OWS and media ethics, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 31-10-2011 @ 11:04 AM by upstairsjim

blogs.reuters.com...

Occupy Wall Street seems to be throwing up much more than its fair share of media-ethics questions — from a news-organization perspective, it’s a movement which seems to be very easy to respond to badly, and very difficult to respond to well.

And people wonder why there is so much rancor and disagreement about the OWS movement.

Read this article. It's short and to the point.

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 11:35 AM by iunlimited491

NYT - “had a default ambassador in a half-naked woman who called herself Zuni Tikka”

Haha, probably one of funniest things I've read all day. But the thing is, It's true. Now, some media outlets are going a little to far with their criticisms, but a lot of them are really just calling it like they see it. I'm not going to get into my own personal views of the movement, but OWS needs to be more direct with what they are trying to accomplish. They need to do more then just chant "We are 99%" - "We got sold out, banks got bailed out." etc.. They need to establish, exactly, what it is they would like to happen... and take the necessary steps, in order to make that happen. Anon, needs to stop playing hero, crashing fraudulent websites, chasing Mexican drug cartels... I mean wtf? Lol, what is your primary objective? Ya know... damn.

Listen, I think their doing great... they just need to prioritize and organize a little bit more. At least in the aspect of letting the Govt. know EXACTLY what they would like to accomplish... not something as subtle as "ending corporate greed."

edit on 31-10-2011 by iunlimited491 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 11:38 AM by backinblack

reply to post by upstairsjim

That's just SO SO wrong!!

How the heck can you even put the words Media and Ethics in the same sentence

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 11:58 AM by Gwampo

media ethics? whats that?

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 12:02 PM by upstairsjim

reply to post by iunlimited491

I agree with you, I think it's natural for people to want to have a clearly defined agenda and clearly defined leaders so they can make rational decisions about what they support and what they don't, but...the whole reason the Egyptian revolution succeeded was because they did not have these things. They kept it simple and diffuse at the same time. That way a small group of leaders couldn't be co-opted or killed and the propagandists on the other side couldn't make a case about a single idea and focus the attention of the protesters away from the bigger picture.

The Egyptians got it right. They kept it simple. As I see it, the OWS movement is protesting corporate greed and corruption, and nothing else. Those who would like to see the movement fail are trying to inject extraneous ideas in the hope of causing confusion.

The biggest mistake I can see the movement making is to start to compartmentalize their movement. Like the old saying says: " Divide and conquer. "

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 12:23 PM by dolphinfan

reply to post by upstairsjim

Why is covering the low-life activities of the OWS group in any way media bias? Sex crimes, public defacation, drug use, communists in an organized protest are certainly news worthy. When those folks are not repudiated by the organizers by throwing them out of the area of the protest it is news. OWS has become any group with a gripe and has become a completely incoherent rabble. Should the news organizations be compelled to seek out someone with a cogent message? No.

The issues described in the article such as loan bundling are far more complex than the simplified notion on the sign. Loan bundling with low quality debt was a direct result of the perversion of credit standards forced on the banks through the community reinvestment act. The same folks who are protesting the loan bundling which got folks into homes they could not afford are the same folks who would protest the fact that poor people could not buy homes due to responsible credit policy.

Had the OWS crowd took a page from Reagan's playbook and had three/four issues and only three/four issues in cogent statements that they spoke every time, they would be getting more favorable press coverage.

When 1000 folks come to a Tea Party rally and the press seeks out the three gents in military garb with signs of Obama dressed like Hitler or Che, and interview those animals, creating the impression that the Tea Party is rife with those people and those sentiments, the left does not complain, but rather celebrate that coverage and do what they can to make hay of it.

Its refreshing to see more balance in the coverage.

There are legitimate issues that some elements of OWS are seeking to address. They have been crowded out by the incoherent low-life.

If the OWS crowd wanted to make a statement, they should have raised money and secured top flight pro-bono legal talent (which they could easily do), done some research on the damage done by the blowing up of the counter-party chain brought on by the incompetent and fradulent and frankly criminal leadership of Dick Fuld, the then CEO of Lehman and sued him in civil court in a class action, they would not only receive more support, but would have accomplished something. Fuld should be in jail. Since the feds won't pursue those criminal charges, he should be sued in civil court, taking every penny of the $50M he took out of the place when it blew up. That man alone destroyed a dozen firms and thousands of jobs. That he is not in prison is a testimony of the corruption, but it also something the OWS group could have accomplished that is tangible. That gent should be living in a motor home.

