Olberman calls out media hipocracy on "Occupy Wallstreet" Protest

[lonestarnot]

Keith Olbermann pointed out Wednesday night on Countdown that the major newspapers had been ignoring the five-day-long “Occupy Wall Street” protests, but would have scrambled to cover a similar-sized tea party protest.

“Why isn’t any major news outlet covering this?” he asked. “If that’s a tea party protest in front of Wall Street about Ben Bernanke putting stimulus funds into it, it’s the lead story on every network news cast. How is that disconnect possible in this country today with so many different outlets and so many different ways of transmitting news?”

His guest, author Will Bunch, suggested the disconnect was caused in part by the news networks being out of touch with the pain of the 25 million Americans who are unemployed.

Watch video, courtesy of Current TV, below:


V\http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/olbermann-calls-out-media-hypocrisy-on-occupy-wall-street-protest/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...


Keith Olbermann pointed out Wednesday night on Countdown that the major newspapers had been ignoring the five-day-long “Occupy Wall Street” …
Keith Olbermann pointed out Wednesday night on Countdown that the major newspapers had been ignoring the five-day-long “Occupy Wall Street” protests, but would have scrambled to cover a similar-sized tea party protest.

“Why isn’t any major news outlet covering this?” he asked. “If that’s a tea party protest in front of Wall Street about Ben Bernanke putting stimulus funds into it, it’s the lead story on every network news cast. How is that disconnect possible in this country today with so many different outlets and so many different ways of transmitting news?”

His guest, author Will Bunch, suggested the disconnect was caused in part by the news networks being out of touch with the pain of the 25 million Americans who are unemployed

[Admiral Loinpresser]

1. Why would corporate media

want to cover the greatest threat to elites since the Viet Nam War?

[Beam Me Up]

2. Yeah. Wouldn't want to give the PROLES any ideas that they COULD unite and be powerful. n/t

[Zax2me]

3. The davis execution protest was smaller. Look at that coverage.

Over the top.
Complaints?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

4. The Davis coverage is viewed

as a human interest story by corporate editors, in my view. Not threatening like the idea of a massive occupation of Wall Street.

[chill_wind]

5. He's so right. a teabagger event a *fraction of that size*

would have had breathless attention. Pundit after pundit, interview after interview of Teabagger politicians and party members. No question about it.

[MADem]

6. The demographic on Wall Street was not sufficiently diverse.

I'm not talking race/culture, I am talking AGE.

It was mostly young people in those affected Guy Fawkes "V" masks, and some older Code Pink types for a bit of color. At least, that's what the photos and video are showing.

If there were a crowd of middle aged guys in suits, or chinos and feed caps, and women in office clothing, or mom jeans and sweaters, maybe grandma and gramps, or great granny on a walker, there would have been coverage. What it looked like, though, was a bunch of kids waiting on line to buy the latest iPhone or concert tickets.

The Wall Street thing, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as a Young Person's "Rage Against The Machine" party. That's why it got no play.

It wasn't sufficiently inclusive.

No shooting the messenger.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

7. Messenger caveat duly noted.

But this action is inherently threatening to corporate media. It could be thousands of nuns and would still be ignored as long as possible. The prologue hasn't ended yet. We will be reticently acknowledged before the end of the first act.

[MADem]

8. I don't agree--Nuns by the thousands would make the news, absolutely.

They're generally quite articulate, too--great interviews all 'round.

And that would be UNUSUAL.

Young people in hoodies, some wearing masks that the average supermarket shopper would not recognize (What is that, the Three Musketeers? And yes, I did see the film but I'm not typical of my age group), a few dolled up in mis-worn Arafat keffiyehs...it's just Same Shit, Different Protest. It may seem exciting to the youth who are there, but from a distance, it's just more of the same.

I've said this elsewhere, and I'll repeat it for fun or edification. Effective protests include the young, the old, a wide swathe of America, from rural to citified, all colors, all ethnicities, all cultures. And they've got to have a seriousness of purpose and a SINGLE issue before them....which means those United for Peace and Justice people with their smorgasbord approach to protesting need to stay the hell out of it.

The tide turned re: Vietnam when the Silent Majority -- those old farts in feed caps, their wives in flowered dresses--started speaking up. Nothing will happen until these protests become focused and inclusive.

Look at all the car ads that accompany a news broadcast or are studded throughout a 24 hour news station's daily ads. The people who buy those cars need to be at the protests, actually protesting, before the media will take notice. The MTV crowd alone cannot and will not pull that sled.

Again, no shooting the messenger.

