Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Vox News

'Occupy Wall Street': Why this revolution isn't made for TV

Supporters complain the mainstream media aren't keeping pace with 'Occupy Wall Street' protests. But the movement's complexity makes big-picture coverage difficult.

(Page 2 of 2)



“The media has focused on the pepper spray incidents and the arrests on the bridge because these are familiar to them,” he says, noting that there were issues of police mishandling of protesters in New York City when the Republican National Convention was held there in 2004.

Skip to next paragraph

Recent posts

But, he notes, the protesters themselves are not familiar.

“Middle-class, educated young people, many of them clearly countercultural in appearance – dreadlocks, tattoos, multicolored hair, etc., – all camping out in the heart of a city’s financial district, is not something anyone expected to see in the US,” he says. This is more familiar in Europe and Latin America, he notes, “but not in the USA.”

There is confusion, he says, adding that people are wondering, “Where did they come from? Why are they doing this?”

What reporters for the print and broadcast media are only now starting to grasp as this spreads nationwide, says Professor Naison, is how many middle-class college-age kids in the US can’t find jobs that secure middle-class status.

“In fact, there are enough of them to fuel a pretty big protest movement,” he says.

If the Occupy groups desire better mainstream media attention, they need to polish their communication skills, says Richard Goedkoop, a communications professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia.

“Part of its initial problem in gaining media coverage was its lack of a charismatic and quotable leader, which would allow news outlets to cover more than groups of (mostly) young people in centers of commerce,” he says via e-mail.

“Another problem is that the message behind these demonstrations have not been very quotable and precise,” he says. “What are they about? What do they specifically want?”

While news coverage is building, there could be more, he notes. “Supporters cynically might choose to blame it on the conglomerates that own these media organizations: Comcast, News Corp., Disney, etc.”

Because the brunt of the message is actually about them, he asks, “Is it in their best corporate interest to inform the public about their own failings?”

But if coverage is in fact skimpy, the reasons are likely more prosaic, says Mark Tatge, Pulliam distinguished professor of journalism at DePauw University in Indiana.

“The media that would normally cover this – mainstream media – is under severe economic pressure,” he says, pointing out that upwards of 30 percent of the reporters and editors who used to work for newspapers, TV stations, and magazines have been laid off.

“Ironically,” he adds, “some of these layoffs come at the hands of Wall Street investors who wanted fatter profit margins from media companies.”

If this says anything about media it is this, says Professor Tatge: “We are getting less coverage about events that predict or foreshadow what is yet to come.”

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

Permissions

Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story