precise time they became ascendant (I turned 18 in 1980.) I am not to blame, nonetheless, so please take your superiority complex and stuff it.

              •  I know those revolutions (0+ / 0-)

                I'm an avid student of history. Please explain what you mean by referencing those revolutions. Were ALL of them 'failures?' In what sense?

                You know who raises questions about things they don't really know? Fox news. Asking "Is Obama a Kenyan?" is the same thing as asking "Is OWS a failure?"

      •  Katy and the Big Snow (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The 1% have buried us in a blizzard of fake debt and false austerity. Mostly by cutting taxes and blowing up 3 trillion dollars in Iraq for no fucking reason.

        Before anybody gets back to work, before we can start fixing our infrastructure, before we can get this country moving again, we need to plow the snow off the roads and dig everybody out.

        That's what OWS is doing. And doing well. Very well. Shifting the debate is the first step to reclaiming this country.

        Even some of the tea partiers are waking up to OWS message about economic justice and inequality. When most them do, god help the banisters and their friends.

        OWS is doing more than just talking and camping out. They've proposed concrete things that we all can do.

        Move your money to a community bank, or better, a credit union. Have you done that?

        Read some other posts around here for more.

        I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

        by BobBlueMass on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 12:22:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Long before there was a call for me to do so. (0+ / 0-)

          I read plenty here, thanks.
          I never said they weren't doing something positive; I don't have any issue with OWS at all, and in fact, I am relieved something like OWS finally arose.
          What I am saying is that until more than this first step is taken--many more--OWS and what it represents is just talk. We probably needed something like OWS, but it is waaaaaaaaaaaay too soon to think anything real will come of it.
          It took decades of BS to get us where we are. A few months of shifting the debate, especially since OWS is far outside the halls of power, is nothing by comparison. I doubt most of you disagree with that, but when I asked what they had accomplished in the face of a lot of self-congratulatory posts, I got met instead with some highly defensive and unrealistic retorts. Call me disillusioned by post-2006, 2008, and 2010; I need more to regain my hope.

  •  I'm repeating what I and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Neon Mama

    others have said before, but it's what came to mind when I saw the title of the diary and read the comments so far:


    Hope is again reborn--with this grassroots "process" that is energizing so many of us.  I'm looking forward to seeing additional protests and other ways in which I can continue to participate.  

    I wear my 99% button with pride.

  •  Well, this is a slam against Time magazine (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, DSPS owl, Nailbanger

    Because when the #1 news story of the year broke, they were pretty slow in covering it.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:30:22 AM PST

  •  The Casey Anthony trial (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foresterbob, Deep Texan, rb608

    was the most searched for news story on Yahoo and Bing in 2011.

    On Twitter, which is much more international than Bing or Yahoo, the biggest story was Mubarak's fall in Egypt.

    It's interesting to see the differences in the top stories:

    Here are the top 6 stories on Twitter in 2011:

    Mubarak’s resignation
    Raid on Osama bin Laden
    Japanese earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster
    Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords
    Gaddafi’s death
    Swine Flu outbreak

    And the top 6 on Yahoo:

    Casey Anthony Trial
    Japan Earthquake and Tsunami
    Royal Wedding
    Death of Osama bin Laden
    Arizona Shooting

  •  Sean Rush Mark etal cancel their subscriptions. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Dirty Hippies Rule! (0+ / 0-)

    Yes they do.  Time's #5 viral video is a sweet cover of Edward Sharpe & the Magnetic Zeros' track, "Home."
    Here they are with a live version.

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

    by leftreborn on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:47:20 AM PST

  •  Another milestone for OWS. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    katiec, rb608

    Let's continue to build the momentum!

    When I have the chance, I use 99% or 1% in my everyday conversations.  Eventually, some of the right-wing members of that 99% will get the message.

  •  In the same article, Time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    seems to choose a photo to make an ironic and somewhat salacious comment on the Penn State scandal. Or is it just me?

    What would Chris Hedges do?

    by Red Bean on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:01:53 AM PST

  •  i don't agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the top story of the year was the Arab Spring followed by OWS imo.

    •  actually, i would rate the killing of Osama (0+ / 0-)

      as number 2 then OWS.

      although, the debt issues all over the world probably was a bigger story than OWS.

      •  Killing of Osama meant nothing (0+ / 0-)

        Seriously, is the Eternal War on a Vague Ideaology over now? That was a complete non-story. What changed because Osama is dead? Nothing.

