Occupy Wall Street: A Tale Of Two Coverages

[WillyT]

Liberal NPR Won’t Cover Wall Street Protests, So Read This Instead
By KEN LAYNE
2:31 PM SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

<snip>

If, by now, you haven’t read the incredible public response from NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2011/09/26/140815394/newsworthy-determining-the-importance-of-protests-on-wall-street regarding the intentional decision to ignore the Occupy Wall Street protests now in their second week, prepare to be repulsed even if you automatically deride liberal protests as dumb hippies who need a bath or less piercings:

We asked the newsroom to explain their editorial decision. Executive editor for news Dick Meyer came back: “The recent protests on Wall Street did not involve large numbers of people, prominent people, a great disruption or an especially clear objective.”

Haha, right. Because the fucking Tea Party protests with their “more media than protesters” and the great disruption of several Hoverounds crowding the snack cart and the “especially clear objective” of birthers and Paultards and racists and gun nuts and apocalyptic Jesus freaks and Glenn Beck fanatics was really compelling and newsworthy, right?

Never never never listen to NPR. If you want honest news, go to Bloomberg or Pacifica or something. And if you want an interesting take on the Occupy Wall Street action, read this smart Field Report by Jonathan Baldwin: http://thesis.jrbaldwin.com/occupywallstreet

<snip>

Link: http://wonkette.com/453806/liberal-npr-wont-cover-wall-street-protests-so-read-this-instead

:mad:

:kick:

[WillyT]

1. Kick !!!

:kick:

:hi:

[Dan]

2. as someone said...

the revolution will not be publicized

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. If he knows about it, it's news.

:shrug:

[Quantess]

4. What a doucheberry.