What is Occupy Wall Street: (besides confusing)

Like one of my fellow classmates previously mentioned, explaining what “is Occupy Wall Street” is such a daunting task due to the many pieces and complexities within the movement. I almost think it would be easier to define OWS with less knowledge of the movement because as this class has progressed, and every article, blog post or news report I have seen, has added a new perspective, insight or layer of complexity to how I would define the movement.

My blog posts focused on Media Bias in reporting OWS as well showed comparisons to historical movements similar to Occupy Wall Street so I will attempt to tie these together to answer the daunting question of:

What is Occupy Wall Street?

Occupy Wall Street is a social movement which cannot and does not want to be defined into a simple “catch all” definition. As What is Occupy Wall Street, points out OWS is not just 1 group. It is a compilation of all different groups, with different goals, agenda’s, and motives. (91 and counting).  The only way to accurately define Occupy Wall Street would be to define all groups within the movement. (which would take way longer than I want  to spend on this project) Occupy Wall Street is not a leaderless movement, as many media outlets want to portray; instead OWS is a movement of many leaders and groups. In the same sense it is not a movement with no demands, it is just a movement with many demands of many groups within it. It has demands, just not uniform demands. In a post We demand better Demands, points out OWS has been portrayed in the Media as a movement with no goals, but in fact it does have goals, these goals were just not accepted and were called “Outlandish” by the media.

The main thing I learned from my research is not only what OWS is but also what OWS isn’t. Occupy Wall Street is not what it is being portrayed in mainstream media sources. Occupy Wall Street has picked up the stigma of a violent or deviant group, when in reality it is a peaceful attempt to bring some sort of social and economic change. This goes back to The One Bad Apple post which talks about how a few bad apples have been given the face of the movement by bias media sources. Certain Media outlets seem more concerned with reporting about the “bad apples” than presenting the various aspects of the OWS movement outside police/occupier violence.

 

 

Additionally, Occupy Wall Street has been portrayed as an unorganized movement. However in my previous post (labor movement) it explains OWS does not need a leader. It is loosely structured, not unorganized. Although the loose structure limits its ability to organize quickly it has allowed it to be more successful and survive as a movement, whereas past structured movements  with similar motives have not. (Labor movement 1981) It also has been shown that in fact OWS does have the ability to organize and form a rigid structure when it needs to communicate and relay message. (Meechie Peachie)

The presence of mainstream media bias in reporting has shifted the focus of OWS to labeling WHO is Occupy Wall Street and not what Occupy Wall Street is. The need to place one label or stereotype on who is occupying has taken priority over what the actual issues being protested are.

It is important to realize what Occupy Wall Street is as a movement and not what it is being portrayed as in the media. Occupy Wall Street is a diverse movement of different people, groups, motives, and goals, with the common goal of bringing attention and change to social and economic inequality. Media may report about one group within the movement but that does not truly represent the entire movement.

When asking yourself the question “What is Occupy Wall Street?” it is important to keep in mind the insightful words of Flava Flav “Don’t believe the Hype” (mainstream media hype that is)

I hope this made some sense, and allows you readers to answer this complex question.

Results=Success…or do they?

My old boss used to always tell me,“I’m a results guy, at the end of the day I measure success in results”

Granted he was probably in 1%, nevertheless it brings up a good point when thinking about the OWS movement.

The deemed success or failure of social movements in history usually hinge on what was the outcome of the movement is. Usually these outcomes which deem success are in the form of legislative policy change.

Examples of Successful Social Movements Include:

-          The Civil Rights Movement which led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a monumental piece of legislation which solidified racial and gender equality   

-          Labor Movements in the 1800-Mid 1900’s resulted in numerous passed legislative acts which regulated Child Labor, Minimum Wage, Safe Working Conditions, Maximum Workable Hours ect

Under this logic I would say that OWS has not been successful as a social movement. It has been successful in raising awareness to economic inequality however the Labor Movement of 1981 was also successful in this regard, however it did not result in any legislative change and when it ended it was considered at a failed attempt, and to many it is an unknown movement.

This is to not say that that OWS is a failed movement however it is a movement still seeking results.

I would compare this to the Gay Rights movement. The Gay Rights movements has been on-going since 1965 and has gained a considerable amount of rights and awareness to its cause, however like OWS I would deem it a movement still seeking the results it needs to deem itself a success. I’m sure if you asked someone involved in the Gay rights movement if it has gotten all the results it has strived for I could be willing to bet the answer would be no. There is still no act passed which has allowed gay marriage in all states and the inequality still exists.  The legislative results these groups have been seeking have still not been reached. I would deem the Gay Rights Movement as more of a successful movement than Occupy Wall Street thus far, as although their hasn’t been national legislation passed, the Gay Rights Movement has seen results in different state legislative acts.

Occupy Wall Street is the same in this regard. Although motives are much less defined for OWS there has been no legislative change to effect any of the grievances they have.  At the end of the day the results are: the 1% is still as rich as they were, and the 99% is still as poor as they were, and Big Banks and millionaire CEO’s still don’t give a shit.

