The Guardian and The New York Times recently reported night-and-day angles on the Occupy Wall Street movement, providing some nutgraf food for thought. The former nutgraf acknowledges the movement’s stated mission to protest the role of corporate “excess” in our current economic crisis; the latter portrays the movement as a “rabble-rousing stay” with few organized goals. The images from each article compellingly compliment this divergence in approach. Below both nutgrafs, I’ve copied the Occupy Wall Street movement’s written statement about its own reasons for organizing the now massive protest.
I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on these differences? Or perhaps information about coverage of the event from other sources?
From Ed Pilkington's (The Guardian) article, “Occupy Wall Street protest: NYPD accused of heavy-handed tactics”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/02/occupy-wall-street-nypd-tactics?newsfeed=true”
“Activists, as well as commentators following the protest against inequality and corporate excess, claim the response of the city's police force to the peaceful event was vastly out of proportion. Almost 1,000 people have been arrested in two weeks – substantially more than the number of financiers who led the world into the 2008 economic meltdown.”
From Kleinfield and Buckley's (The New York Times) article, “Wall Street Occupiers, Protesting Till Whenever”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/nyregion/wall-street-occupiers-protesting-till-whenever.html
“The hodgepodge Lower Manhattan encampment known as Occupy Wall Street has no appointed leaders, no expiration date for its rabble-rousing stay and still-evolving goals and demands. Yet its two weeks of noisy occupation has lured a sturdily faithful and fervent constituency willing to express discontentment with what they feel is an inequitable financial system until, well, whenever.”
From the Occupy Wall Street Movement’s General Assembly Website
http://nycga.cc/
“As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce..."
The list continues.
Thank you for sharing these stories. You indeed found starkly divergent coverage.
ReplyDeleteI reserve my personal political opinions and so nothing herein should be construed as commentary on the underlying protest. My comments relate only to the news coverage.
For better or worse, we can evaluate the access and bias of the reporters and papers ( Guardian and Times). While I can assess the veracity and viewpoint of the alleged politics and goals in the statement/manifesto, I wonder how we can access the access, bias, influence, and genuine representative capacity of the person or group composing and distributing the "As one people…" statement. (i.e., to what extent, as purported elsewhere, the list represents an "official position" by people with some capacity to make such a statement?
How do we know who they represent? Moreover, what prevents someone from attempting a counterintelligence move aimed at destroying the movement by also claiming a position of leadership and then distributing goals and statements easily discredited or designed to destroy popular support (i.e. expressing false affiliation or support for terrorist organizations, etc.)
The NYT piece mentions the movement, gives some facts and background, IIRC quotes one Assembly participant (but not a leader).
Now this list is viral -- out on several sites. But what links it to the movement or gives it "legitimacy" in a self-described "leaderless movement."
For sake of argument and discussion: Would we publish it in our newspaper without more due diligence? Essentially without vetting it, one could argue that it is not evidence of anything. It’s just an anonymous posting. Now, if a thousand people show up waving it in the air, that's certainly news (and I'd hope to interview and quote many of them)
As journalists, on what grounds might we decide to publish all or parts of an anonymous statement loaded with political viewpoint without any attribution. Would we not be doing whatever the distributor intended without exercising journalistic diligence and discernment? Articles about the decision to publish the Unibomber manifesto, Extremist group statements, and wikileaks documents might prove insightful.
FYI: One web source posts a "press contact" address for the group, (NYC General Assembly) as c2anycga@gmail.com . Alas, I lost connection and the link to this source. I do recall they were citing the Daily Kos site
On several fronts, you have given us good food for thought. Thank you!
Cheers,
Lee
FWIW: In reading this story I took notice of the ironic attempts of the protestors to emulate some of the facets of the Tahrir Square encampment. Irony coming in the form of protestors in NY emulating Cairo. I'm familiar with Cairo and had a colleague in the Square with communication links. Accordingly, while working from France, I was asked to investigate and write on public-health and intra-camp communication issues (subsequently on antiquities protection issues). I was very impressed with the self-organization, displayed under much tougher conditions, by the protestors in Tahrir Square. Whether, and how, the OWS protestors manage their camp may tell us a lot more about them than any official statement.
ReplyDeleteWe expect, especially with such polarizing sentiments in the air, that extra care be given to the objective reporting of events. I'm frankly unimpressed with the language and objectivity shown in the Guardian and Times articles.