        OWS is the world wide response to the debt issue, and yes, it is bigger than that issue because the "debt issue" is only really an issue for those who hold the debt, i.e. the 1%. I mean, if OWS can change the world wide dialogue from "OH NOES, ALL THIS DEBT!" to "Screw this income inequality!"in under two months, then debt can't really be that big of a story, can it?

        Arab Spring is an interesting story, for sure, but there is NO WAY it impacts as many lives as OWS.

        Surely you can find some other, better stories than these lame non-starters to replace the one story you don't want to hear any more about? Anyone who has been paying attention knows which people here hate OWS.

        •  your own internal prioritization (0+ / 0-)

          wasn't the question.

          question is top news story of the year.  careful, your bias is showing.

          •  As is yours! Amazing how that works (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            Deep Texan

            If you say something, then that thing is more important to you than the thing you didn't say. What amazing insight, why don't you apply it to yourself first?

            This isn't about my internal prioritization. This is about effects. What effect did Osama's death have on your life? What effect did it have on politics? On the war on terror?

            Some people think the Kardashian wedding was the biggest story of the year. Doesn't make them right. And they have given me as much proof of their point of view as you have: none.

            Seriously, the sense of privilege on display here is mind boggling. When you say that OBL's death was a big story, that is just objective truth. But when I say it wasn't, that is bias.

            Get over your sense of privilege. You are not special. Your ideas are not special. You are not the center of the universe. You are not "correct" while everyone else is "biased." Your ideas do not enjoy special privileges. They are not demonstrably  more normal or pragmatic or realistic than anyone else's ideas. Those are just words you throw around to appeal to authority and poison the well of other people's ideas.

            •  i was refering to top news of 2011 (0+ / 0-)


              Where is OWS again?  I bring this up not to put down the movement but because I like facts.  OWS isn't the top story of 2011.

              •  Everyone likes fact (0+ / 0-)

                You aren't special this way and it is egotistical in the extreme to claim that. It is an appeal to authority and poisoning the well, as I mentioned. Your side has "facts" but the other side is "biased." It is only your own sense of privilege that keeps you from understanding how ridiculous that stance looks to other people.

                But as you pointed out in your prior post, the facts that all of us choose to focus on indicate our biases.

                Time is an American news magazine. This is about American news stories. There really is no objective way to measure the "top" story except popularity. How do you even define top? Is it the most important? Who decides? Is it the most searched for? What about those who do not use the Internet? Is it the most column inches, the most airtime? That doesn't determine impact. In fact, claiming to know the top news story of the year, that year, is just silly. Most of the time these things are only clear in hindsight.

                But with you, I've noted a distinct anti-OWS bias before now, and so it makes sense top me that you would attempt to downplay the importance of OWS.

                This is Time's story of the year. Other publications may have different lists. There is no real objective way to say what was the most important story, especially in such a short time frame. There is no "THE" top story of the year. You are allowed to consider other stories as more important than OWS. We are allowed to think you are dumb and wrong for thinking that.

                Just remember, you are not the person who gets to decide anything for anyone else except you. You don't get to claim normal and unbiased for yourself and exclude everyone else.

                •  Time's selections are fluff period (0+ / 0-)

                  OWS isn't on the list of top news stories for 2011 unless you go past the other main top stories for 2011.

                  Compare Time's top ten to most of the lists for top news stories of 2011.  

                  •  Interesting opinion (0+ / 0-)

                    As I noted, your opinions are only your opinions. You are welcome to them, but you don't get to position your opinions as fact and other people's opinions as biased.

                    You have not said what your criteria for top story are, so as I mentioned, for all we know you could be going on the recommendation of your dog. What are your criteria? How do you, personally, go about choosing a to story for the year?

                    I imagine the decision process goes something like this: "Does this story match my biases and world view? If not, it is not an important story because it is a LIE. Only my opinions are based in fact."

                    You still haven't explained your hide rate either. Getting your feelings hurt is not a reason to hide rate, you know. I wasn't personally insulting, or breaking any other site rules. Your attempts to silence me won't work.

                    •  you are making my case for me (0+ / 0-)

                      you believe it's the top story.  that's your opinion.

                      i am talking about the most viewed, talked about biggest news stories of 2011.  you can get that info various ways and none of them has OWS at the top except for Time.

                      if you look over Time's list then you should see their top stories of 2011 don't jive with the most talked about, top stories of 2011.

                      AOL lists it as number 8.  Do you own research but remember, I am not talking about my opinion.  I am talking about the most viewed, talked about, biggest new stories of 2011.