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 02:11 PM by upstairsjim

If the OWS crowd wanted to make a statement, they should have raised money and secured top flight pro-bono legal talent (which they could easily do)

reply to post by dolphinfan

Here's just one article on pro bono work:

www.jdjournal.com...

As the Occupy Wall Street movement grows all around the country, many protestors have been arrested for trespassing, failure to disperse and other such violations. To help them navigate the legal system, many attorneys are stepping up the plate – at no charge.

Another of your statements says:

OWS has become any group with a gripe and has become a completely incoherent rabble. Should the news organizations be compelled to seek out someone with a cogent message? No.

Is this an attempt to rewrite history according to your own personal perspective. I don't think you're deliberately trying to introduce extraneous and inflammatory rhetoric in an attempt to lead people off on a tangent , but that's the way it's coming off.

Another of your quotes:

When 1000 folks come to a Tea Party rally and the press seeks out the three gents in military garb with signs of Obama dressed like Hitler or Che, and interview those animals, creating the impression that the Tea Party is rife with those people and those sentiments, the left does not complain, but rather celebrate that coverage and do what they can to make hay of it.

And I ask you, by doing the same thing, are you any better than they are ? By your own words, "It's newsworthy"

And what's with the Reagan thing ? Although he didn't start deregulation in this country, he took it to a whole new level. What we experienced in 2008 is a direct result of Reagan's policy of less government, which, by the way continued to grow on pace with his predecessors.

And speaking of keeping things simple, as you stated Reagan did, the OWS movement is simply a protest against corporate greed and corruption. Any other tags placed on it are done either by opponents of OWS or people who have decided to hi-jack the movement for their own personal agendas.

You sound like a person with common sense and experience, so I'm trying to figure out why you seem to have such a strong distaste for the OWS movement. It's not an anti capitalism movement. It just wants those who are screwing up this country to be accountable for their actions...which seems to be exactly what you are saying.

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 02:14 PM by neo96

Haven't seen a whole of "ethics" by OWS nor their supporters when it comes to media not a single person is forced to watch or read anything they say.

Don't like what someone says turn the channel pretty simple but make no mistake there are not a lot of "ethics" in alternative media outlets.

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 03:39 PM by dolphinfan

reply to post by upstairsjim

Pro-bono legal support to get folks out of trouble is meaningless. It may help the gent who was arrested for committing an illegal act, but has no impact beyond that individual. Pro-bono support in pushing a civil suit, as I mentioned might actually accomplish something - that however would require a ton of work.

As it relates to the Regan bit, I was not referring to anything he did specifically. I was describing the fact that he did not get distracted. He had a few major points, constantly repeated them with clarity, had his advocates do the same and changed the terms of the debate. The OWS folks have allowed their message to become so diluted it has become nothing but a chorus of whining.

You ask me if I'm being inconsistent with respect to my description of the coverage of the Tea Party as compared to the coverage of OWS. I'm not in the media. I am suggesting that the coverage is in fact consistent.

"OWS is about greed" and these other bromides mean absolutely nothing. Its like saying that you're against hunger or for happy children. It is the immature, feel good notions that absolutely lack substance, solutions and even a reasonably coherent description of the problem that has degraded the OWS movement. What are the solutions from the OWS perspective? More government, less freedom for some (those who have earned it), more freedom for some (those who want to live without consequences) and tired old notions about communal living. Its childish and has been repudiated by the majority of Americans. What ever political party attaches themselves to these folks will be absolutely destroyed in the next election.

When I see some filthy person holding a sign that says "Down with corporate greed" or some other rubbish, all I see is another loser who wants something for nothing. Some person who does not like the way society is organized because to be successful within the society requires discipline and hard work. Some person who I would not be pleased if he hung out with my kids or moved next store.