(CEO Millionaires Bill Gross and Larry Fink don’t seem too upset about the OWS movement)

My question to the readers of this post is:

- Based on looking at Historical Movements, does OWS need results for it to be deemed a success?  What do these results need to be?

Can Occupy Wall Street Pick Up Where The Labor Movement Left Off?

Arguments exist over the results of Occupy Wall Street; however one undeniable outcome of the Occupy Wall Street Movement is the result of national awareness being raised to the issue of inequality in the current American Economy.  This is a National issue which has surprisingly not been raised in this type of large scale in America in a long time (Too Long). A movement somewhat similar to OWS took place in 1981 when Union Leaders and blue collar laborers, frustrated with Ronald Reagan’s Economic policy, began to protest. This protest was viewed as the start of an attempt led by Unions to bring greater economic protection to the middle class labor force. However this attempt was unsuccessful in its goals for policy change and quickly faded as an insignificant blip in American History. An article in Bloomberg raised an interesting question,: (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/can-occupy-wall-street-replace-the-labor-movement-.html#disqus_thread)

“Can Occupy Wall Street Replace the Labor Movement?”

This article cites the failure of the Labor Movement of 1981 for the current economic conditions which are currently being protested today.  “We’ve recently seen the political consequences of this collapse (Labor Movement of 1981). By many measures, economic conditions today are worse than in the summer of 1981. Real gross domestic product was actually increasing in the four years before 1981, but it flat-lined between 2007 and 2011. The unemployment rate was also higher in 2011 — stuck at more than 9 percent for almost three years. And the labor-force participation rate declined from 2006 to 2011, while it increased from 1976 to 1981.”, bringing forward the question, if had labor movements in 1981 been successful in producing economic legislative policy in favor of middle class workers would the current economic system be the same as it is today?

Regardless of that speculation the better question is, where is the labor protests of this current economic system? The economic conditions are incredibly similar (some would say worse) than in 1981, and the current economy is “ripe” for laborer protest yet there is no strong middle laborer class or union presence in economic protests? Or is there…(plot twist)

Although the members of the Labor Movement in 1981 were blue collared middle class and OWS members have gained the stereotype as hippies, the motives are still ironically similar. They both were in protest of poor economic conditions, unemployment and corporate greed. Occupy Wall Street represents the 99%, while the Labor Movement represented the blue collar “Working American”. The main difference in these two movements is how the protests are being carried out and how the protestors are being perceived.

“The marchers tended to smoke Marlboros, not marijuana.”

Occupy Wall Street has the ability to replace the labor movement in the sense that they are picking up where the labor movement left off by being able to adapt its structure in ways the labor movement could not. Because of the steep decline of Unions it has been extremely difficult to form a protest among the labor class, as there is no longer an umbrella of solidarity to fall under. Structured forms of economic protest as seen in 1981 have become largely outdated. Protests such as Occupy Wall Street or similar protest groups seen at economic summits have evolved and adapted and now are much more loosely structured, making them more effective at protesting in this current era or information sharing. The metaphor used to describe this current loose form of protest is, “They’re like the new species that thrive after a wildfire destroys an old-growth forest.” Several draw backs still exisit. With less structure creates a greater difficultly of effectively articulating demands (one of the major criticisms of the OWS movement)

The OWS movement has picked up where the laborer movement left off in converting general economic anxiety and inequality into awareness and protest. Whether or not the OWS movement has replaced the labor movement can only be answered if these economic anxieties and inequalities can be articulated into demands and converted in legislative change as the labor movement originally intended.

Mainstream Media’s Bias In Reporting Occupy Wall Street

Is Mainstream Media Anti-Occupy?

1st off I am not a conspiracy theorist but several other Occupy Wall Street blogs suggest to some degree an existent level of bias in main stream media when it comes to reporting the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

Political Bias is evident in the reporting (I.e Fox News bias to the right, MSNBC bias to the left) but that is not only limited to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. It has been speculated that there is a different overall bias present in main stream media reporting Occupy Wall Street. This reporting bias in main stream media, whether intentional or not, has created a general negative stigma about Occupy Wall Street and has evoked some criticism claiming mainstream media is anti-occupy. (http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153001/blatantly_biased_tabloids_and_clueless_mainstream_media_keep_missing_the_obvious_big_story_at_ows?page=2)

Critics claim examples of this can be found in major main stream media outlet:(http://www.breakingcopy.com/media-bias-occupy-wall-street)

• New York Times has taken criticism for running articles with headlines such as “Zoo-Cotti” and “Enough!” (Referring to protesters)
• http://nation.foxnews.com/wall-street-protests/2011/10/17/wall-street-parasites-deface-911-memorial-statue
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper?dt=2011-10-15&bk=A&pg=1
• 
• 

 

 

What has caused this overall reporting bias in reporting Occupy Wall Street?

The political bias is unarguable but there are some other factors in reporting bias which are less examined. It ironic but it could be speculated that the bias present in mainstream reporting could be accounted to the economic factors in corporations which own mainstream media outlets.

