#Occupythisthread

[VictoryMC98]

Not covering it? You guys can't be serious. It was all over the news, and it is still there but to a lesser extent, because it is no longer "new". But it is still being covered by the major outlets.

 

And as for getting their word out, they are actually better at this than the Tea Party was, because Occupy is much more social media-savvy.

 

They come off as unclear because they ARE. Its pretty simple. They have a general gripe about bank bailouts and income inequality, and everyone knows that. Beyond that it gets fuzzy, because they are by nature sort of a leaderless movement.

 

Their overall message is get the money out of DC. ie legalize bribing. When Jack Abramen(sp) goes to jail for it, comes out and says it worse then when he went in.. that's a problem.

 

The only time I see it on the news, is when the Cops are using force and the news anchors trying to pin it as if the OWS crowd was the ones who riot.

[EvilMonkey]

Their overall message is get the money out of DC. ie legalize bribing. When Jack Abramen(sp) goes to jail for it, comes out and says it worse then when he went in.. that's a problem.

 

The only time I see it on the news, is when the Cops are using force and the news anchors trying to pin it as if the OWS crowd was the ones who riot.

Just reading the various signs at the events I see them wanting student loan debt forgiveness, big businesses to fail, Jews to die, GWB is to blame for everything, anarchists and union members working together and several rich actors trying to say they are also part of the 99%.

 

 

[VictoryMC98]

Just reading the various signs at the events I see them wanting student loan debt forgiveness, big businesses to fail, Jews to die, GWB is to blame for everything, anarchists and union members working together and several rich actors trying to say they are also part of the 99%.

 

I have yet to see a big business fail, but I have seen they should pay their taxes, and not get Corp handouts.

 

Jews to Die, that's pretty funny.. Not see that one yet.

 

GWB blame everything, kids.. Lets not forget Ole Ronnie!

 

Overall IMO the message I stated is what I stated from the ones I have talked with. I work 2-3 blocks away.. I agree with what I stated, all the other nonsense.. not so much.

 

Where have you seen the signs at?

Edited November 28, 2011 by VictoryMC98

[Reddy]

Not covering it? You guys can't be serious. It was all over the news, and it is still there but to a lesser extent, because it is no longer "new". But it is still being covered by the major outlets.

 

And as for getting their word out, they are actually better at this than the Tea Party was, because Occupy is much more social media-savvy.

 

They come off as unclear because they ARE. Its pretty simple. They have a general gripe about bank bailouts and income inequality, and everyone knows that. Beyond that it gets fuzzy, because they are by nature sort of a leaderless movement.

they "cover" it. But can you tell me you saw even ONE interview with a protester on Fox or CNN that didn't come off as 'liberal hippy anarchist who doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about VS intelligent, concise 1%er"? I'm not saying they're not covering it, they just skew what they put out there so it makes OWS look bad.

[NorthSideSox72]

they "cover" it. But can you tell me you saw even ONE interview with a protester on Fox or CNN that didn't come off as 'liberal hippy anarchist who doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about VS intelligent, concise 1%er"? I'm not saying they're not covering it, they just skew what they put out there so it makes OWS look bad.

They are the media, they look for the howlers, not substance. They did the exact same thing to the Tea Partiers.

 

[Reddy]

They are the media, they look for the howlers, not substance. They did the exact same thing to the Tea Partiers.

i get it - but then again, mainstream republicans aren't too thrilled with the tea partiers either.

 

and yes, this is how the MSM operates, but remind me why it's a good thing?

[NorthSideSox72]

i get it - but then again, mainstream republicans aren't too thrilled with the tea partiers either.

 

and yes, this is how the MSM operates, but remind me why it's a good thing?

It isn't a good thing, but it is not some grand conspiracy against Occupy either. In fact they love Occupy, because it is a major news event.

 

[Reddy]

It isn't a good thing, but it is not some grand conspiracy against Occupy either. In fact they love Occupy, because it is a major news event.

yes, they love that they can show it and spin it in the way they want.

[NorthSideSox72]

yes, they love that they can show it and spin it in the way they want.

They love anything where they can show craziness, violence, politics, sex, drugs, anything and everything that sells. Occupy has it all. They won't spend much time analyzing the root of the issues, because their readers are mostly not interested in that level of depth. Its sad, but its true.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

They love anything where they can show craziness, violence, politics, sex, drugs, anything and everything that sells. Occupy has it all. They won't spend much time analyzing the root of the issues, because their readers are mostly not interested in that level of depth. Its sad, but its true.

 

The same reason "OMG tea party members are racists!" crap starts. That s*** sells to a populace eager to feed their own belief.

[Y2HH]

In what regard?

 

the real problem the movement is facing is the very thing they're protesting against.