Lee, thank you very much for your inspiring questions and comments regarding this coverage.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem, as each day passes, that the question of accessing the people who make up this movement has become a task of identifying various groups within groups to individuals. As of today, we now have, in addition to some joined unions, President Obama’s thoughts on the movement as an expression of the frustrations of the American public, including Americans “[seeing] Wall Street as an example of the financial industry not always following the rules,” according to the AP reporter Verena Dobnik.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-acknowledges-wall-street-protests-sign-165955300.html
Any other perspectives I’ve missed?
“For sake of argument and discussion: Would we publish it in our newspaper without more due diligence? Essentially without vetting it, one could argue that it is not evidence of anything. It’s just an anonymous posting. Now, if a thousand people show up waving it in the air, that's certainly news (and I'd hope to interview and quote many of them).”
Thanks, this is a great question! For the sake of dialogue on our class website, I included a part of the mission statement of Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly but definitely debated internally in terms of how much to paste, originally. Part of me wanted to save time for those going to look at the statement, part of me intended to facilitate a conversation that approached the specific claims of the movement, and another part of me did not want to take up too much space on our blog. So even in the process of dialogue with the class, I was pretty conflicted, so certainly appreciate your input. And I’m imagining newsroom debates as we speak!
That said, I am very new to journalism and offer, with humbly new journalistic tendencies, the proposition that the act of discerning the link between a leaderless mission statement and an organization’s members’ actions is the very execution of journalistic diligence. If the movement claims itself as leaderless, is it my job as a journalist to make the organization have a leader? And if I can’t make it have a leader or lead writer for its mission statement, must I refrain from publishing its stated collective goals for scrutiny?
I would, as you suggested, do all possible to attribute the mission statement but if presented with information containing a mixed group of people who don’t want to define themselves, wouldn’t I serve the public to transparently inform them of the mission statement’s and its “special” status, especially if the statement is already accessible worldwide? If thousands are following a leaderless mission statement (if, of course, is one of the questions that we should address), it would seem important to report on how, why (if possible) and what kinds of opposition the movement encounters.
Taking off the journalistic hat and putting on a reader’s (and to some extent, a researcher’s) cap, I’d be more interested to understand perspectives on the inner workings of an organization that claims no hierarchy than read multiple paragraphs on the repetitive and growingly obvious point, that the organization has no traditional leaders.
The fact that this is occurring- thousands of people not waving mission statement flags, but perhaps more profoundly, leaving home to participate in a movement with a leaderless or possibly non-attributable mission statement, in the midst of an economic crisis, is interesting news…to me, at least. The reader in me asks what? how? why? Not just, who’s the leader and is there a leader, which the NY Times disappointed me by zeroing in on, essentially.
To address some of the excellent questions you posed about representation within the movement, I might make it my newspaper’s approach to find out how the people I interview relate specifically to selected statements in the mission statement (again, a useful tool for interviewing people outside of the movement, as well). Rather than hearing the old story “Wall Street is Evil vs. Wall Street is Not Evil,” or “These Activist People are Leaderless and Pointless vs. We Are Trying to Make the World Better,” would we not serve the public more to create a new and equally exciting dialogue by seeking out specific information on the perception of effects (that has generally agreed to have ignited the fire) that Wall Street’s institutions and individuals have played a significant role in the global, economic downturn and equally and what leaders and/or those invested in Wall Street’s institutions think about these specific claims? This reporting on perception of effects can be triangulated not simply through asking the movement’s populous, “why are you here,” but also, I’d propose, through seeking reactions, positive or negative, to its yes, very strong mission statement claims.
ReplyDeleteThe Times article, in my mind, was rather simplistic and disappointing, in this respect.
Regarding the potential risks and decision-making in publishing any group’s mission statement, surely, this is a critical question. My instinct, again, as a very new journalist would be to evaluate the costs and benefits on a case-by-case basis, but I am so new that I’d love to hear more perspective on this issue. I am not sure, for example, how newsrooms assessed the publishing of Terry Jones’ Koran burning episode in Florida which was less an issue of publishing written words, but spoken words and images that contained grave potential to incite multiple groups. In fact, one day during this coverage, I received an unfortunate message from the Department of State in Dakar, Senegal, to avoid public places in the city, as the real threat of backlash in response to news of Jones’ movement, had increased.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, having lived in countries which are, paradoxically, at times more censored about certain news items yet less censored in publishing controversial and graphic material that we would not often see on U.S-run news sites and television, I have, for better or worse, developed a critique of my original understanding of the word “vetting” through U.S-based media lens (and now, through your help and that of the class, will hopefully refine this understanding!)