Is that who the OWS folks are? It certainly is a large piece of them and as such the entire business has no credibility

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 04:48 PM by upstairsjim

reply to post by dolphinfan

"OWS is about greed" and these other bromides mean absolutely nothing. Its like saying that you're against hunger or for happy children. It is the immature, feel good notions that absolutely lack substance, solutions and even a reasonably coherent description of the problem that has degraded the OWS movement.

It isn't immature to deal with a problem directly, even if it is a simple problem. The OWS movement IS about the greed and corruption of corporations. That's what it is. It's not a feel good bromide as you believe. It's a simple and direct statement about greed and corruption in corporations.

You seem to have given up on believing that the People can make changes in this world. What would you have advised the protesters in Egypt if you could have communicated with them. Would you have told them that their idealistic notions of democracy were just feel good bromides without any chances of success ? Would you have called their notions immature because you, personally, lacked the faith in people-power that they exhibited so courageously ?

And you keep saying that the OWS movement in continually being degraded by a lack of anything substantive and definitive, yet it is now a worldwide event that continues to have ramifications across the globe. I just read that the dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London has resigned over his handling of the "occupy" movement going on over there.

You can believe whatever you want. Personally, I believe this movement will continue in one form or another. This is a quote from one of my replies made earlier in another forum:

The OWS movement isn't going to go away. It may change it's name, it may appear as something else, but it will always be here. It has always been here, whether it was called the Boston Tea Party, The Civil Rights Movement, Woman's Suffrage, Anti-war, Gay Rights, The Labor Movement...as long as their are injustices in this country, people will come together and find a way to abolish those injustices. It's what people do. So, you can call these people every name in the book, refer to them as losers and miscreants, tell your children that they're evil, but just remember, it if wasn't for people like the OWSers throughout history, we wouldn't even have an ATS forum to complain about them.

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 05:27 PM by dolphinfan

reply to post by upstairsjim

What problem are they dealing with directly? In order to resolve a problem, you need to define it specifically. What is the problem these folks are looking to solve, in specifics? What would a solution look like - simply the attributes of a solution?

"Greed" is not a problem. "Corporatism" is not a problem any more than laziness, dysfunctional families and welfare dependancy are problems.

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 05:33 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by upstairsjim

If OWS didn't act and look like a circus the media wouldn't portrait it as a circus. The local media here goes out of their way to praise everything OWS does and still it comes off sounding like the World's biggest joke.

OWS is literally the embodiment of why many detest "socialism" .. because of the type of people used as it's poster child. Seriously.. how do you take it seriously? Even if the message IS serious...

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 06:48 PM by upstairsjim

reply to post by Rockpuck

OWS is literally the embodiment of why many detest "socialism" .. because of the type of people used as it's poster child. Seriously.. how do you take it seriously? Even if the message IS serious...

Think about what you just said. "How do you take it seriously ? Even if the message IS serious..."

It seems a lot of people are more concerned with the messenger than with the message. If the messenger doesn't appeal to them then let the message be damned ! What do you want, men dressed in suits and ties, women dressed in night gowns ? Pleeeeeaaaaase ! Pay attention to the message.

Would you prefer your favorite actor or sports hero delivering the message ? Is that what you want ?

It's not about the messenger ! ! ! It's about the message. Corporate greed and corruption has got to stop.

And how are these protesters supposed to look anyway ? Have you ever camped out for a weekend ? What did you look like. Some of these people have been there from the start. My god ! next you'll be complaining because they've got B.O.

It's the MESSAGE, not the messenger. Got it ? The message...not the messenger.

And what, in heavens name does socialism have to do with this ? This isn't a protest about capitalism, it's a protest about greed and corruption in corporate America, particularly on Wall Street.

Talk about an attention span deficiency...what does it take to keep you focused on what's going on ?

It's the MESSAGE, not the messenger.

reply posted on 31-10-2011 @ 08:11 PM by Rockpuck

reply to post by upstairsjim

Yeah. Welcome to the concept of Human Nature. We like to be led, we don't like to formulate our own conclusions and lead ourselves..

A charismatic person can convince an entire population to walk off a cliff for their glorious ideas..
A fool might convince a few, but will never inspire.

Leadership matters. Charisma matters. Presenting your beliefs and ideas without looking like an asshat ... matters.

Pages: ^^TOP^^