I think the protests are well meaning, but without a more diverse crowd and a more focused intensity (and I am not talking about violence, just organization--and that includes media outreach by some of those "older" types who have experience in that area) they just cannot be effective.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Shooting the messenger caveat noted

you just described the anti war protests of 2003

This is Chicago...



And it got very little coverage to be honest.

No, the media has an interest in keeping the black out.

[MADem]

15. 1970--see the difference?

Now THAT's a protest.

College (Michigan) protest in 1969:



And even at that, the DC protests at the Pentagon made these pictures look like a garden party.


The very second you see a "Free Mumia" placard at an anti-war or Wall Street protest, you've lost the focus. It becomes an "Anyone can gripe about anything" event, and loses its punch. Sidebars are TOXIC.

One SINGLE issue, no secondary or tertiary issues, keep moving, seriousness of purpose, repetition. And repetition means every weekend, not annually.

That's how they did it for Civil Rights, that's how they did it for Vietnam. It's not easy.


To a generation that wants/is used to getting instant results, though, they'll be disappointed because they won't get them--it doesn't work that way. These things take time--Vietnam protests went on for what--eight or so years, seriously--longer if you count the smaller, earlier efforts and the ones toward the end?

It's very hard to get people out in the street nowadays--no one walks, everyone is glued to their TVs/computers (there were fewer distractions forty some odd years ago), and there's less time in busy days, and less motivation.

It's just too easy to ignore one protest by a group of kids who all look the same--but it certainly is much harder to ignore hoardes of people of all ages, from all walks of life with a single-minded purpose.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

11. I think the nun thing was covered by Nadin's post.

As to the diversity of the crowd, there are lots of non-hoodies there. This is the beginning of the beginning. We are weeks away from quantum impact.

Also, a conceptual point. This is not a protest. This is part of a global movement for peace and justice. #occupywallstreet is what we used to call Direct Action (that probably dates me, although perhaps the term is still used). We are occupying Wall Street because of intolerable injustice perpetrated by ruling elites and the most massive transfer of wealth in human history. The answer is for the people to stop the madness of war and greed by occupying the centers of power and demanding negotiations.

I have the greatest respect for those in Liberty Park. They are doing it nonviolently, in a spirit of love and putting their bodies on the line, police brutality notwithstanding. For that I believe they deserve the utmost respect.

[tblue37]

12. And why were the humongous worldwide protests against the Iraq War ignored?

I saw nary a Guy Fawkes mask in those crowds.

[Selatius]

13. Maybe because the shareholders who own the networks also owned defense stocks, too?

How many of the big wigs who sit on the board of directors of many of these news outlets own stock in companies like Halliburton or General Electric? For that matter, how many knew that General Electric also owns NBC?

[MADem]

17. I watched those on TV...until they became completely unbearable.

Between the FREE MUMIA crowd and the boutique approach to protest, with speakers from every halfassed outfit in town touting their own, completely-unrelated-to-the-war agenda, the poor antiwar protesters, who made up the bulk of the crowd in the DC efforts, barely got a word in edgewise. They were used.

Those United For Peace and Justice people had their own agenda, and they used the sentiment against the war to push it.

Smorgasbord protests don't work. They're ignored by the media because they have no real focus. What they do accomplish, though, is to permit a lot of fringe organizations to cadge onto the energy of the main (antiwar, in the DC protest's case) group, and pretend they have a larger following than they actually do.

[FarLeftFist]

9. Tea Parties last 3 HOURS. This is on DAY 5! F**K the MSM!

[Rex]

14. M$M = Wall Street.

[Major Hogwash]

16. A group of 30 nuts with misspelled signs wearing 3 cornered hats gets more attention from the MSM

Than a raging inferno, if that inferno can't be blamed on President Obama, somehow.

Have you noticed the headlines they use these days, like Faux Snooze, asking questions just to insert jabs at Obama.
Like --
"Unemployment rises .001% as many wonder, is President Obama to blame?"
"As Hurricane Irene approaches will President Obama be able to deal with it?"
"Is the uncertainity surrounding Wall Street due to President Obama's policies?"
"Jobless numbers increase may be due to President Obama's speech to Congress."
"Are Republicans going to be able to convince President Obama to create jobs?"
"As Republicans reject partianship many Americans wonder if President Obama will too."
"Will Congress ever break through the partianship while President Obama is in office?"
"In 2012 many say that they are disgusted with the policies of President Obama and may not support him."

Sometimes they don't even refer to him as President Obama.
The other day one of the political pundits on CNN referred to him as Mr. Obama.
The flake that replaced Larry King on CNN does it all the time.
So does Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC.

[Major Hogwash]

18. Does anyone here think that the teabaggers knew a lot about nuts when they chose that name?

I'm still wondering if they haven't found out how stupid that term sounded.