With the common goal to avoid harm in providing information to the public and regarding the Occupy Wall Street, it appears commonly decided by reporters that the movement is safe to cover, at least for now. Furthermore, the mission statement seems to consist of themes that focus on the minimization of the suffering of those perceived affected by, as Obama calls it, the idea that financial institutions have not always following the rules or, as the Guardian calls it, corporate excess (and as the Times…doesn’t call it).
Ergo, in this particular case, I would see the mission statement as a relatively low-risk tool for trying to understand and report the purpose, direction, and opponents of a social movement, and one that could be quoted as such. When put in the context of, for example, terrorist attacks targeting corporate America, at first, it might seem that the movement’s mission statement could incite. However, on second look, one might ask, could news of this event potentially signal a non-violent alternative to addressing concerns over wealth distribution and poverty? I can’t quite make a conclusion either way, yet, but certainly agree that the question has multiple sides and shouldn’t be answered too hastily.
A quick return to the vetting process, I’d focus not simply on finding a name to attach to the mission, but on clarifying and substantiating the claims made in the mission statement (e.g., has there been any recent trend research or reportage on, for example, wage negotiations, employee relations, corporate environmental action., etc.)? Have any conclusions mirrored or disproved the Occupy Wall Street’s list of reasons for organizing? Yes, as a journalist, I must always look at the potential effects of my inclusion or exclusion of information. Ideally, I’d not seek the promotion of the movement. Equally, I’d also not avoid working with and publishing information from the movement, in order to facilitate greater public understanding of multiple voices from within and without.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my journalistic goal for covering the beginning of a social movement (and please do provide more insights as I hoped to do this kind of reporting for my final project), would be to inform the public about what the movement is, who is part of it, who is against it, why it has formed and in which potential directions it could go from here. In my opinion, The Times only covered “who is part of it” while the Guardian touched on more categories.
I also found the Guardian’s coverage interesting when (artificially or naturally) placed in the context of the London Riots’ recent magnification of the strained relationship between police and London’s citizens. I found the Times’ coverage interesting through the lens of its readership and corporate ties.
Well, thanks so much again for the opportunity to dialogue and for the opportunity to learn from your perspective, as well and keep the comments rolling!
PPS. The Washington Post provided some very interesting coverage of the movement's opposition today:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/occupy-wall-street-99-percent-movements-get-challenge-from-the-other-1-percent/2011/10/07/gIQAfBdUTL_story.html
Hi Meg,
ReplyDeleteSome excellent and profound points and counterpoints that I'm just reading for the first time very late on Sunday evening. I have travel and deadline the next two days, but I hope to post some responses by mid-week. As you point out, Union support, U.S. President Obama's comments, and other factors are driving a rapid evolution of this story.
I encourage others to jump in. This story is a living lab for multiple facets of modern journalism. Beyond being skilled as an old guy provocateur-in-chief, I have no expertise on these topics.
As an old school adherent, I'm intrigued at the differences between English journalism, where the declaration of bias is considered vogue, and American style journalism where the goal (or possibly pretense) of objectivity is still required. I personally think we should never give up on the impossible-to-obtain goal of perfect objectivity, but many of my English (and some of my younger American colleagues) disagree and call that unrealistic and hypocritical .
This story will fire passions. Ideally, journalists cover stories. In reality, however, they can also drive stories. Sometimes stories drive themselves, and a few stories manage to run over those trying to cover them (i.e., the facts change quickly and expose lazy reporting).
I think we will see it all in this Wall St. Occupation story.
Cheers,
Lee
FWIW, I thought this NYT articles was insightful about the OWS organizational structure.
ReplyDeleteProtesters Debate What Demands, if Any, to Make
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-trying-to-settle-on-demands.html?_r=1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&pagewanted=all&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
One interesting facet of the OWS is the rapidity with which it is moving through the evolutionary stages from phenomena to movement ( with structure, funding, etc.). It will be interesting to see whether a diversity of voices and goals turns to to be a strength or fatal weakness. Conversations with protesters in Egypt's Tahir square went something like this:
"So, what do you want?"
"We want Mubarak to resign."
"Do you want broader constitutional democracy?"
"We want Mubarak to resign."
"Do you want to repudiate Egyptian foreign policy?"
"We want Mubarak to resign."
"Are you looking for reforms in the security services?"
"We want Mubarak to resign."
Are there any specific economic reforms you all want to implement?
"We want Mubarak to resign."
Their OST (one simple thing) was: "We want Mubarak to resign."
By narrowing the message and focusing they kept their movement from fractionating -- until, of course, Mubarak resigned. ;)