 

people b**** that there's no clear "message" and that it's unorganized, but that's precisely because the only way for the masses to hear anything about the movement is via the main stream media. Now... who runs the MSM? The big corporations that OWS is against! So obviously they're not going to present information that displays OWS in anything close to a positive light.

 

There's close to zero coverage of it anymore, but not because it's stopped. Did you all know that the protesters from NYC walked to DC to occupy congress? I feel like that's an interesting news story... oh wait - it didn't get covered.

 

There's plenty going on, but the GOP runs the news networks, (and in the rare case it's not the GOP it IS a rich corporation) so we're not going to hear about it. That's the real problem they're facing. If they can circumvent that - the majority of Americans would rally behind them. After all, that said majority already favors the things OWS is championing.

 

Just about getting the message out.

 

WTF with this post?

 

The GOP runs the news networks? You mean Fox, MAYBE. But seriously, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN? No. Just stop.

 

I've heard more about OWS on practically EVERY network than any other story the past 2 months, including anything regarding Cain and/or Gingrich. For a while there, a day didn't go by without 50 stories about OWS in some form or fashion. The message was and is out there...the problem is the message is convoluted, at best. So let's stop pretending otherwise.

 

Have the number of stories died down in the recent few weeks? Sure, because they had plenty of time to say what they needed to say, only none of them said it...because they didn't know what they wanted...the people watching grew bored, and everyone stopped caring about this trash. Including me.

 

OWS became about nothing more than OWS versus Police force. After a while, it seemed as if they were goading various police into doing something stupid so it could be reported on the news how unfair the police are.

 

Problem is, the majority of people don't believe the police are unfair...and shortly after the majority stopped caring.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

The GOP runs the news networks? You mean Fox, MAYBE.

 

 

[Y2HH]

 

It's debatable.

 

To be clear. Does Fox lean republican? Absolutely. But does that mean the republican party "controls them"? No. Someone favoring one party over another actively being controlled by them are two VERY different things. At best, I can only say "maybe" when it comes to this because I don't know if they control them or not...but I'd probably side with not. That has nothing to do with the fact that most Fox tv personalities lean right.

[StrangeSox]

It's debatable.

 

To be clear. Does Fox lean republican? Absolutely. But does that mean the republican party "controls them"? No. Someone favoring one party over another actively being controlled by them are two VERY different things. At best, I can only say "maybe" when it comes to this because I don't know if they control them or not...but I'd probably side with not. That has nothing to do with the fact that most Fox tv personalities lean right.

 

Well this is a fair point--does the GOP control FNC, or does FNC hold considerable sway over the GOP? Either way, though, 'lean' right is a bit soft of a description of their bias.

[Y2HH]

Well this is a fair point--does the GOP control FNC, or does FNC hold considerable sway over the GOP? Either way, though, 'lean' right is a bit soft of a description of their bias.

 

It's the only way to term it, since not all Fox news contributors lean right. A majority of them do, but not all. I try to be fair when it comes to this. I'd venture to guess NBC has it's token few republicans on staff, too, but they'd never get on the air from what I know. Since I don't watch NBC -- ever -- I wouldn't actually know for sure. I do watch Fox from time to time and I do know they let non republicans on the air.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Generally as a weak centrist punching bag.

 

But Fox is brazenly biased. It's readily apparent in their programming, editorial stances, leaked memos and the stated goals of Roger Ailes. They're the talk-radio version of cable news. No other TV news source comes close to their deliberate, intentional bias. I mean it's a refreshing change of course when Shep Smith strays to a center-right position. Other networks have partisan editorial shows, but the entire network doesn't have a systemic bias in the same way that FNC does. Compounded that issue is how conservative news outlets pound listeners/viewers over and over on how they can't trust other sources, that they're just lying to you.

 

The bias isn't entirely focused on anti-Democrat, either. Look at their routine dismissals of Paul as a serious candidate with serious ideas for consideration since he breaks strongly from their orthodoxy on foreign policy issues.

[southsideirish71]

Well this is a fair point--does the GOP control FNC, or does FNC hold considerable sway over the GOP? Either way, though, 'lean' right is a bit soft of a description of their bias.

 

And leaning left is a bit soft on the description of the bias of MSNBC. The only news network that thinks that MSNBC has any right wing tendencies is RT.

[StrangeSox]

And leaning left is a bit soft on the description of the bias of MSNBC. The only news network that thinks that MSNBC has any right wing tendencies is RT.

 

Well if you get far enough to the left politically, every Democrat, except maybe Kucinich, is really a center-right asshole at best. So from that viewpoint, MSNBC is a corporatist MSM news outlet looking to back the corrupt, corporatist Democrats over the more-corrupt, more-corporatist Republicans.

