Why does the Corporate Media resent the Occupy Wall Street Movement?

The majority of members in the corporate media disparage the Occupy Wall Street protesters as lacking focus and a definite aim. In the article Gunning for Wall Street, with Faulty Aim, the NY Times stated "group's lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably is unsettling." Leuven from Belgium says the article attempted to portray protesters as naive, misguided youth haven taken to the streets to "assuage their adolescent boredom by pretending it is 1968."


In Wall Street Demonstrations Test Police Trained for Bigger Threats, Joseph Goldstein of the NY Times argues "to the NYPD, the protesters represented ... a visible example of lawlessness akin to that which had resulted in destruction and violence at other anti-capitalist demonstrations." Leuven says the "piece stops just short of suggesting that, because the much more malign threat posed by terrorists is among the NYPD’s main concerns, they should be forgiven for their disproportionate response to the 'unorganized and, at times, uninformed' Wall Street protesters."
In the video provided, Fox News is seen mocking the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Their show Red Eye attempts to portray the protesters as hippies, nude people, and pot smokers. Bill Schulz acts like an ass towards the protesters. He says stupid jokes and is in general just rude. Essentially, Fox was trying to make the protests seem as not serious. The station also tries to link the movement to the hippies from the 1960's.
Leuven argues the media and 
"writers were deployed by the establishment to defend itself against the forces of change (the other main instrument being the police), and tasked with quieting the rumblings of democracy. Poking fun and diminishing the protesters efforts was intended to function as a deterrent, destroying the morale of the people in the street and discouraging others from joining them for fear of humiliation. They raised the specter of what Jean-Paul Sartre calls fraternity terror, putting those within the establishment on notice that open sympathy with the occupation movement will not be tolerated. Like the occupiers themselves, these sympathizers will be summarily judged, humiliated and driven out. And for those who are merely afraid of the implications of the movement for their positions of affluence and security, they provide assurances that the distant thunder that they’re hearing won’t be followed by a storm...
Whatever their actual motivation for acting as instruments of the establishment—whether they really identify themselves with it or whether they’ve become enamored of its comforts, or some combination of the two—it should now be clear that these writers are little more than tools of the system. If they merely identify themselves with what they argue, we can hope that witnessing these protests triggers some hidden sympathy for the effort that escapes this self-identification and begins to undo it. 
Sadly, a darker possibility remains the more probable explanation; that they are so enamored of the comforts of the establishment, so isolated from the suffering that pervades American society, that they truly wish to see the effort fail, since its success would mean precisely the loss of these extraordinary luxuries and their position of power. Girded by these luxuries against sympathy and self-doubt, their identification with the corrupt establishment is allowed to stand unencumbered by conscience or scruple. Any sympathies that they might have had have been buried alive and, because they neither act on them nor allow them to become a part of their social identity, these sympathies suffocate under the weight of their own lassitude and complacency"
Leuven says the possible reasons for the Corporate Media resenting the Occupy Wall Street Posters are:
  1. They are deployed by the Establishment to defend against change and to quiet the rumblings of democracy
  2. They actually identify with the Establishment
  3. They have become enamored with the Establishments Comforts
  4. "They are so enamored of the comforts of the establishment, so isolated from the suffering that pervades American society, that they truly wish to see the effort fail, since its success would mean precisely the loss of these extraordinary luxuries and their position of power."
What do you think?

Why does the Corporate Media resent the Occupy Wall Street Movement?

Views: 32

Comment

You need to be a member of JenSocial: Social Web Directory and Ning Tips to add comments!

Join JenSocial: Social Web Directory and Ning Tips

Comment by Writer Chick on October 28, 2011 at 8:34pm

The more applicable question is WHO is behind Occupy Wall Street?  Who is funding it?  Who is recruiting "protesters"??  Who is feeding, sheltering these "unemployed" people??

That's a more important question that needs to be answered first.  Then maybe you'll understand the derision that many people (including reporters) have for this "protest".  

Members

© 2019   Created by JenSocial.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Home
VIP Ning Tips