                      •  Talked about? (0+ / 0-)

                        How do you know that?!? You listened to everyone's conversation?!? Are you a GOD?!? How do you rate most viewed when you don't count radio, TV, and print?

                        You have not presented any data outside one article on Huffpo that proves your point! You just keep repeating the same non factual opinions and calling them facts.

                        Prove that another story was talked about more. Prove it had more airtime, more TV time, more column inches AND more Internet searches.

                        Your egotism is unbelievable. Again, your opinions are not facts, and calling them facts without backing them up makes you look childish.

                        •  i researched it (0+ / 0-)
                          Your egotism is unbelievable.

                          do your own research.  prove that OWS is the top story.

                          •  I'm not making that claim (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm not making any claim about what was or was not the most important story. You see, any sort of claim like that, from Time or Huffpo or you or me is what we call "opinion." There are a million ways to define "top," and no one way is right. To one person, "top" means most important to them, as in, the story that affected their life the most. For another person, it might be the story most discussed around the water cooler. For another person, it might mean the story that got the most airtime, or the most column inches, or the most Internet searches. We can debate whose criteria are the most valid until the cows come home and get turned into hamburger, and we won't come to agreement.

                            I'm here to discuss the fact that Time magazine considers OWS to be the top news story of the year. We can both agree that that is a fact, right? Time magazine named them the top news story of the year. You don't feel that is a valid choice, as other news stories were more important to you. OWS was the most important to me, and it certainly had more impact on my life than the death of some failed old terrorist or similar uprisings in small foreign countries.

                            OWS is the top news story to me, and it is a fact that that is my opinion.

                          •  Where? (0+ / 0-)

                            Look, there is no objective "top" anything. It is all opinion. Top ten lists are opinion! What kind of person doesn't understand that?!? One needs to define "top" before they can even attempt to bring facts into the picture. Top ten tallest buildings is factual. Top ten movies? Opinion. Top ten stories, books, paintings, sculptures, sex scenes, freak-outs, whatever: pure opinion.

                            I, personally, feel that OWS was more important, to me, than any other story. That is my opinion. Your opinion may differ. But it is only your opinion, that is my point. It is not fact.

                          •  top 10 most expensive cars (0+ / 0-)

                            top 10 longest books.

                          •  Hmmm, reading problems? (0+ / 0-)

                            You didn't read my post. I gave the example of "top ten tallest buildings" as factual. But "top ten coolest buildings" would be opinion, as would "Top ten buildings of the year." Honestly, do you think that a list of "top ten buildings of 2011" could possibly be anything but opinion?

                            Please give it a rest. Honestly, do you think you are "winning" this debate?

                          •  i am a numbers guy (0+ / 0-)

                            so i would take top ten buildings to mean various factors have been studied and these ten are at the top of those categories.  i would stick to the factual articles rather than opinion pieces.  top has some meaning.  whether it's specific or general.

                            data aggregated together to provide relevant information.

                            as in the Arab spring had more articles, more comments, went on longer and even had a bigger impact than any other news story of the year.  

                          •  How would you pick the factors? (0+ / 0-)

                            Opinion. You really don't know the difference between fact and your opinion. There is no possible way we can communicate.

                            For a so called numbers guy, you are very fuzzy headed. Some words are too vague, too fuzzy to be used in a factual context, and "top" is one of them because the factors that make up "top" are all opinion, too.

                            In my OPINION, Arab spring had fewer articles, with less comments, and was in the public eye for only a brief period. But I am not claiming to have done any research, you are, so provide it. All you have provided are dubious online sources talking about other online sources. Your links do not mention radio time, TV time, column inches, or anything else that is relevant to defining "top."

                            I will take a lack of links to the research you used to come to your conclusion as an admission that you have done none.

                            Oh god, the lack of logic, it makes my brain hurt:

                            top has some meaning.  whether it's specific or general.

                            If the meaning is general, then it is not specific enough to be factual. Generalizations are not factual! Seriously, I am done with you wasting my time like this. Good day, sir. Please do not take my lack of further communication with you as anything other than total exasperation on my part, specifically, I am not going away because you "won" anything. Unless you count annoying someone until they walk away in disgust as a win.

              •  Oh, a hide rate? For what? (0+ / 0-)

                You mad, bro?

      •  Arab spring is a close call. But Osama? Please, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608, DSPS owl

        it hasn't changed one thing for the better, the war goes on, including the patriot act, possible further erosions of our rights, and a police force that is now a domestic standing army.