Main Stream Media is Controlled by the 1%

Occupy Wall Street is a movement most well known for its 99% vs 1% ideology. Without going into the nuances of the motives of Occupy Wall Street it is safe to assume there is an anti “1%” sentiment among the movement. This may play a role in anti-occupy reporting as the owners, CEO’s, and senior executives of these companies controlling major media outlets all make yearly salaries which would put them in the 1%. Even most T.V reporters for these mainstream outlets make enough income to put them in the 1%. Sources estimate T.V anchors earn
between $460,000-2 million per year. Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Shepard Smith make between $7-10 million dollars. (http://www.ehow.com/about_7581722_average-salary-fox-news-anchor.html)

This is not to say their is a conspiracy against Occupy Wall Street by the “1%” CEO’s and Media exec’s but it helps to give perspective into why an anti-occupy bias may exist. In a simple sense members of the 1% are in control of all the main stream reporting of movement led by the 99%.

The video below touches on the impact of wealth in current reporting, and the bias it creates.

 

 

Media Outlets are still businesses operating to make a profit

Another major criticism of the mainstream reporting of the OWS movement is that the images and stories reported in mainstream misrepresent and sensationalize the Occupy Wall Street movement to paint Occupy protestors as violent, disobedient and dirty, while mainstream reporting fails to report non-violent or positive events.

Another reason which can be considered to explain this criticism is at the end of the day these mainstream media outlets are businesses operating for profit. The growing competition for readers and viewers has made it more important to attract readers. It is no surprise mainstream media outlets are focusing more on controversial and more provoking images and stories in reporting the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Critic’s claim that mainstream media are over reporting Criminal delinquency, public destruction, and civil disobedience in an attempt to grab viewers away from competition.

But Can this Argument be used both ways? 

Although this post mainly presents examples of Anti-Occupy Reporting in mainstream media, the argument used above about sensationalization in Media is also used by other groups to argue mainstream media misrepresents police brutality to bring sympathy to the Occupy Movement. It is important that this is briefly presented so that readers of this post are also informed their is just as much criticism against mainstream media for being pro-occupy.

Important thing to take away: It always not clear where the bias in mainstream media exists or why but it will always exist in mainstream reporting

History of the Movement: Reporting Bias and Perception

 

“The very ink with which all history is written is merely prejudice” – Mark Twain

 

The Occupy Wall Street Movement began September 17, 2011. That’s about the only thing everyone agrees on when it comes to the occupy movement.

My initial plan was to present a linear timeline describing the major events of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, the motives behind them and their impact. However when looking at various media outlets and realizing the bias in reporting and heavy influence of social media it is impossible to present a linear history that can be accepted as an unbiased historical outlook. The Occupy Wall Street Movement has experienced a chronological transformation to which can only be defined and reported based on individual political/religious/social perspective. Gladwell details the use of social media has increased the corrupted reporting of history,  and presents these media types as “in addition” to the reporting of history reported by traditional types.

But this brings up the question, is Gladwell correct in his argument? Is Social Media Corrupting the Reporting of History?

Even Mark Twain in 1800’s recognized the presence of bias in how history is reported well before the invention of social media. To disagree with Gladwell I would argue that Social Media has not contributed to the corruption of recording history but instead, it has allowed for history to be more accurately reported because it allows for a broader perspective to be portrayed. Traditional media sources have political bias’s in reporting (Foxnews, MSNBC, ect.) so social media presents unlimited perspectives unique to the individual experience beyond the bias’s of traditional media.

The addition of social media did not create bias in reporting, it simply increased the amount of perspective in historical report of events. A society once reliant on information from limited sources are now opened to the views, opinions, and stories of anyone with a computer and internet access. While Gladwell looks at this negatively, it could be argued this ultimately creates the complete history of the event.

A study in 2000 looked at how world events were interpreted based on political ideology. The findings of this study showed that the political ideology bias was strongest among people reporting high knowledge of the event. (Fagerlin) History will always be effected by how events are perceived, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement just exemplifies how ideology and bias in reporting effects how it is perceived in history.

Technology and documenting OWS History

As Malcolm Gladwell simply states, technology has reinvented social activism, and this is evident in the Occupy Wall Street movement. The shift of social activism from strongly tied personal connections to loosely connected social media platforms has allowed for the rapid and immediate sharing of information which has revolutionized the way Occupy Wall Street has spread across the country.

Technology has not only effected how the movement has spread, but also how the history of the OWS movement is portrayed. The increased usage of social media outlets and blogging has shifted the way OWS is reported. No longer are social movements only reliant on traditional media to document its history. Anyone now has access to millions of people via the internet and can document the history of the movement as they see it. As the History of the Occupy Wall Street movement is further looked into, it is important to realize that now because of technology there is no static, commonly accepted, history of the movement. This is because the revolutionized reporting of the Occupy Wall Street now spans from the traditional media sources (newspapers, journals ect.) to non-tradition (blogs, tumblers, ect.) and social media outlets.