 

I'd still contend strongly that network-wide biases at MSNBC approach anything close to what Fox does. Yes, their editorial shows are mostly liberal, sometimes strongly (Maddow), sometimes stupidly (Schultz). But it's not quite the same as, say, Fox having multiple commentators and guests talk about how "Obama left GOD out of his youtube address!" over the course of a day's worth of shows, or how their coverage of #OWS focused almost entirely on how they're a bunch of dirty, smelly hippies while rarely, if ever, actually discussing some of the stronger messages coming out of the movement.

[Y2HH]

Well if you get far enough to the left politically, every Democrat, except maybe Kucinich, is really a center-right asshole at best. So from that viewpoint, MSNBC is a corporatist MSM news outlet looking to back the corrupt, corporatist Democrats over the more-corrupt, more-corporatist Republicans.

 

I'd still contend strongly that network-wide biases at MSNBC approach anything close to what Fox does. Yes, their editorial shows are mostly liberal, sometimes strongly (Maddow), sometimes stupidly (Schultz). But it's not quite the same as, say, Fox having multiple commentators and guests talk about how "Obama left GOD out of his youtube address!" over the course of a day's worth of shows, or how their coverage of #OWS focused almost entirely on how they're a bunch of dirty, smelly hippies while rarely, if ever, actually discussing some of the stronger messages coming out of the movement.

 

You show you bias so openly all the while denying it exists is what makes this entire line of reasoning you're trying to justify so funny.

 

MSNBC is AS biased as Fox in the opposite direction. This is my opinion, which has equal weight to you opposite opinion on the matter. There is no way to prove this in either case.

 

Dismissing MSNBC as non biased by making up some insane s*** like "if you get far enough to the left politically, you're really center-right" is just...well...insanity.

 

WTF kind of thinking is this? Stop repeating stupid s*** like that...because it makes you sound stupid. No, you aren't center-right when you move too far left...stop repeating it. That's just f***ing dumb.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

MSNBC is AS biased as Fox in the opposite direction. This is my opinion, which has equal weight to you opposite opinion on the matter. There is no way to prove this in either case.

 

One could craft a careful study of the two organizations. Alternatively, one could simply view their respective coverages and maybe take a look at some of the internal documents leaked out of Fox. Claiming that MSNBC is as biased as Fox is just laughable false-equivalency nonsense. They are both s*** media outlets, but one is deliberately so.

 

Dismissing MSNBC as non biased by making up some insane s*** like "if you get far enough to the left politically, you're really center-right" is just...well...insanity.

 

What? No, that wasn't the intention of that. MSNBC is biased left, at least in their editorial shows, as I said. They do not, however, engage in the deliberate propagandizing of the news that Fox routinely does.

 

WTF kind of thinking is this? Stop repeating stupid s*** like that...because it makes you sound stupid. No, you aren't center-right when you move too far left...stop repeating it. That's just f***ing dumb.

 

That's sort of basic Overton Window stuff and demonstrably true in the real world. If I'm a Third World Maoist advocate, Democrats are going to look like a center-right corporatist regime. If I'm a raging conservative, McCain (at least a few years ago) is going to be a center-left RINO traitor, no better than the Democrats.

[StrangeSox]

Oh and I don't think I claimed that I wasn't biased in there. I'm openly a left-liberal.

[Y2HH]

Oh and I don't think I claimed that I wasn't biased in there. I'm openly a left-liberal.

 

 

I thought you were a neocon all this time!

 

Oh, and sorry for blow up about the "when you get so far left you become center-right" thing, but I've heard that before...and it annoys me to no end when people redefine what left/right means to suit the situation, when and how they want to do so.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Oh, and sorry for blow up about the "when you get so far left you become center-right" thing, but I've heard that before...and it annoys me to no end when people redefine what left/right means to suit the situation, when and how they want to do so.

 

But it is a subjective, fluid scale. In America, the Democrats are considered a generally liberal party. Compared to most European states, though, they're center-right to right. That's the whole concept of the Overton Window and a real-world example of the fallacy of the appeal to moderation. The extremes define the middle, so if you keep getting more and more extreme, you keep pulling the middle ground towards your positions.

[Y2HH]

But it is a subjective, fluid scale. In America, the Democrats are considered a generally liberal party. Compared to most European states, though, they're center-right to right. That's the whole concept of the Overton Window and a real-world example of the fallacy of the appeal to moderation. The extremes define the middle, so if you keep getting more and more extreme, you keep pulling the middle ground towards your positions.

 

I consider being a left leaning or right leaning person to be normal. I consider a centrist normal.

 

When you go too far right or too far left, unlike how many attempt to redefine it, it does NOT mean you move to the opposite side...it means you're a moron.

 

Too far left and you don't become center-right, what you become is Nancy Pelosi.

[DukeNukeEm]

But it is a subjective, fluid scale. In America, the Democrats are considered a generally liberal party. Compared to most European states, though, they're center-right to right.

Its actually really difficult to think of many parties in the world, aside from the anti-immigrant nationalist parties in Europe, that are further right than the Democrats here.