        •  it's not about that (0+ / 0-)

          it was one of the biggest news stories of the year. that was the context.  not biggest impact or whatever.

          any research on the topic proves that.  

          •  Any research proves that? (0+ / 0-)

            Then it should be easy for you to do some research and prove it. You haven't. You've listed one source that names a different top story.

            Here's my proof: Time magazine called it the story of the year. What are your criteria for biggest story? You can't make such absolute claims without disclosing your methodology. For all we know, you are basing your top story on what your dog told you.

            Here's a free clue for you: just because you think something does not make it normal or correct or factual.

            •  the facts are OWS isn't in the top 10 of (0+ / 0-)

              news stories for 2011.

              it just isn't.  the news spent most of this year going on and on about one thing in particular.  and the data shows it.

              the arab spring was the biggest news story by sheer volume of articles etc.  

              that's backed by the evidence.  not my bias.

              sorry, your bias is showing.  

              •  Facts? What facts? (0+ / 0-)

                Your opinions aren't facts. All you have presented are opinions. I asked you what your criteria are, and you won't answer so I am assuming you base your beliefs on things your dog told you.

                If data show what you say is true, present the data. If there is evidence beyond the one link to a small publication that you provided, please provide said evidence.

                Calling your opinion factual does not make it so. Only those with a remarkably inflated ego claim other people are biased and they are factual without presenting evidence.

                If you are claiming that sheer volume indicates importance, then there are plenty of sources that have compiled such data. Link to data or shut up. I'm sure you already have such data readily at hand, right? I mean, you would never leap to a conclusion and only THEN try to find data to back up your claims, right?

                Well, I think you are getting strident and making unjustifiable hide rates because you know you've done just that.

                •  do your own research (0+ / 0-)


                  AOL's data lists Occupy Wall Street as the #8 most popular news search in 2011, behind Osama bin Laden's death, Gabrielle Giffords' shooting and Casey Anthony. Though comScore Inc. declined to provide traffic data for the site, ranks as #1,556 most popular site in the U.S., with 8,612 sites linking in. That's not quite as popular as Oprah or The Daily Show, but 5X more popular than Bill O'Reilly, 23X more visited than the official Tea Party website and almost 100X more trafficked than (Sarah Palin's website).

                  •  So you are admitting that popularity = importance? (0+ / 0-)

                    Okay, so now we need to do some research to determine if you are right. You provide one huffpo article, that is not evidence. What I want is the scholarly study that you based your opinions on, the one that measures more than just search popularity, but also seconds of airtime, Nielson ratings of the airtime, and column inches along with subscriber data.

                    Internet searches of all stripes are open to manipulation, you know that, right? That is why online polls are not considered reliable. News is still more than just websites. You fail to provide compelling data that your opinions are factual.

                    You are using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

                    •  you can write your own most important list (0+ / 0-)

                      that maybe what Time is doing.  however, i doubt that considering their other entries in the top 10.

                      •  So what nefarious thing IS Time doing? (0+ / 0-)

                        OOOOOOhhhhh! Conspiracy theories, I love those!

                        Guess what? No top ten list of ANYTHING EVER PUBLISHED is factual. All top ten lists are opinion, don't you understand that? Claiming that there is some objective, external measure for "top" anything without defining "top" is ridiculous. Your attempts to bring "facts" into a discussion that is by its very nature pure opinion simply makes you look arrogant, self centered and egotistical. It makes you look like the sort of person who can not honestly differentiate his own opinions from fact.

                        •  top 10 biggest defaults (0+ / 0-)

                          top 10 countries around the world by wealth
                          income inequality

                          numbers are everywhere if you're willing to use them.  plenty of data to definitively say one way or another what the top story of 2011 was.  it's not easy but can be done.

                          and is.

    •  Indeed, it could well be argued (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      that OWS would not have happened without the inspiration of the Arab spring demonstrations.  I have to give the #1 spot to the Arab spring also; but OWS still gets #2 because of its importance and relevence here.

      You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

      by rb608 on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 12:09:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting choice TIME. (0+ / 0-)

    But I'm glad to see Occupy getting a decent piece of press as it continues to keep the movement on the minds of lots of people.

    Good for Occupy!

    When everybody talkin' all at once no one can hear the wise one speak, So just be still and silence will provide the wisdom that you seek - by Tori del Allen

    by Dumas EagerSeton on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:48:26 AM PST

  •  If Time finds #OWS as an important story in the US (0+ / 0-)

    then why did they not have the same cover story in the US as in Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific?  It's hard to believe that the editors at Time didn't think there would be a market for that kind of cover

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site