This is not the first time that the "mainstream media" has ignored significant protest movements on the left. The US Uncut protests received little attention, despite the fact that Uncut events have taken place world wide, with millions of suporters. In fact, it is rare to see any media attention given to left-wing movements, and yet any time 50-100 tea partiers show up in lawn chairs at any given location it receives massive coverage. The best explanation for this, in my opinion, is that corporately-owned media outlets have little to gain from covering a movement that exposes and seeks to dismantle the corporatocracy we live in today. Why would any right-minded corporate stakeholder want to shed light on an issue that threatens its very existence?
The police brutality that has taken place on Wall Street, however, has received some attention. This is promising. Female protesters being penned and maced in the face, a (fairly belligerent but non-threatening) man being kneed in the throat, a young woman being dragged across the street, a man knocked to the ground while acquiescing to an arrest, and so on. Now, the NYPD has to do their job. There is no doubt that they are in a difficult position, most of them simply taking orders from on high, but these videos and others show, in my opinion, excessive police force. Unarmed citizens, many of them submitting to arrest with little or no resistance, being kettled, knocked to the ground, maced, dragged, and physically assaulted is a travesty.
By now, some mainstream media outlets have picked up on the story, reporting on the accusations of police brutality, the arrests, and the goals of the demonstrators. The Washington Post, abc News, MSNBC, and other news outlets have started to report on the protest, now in its second week. So perhaps there is a silver lining to the police-brutality reports--the mainstream media is now paying attention.
The "progressive" media, however, is experiencing some infighting with regards to the protest coverage. Ginia Bellafante wrote this controversial article, depicting the protesters as loopy, misguided youth with no real goals or objectives and essentially mocking the demonstrators. True, if you head down to the protest I'm sure you can find those individuals with little of substance to say, wearing silly clothes and there simply to "fight the man" or because their cousin Nikki wanted to start a drum circle. But many of the protesters have meaningful grievances with the financial industry, with the government, with the global elite, and they have poignant things to say regarding the protest's purpose. A very well-written letter to the editor takes Bellafante to task for her mockery of the movement, arguing that "nonviolent direct action... needs to be taken more seriously" by the press. Allison Kilkenny did a great job posting at The Nation, accusing Bellafante of "rubbernecking," doing journalism a disservice by failing to ask meaningful questions about the movement, and depicting the demonstrators as "scatterbrained, sometimes borderline-psychotic transients."
Mother Jones also posted a critical article on the protest, starting with the assumption that it isn't working. Readers posted many disapproving comments on the article, and the issues with the author's premises are fairly obvious. 1) The purpose of the demonstration is to give individuals a chance to contribute to a statement of goals. The fact that they have yet to develop one, but are still working on it in the face of arrests, police brutality, and food shortages is not a failure. It is, by definition, a success. 2) Police brutality has, to an extent, stolen the spotlight, but as I stated before it has also brought media attention to the protest, which is a blessing, albeit one that comes with a heavy cost. 3) Who says you can't build a movement using the tactics of Anonymous? In fact, I might argue that Anonymous' tactics are the solution to the inherent problems of grassroots efforts in the age of globalisation. The author does not give any reason for this premise, and I think it is simply faulty. 4) The author claims that the movement has failed to bring in a "wide swath" of Americans, insinuating that the demonstrators are mostly young college kids with time to take off. That, however, is grossly untrue. In many of the links I have posted above, statements are made by protesters from various age, ethnicity, and status groups. Young, old, wealthy, poor, educated, uneducated... the protest has drawn people from all backgrounds, even if many of them are young. The article itself depicts an ex-Wall Steeter, as if to contradict its own point.
Of course, this is nothing new for progressives. Being the big-tent party comes with many hazards, infighting being one of them. But I leave you with this: artist Immortal Technique does a fantastic job of summing up the takeaways from the movement, what matters, what doesn't, what challenges we face, what is at stake, and why we fight. I highly recommend watching the whole thing, it's a great video.
Edit: I uploaded a different video, same content but a bit longer and better quality.
So, that's it. Thanks for reading. For more information on the movement, visit their website: https://occupywallst.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment