Friday Talking Points (188) -- Why Not Occupy The Media?

[ChrisWeigant]

Like many Americans, I watched the events unfold in Oakland this week with some trepidation. Occupy Oakland tried two new tactics in protesting, and both were very successful at achieving a key goal -- that of getting your message across. Both the general strike and the temporary port shutdown were successful, in this regard. Later in the night, however, a group of jerks came close to ruining all this, by their criminal behavior.

I was not present -- I live too far away from Oakland to have taken part. In fact, like most Americans, I watched the news coverage on television. And, finally, the video images which the news media has been waiting for occurred -- video of idiots vandalizing anything they felt like, setting bonfires in the streets, and battling with cops.

What was missing from the media coverage (at least the coverage I witnessed) was a spokesman for the Occupy movement denouncing the violence and calling on all their supporters and fellow protesters to do the same.

This is a weakness in the movement. In fact, it is a critical weak point. Not the lack of denunciation per se (I did actually see people interviewed at the Occupy sites who strongly disavowed the violent jerks), but the fact that there is no media contact for the movement.

This needs to change, or the Occupy movement leaves itself open to being defined by anyone who shows up -- and gets their image on television by being a jerk. This would be a shame, but it seems to be inherent in the structure of the protests.

To be part of the "99 Percent" all you have to do is show up. The problem with this is, some people are going to show up who do not hew to the utopian rules of behavior. Even if the ratio of jerks to protesters-with-hearts-of-gold is extremely low -- let's just say for the sake of argument one percent versus 99 percent -- they can spoil the whole show for everyone. What the protesters need to consider is: why let the one percent of the jerks define your movement in the media, while the wishes of the 99 percent are not heard? Isn't this kind of the point of the movement in the first place?

Occupy Wall Street (and all its sister Occupy sites) is famously against "leaders." It's communitarian. Well, that's all fine and good, but what this means in a practical sense is that the media -- looking for a soundbite -- will just show up and randomly interview people. Since conflict makes good television, they will run the clip of the one jerk who says (or does) something monumentally stupid, and the other 99 interviews will wind up on the cutting room floor.

A media spokesperson is not a "leader" -- he or she is merely a conduit of information. If the Occupy sites (starting with the Occupy Wall Street site) would only realize this, they would do their cause a lot of good. Do it by consensus. In any group of people, there are some who are much better at articulating things than others. Hours are spent in General Meetings talking, so it shouldn't be that hard to identify a few who choose their words better than others. Select one of these per week, say, and rotate people through the position of Media Contact Person, to give more than one person a chance at it.

Then issue a press release, or call up all the major networks, and introduce the Media Contact Person concept to them. They will doubtlessly be pleased by this development, because it will mean when they need someone to define (or defend) the movement to the media, they will have one person they can contact, one person who can speak for the movement, and one person they can invite into their studios for a sit-down interview.

This is crucial, and this week proved why. The Oakland violence happened very late at night. Imagine how it could have been handled if there had been a Media Contact Person available to appear on all the morning television news shows -- in the same news cycle as the violence. One person strongly stating: "We disavow violent tactics, that is not what we stand for, and we call on Occupy Oakland to stand with us and strongly denounce the hooligans who hijacked their peaceful general strike, their peaceful daylong march, and their peaceful shutdown of the port of Oakland. Thousands of people from all walks of life participated peacefully, and then late at night a few dozen idiots tried to make the Occupy movement something it is not. We strongly denounce these violent tactics, and any who practice them."

Now, ask yourself: would that have been better for the movement's goals as a whole, or not? Would it have been better to have one go-to person available to speak for the movement, or is it better to spend a few days discussing it and watching random television interviews with protesters who cannot say they speak "for the movement"?

Or you can put it another way: why not "occupy" the media itself? Why not give one person (rotated weekly, perhaps) the power to speak for the 99 percent of the people on the streets who were disgusted with the violence? How can your movement not be strengthened and more successful by having a sole contact for the media? This shouldn't be some philosophical issue, it should be seen as a practical and sorely-needed solution to a very real communications problem.

 



We're going to hand out a group award this week in the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week category. Because, somehow, sixty Democrats in the House convinced forty Republicans to co-sign a letter which seemed to indicate in a vague sort of way that the supercommittee should be open to raising taxes.

That doesn't sound all that monumental, and it really isn't in the grand scheme of things in Washington, but at the same time it is the first time Republicans have even flirted with raising revenues for the federal government in years. Which, in its own way is a pretty big deal. Even John Boehner is now showing cracks in the "no taxes, ever" Republican orthodoxy as well. It's doubtful Boehner would have done so without this letter, though.

For this achievement, modest though it may be, the sixty House Democrats who stuck a wedge in the Tea Party Republican position on taxes this week deserve the MIDOTW award, which we're going to send to Heath Shuler, who was the point man on the Democratic side behind this effort.

{Congratulate Representative Heath Shuler on his House contact page, to let him know you appreciate this effort.}

 



For three weeks running, we have essentially handed out the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to the same small group of senators, for the same reason -- voting against a Democratic bill on a vote where it wouldn't have mattered which way they voted (the outcome was going to be the same either way, in other words).

Two weeks ago, we awarded the MDDOTW to Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor. Last week, we awarded it to Joe Lieberman. This week, we are awarding a MDDOTW to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, for voting against one of the breakout parts of the American Jobs Act once again.

Joe Lieberman, it should be noted, will retire after next year's election. Ben Nelson is said to be pondering stepping down as well. We'd like to add our voices to the clamor urging Nelson to hang up his hat and let a real Democrat run for his seat -- someone for whom the "D" after their name means something.

For those keeping score at home, this is Nelson's thirteenth MDDOTW (how appropriate, for Hallowe'en week!), and Lieberman's tenth. For shame, guys, for shame.

{Contact Senator Joe Lieberman on his Senate contact page, and Senator Ben Nelson on his Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.}

 


Volume 188 (11/4/11)

I actually wrote a column this Wednesday on the "talking points" subject, which was brutal (as it was meant to be -- the title was "Championing Rapists' Fatherhood Rights"). Since I've already been to this well once this week, instead of our normal fodder of suggesting ways for Democrats to frame things, today I'd instead like to take a crack at suggesting ways a Media Contact Person could have responded this week to the bad press the jerks caused for the movement in Oakland.

The movement already has been successful at changing the media conversation, and changing the way Democrats are framing important issues in Washington (using the "99 percent" refrain). But if the image of "Occupy = violence" becomes fixed in the way America views the movement, it will doom itself to eventual irrelevancy. The pictures from Oakland were bad, but my guess is that they won't be the last time the movement has to confront violence in its midst. Next time, in other words, the Occupy movement needs to be better prepared for it. And part of that preparation is opening a communications channel with the mainstream media, because the alternative would be completely destructive to the movement's true goal.

 

   99 Percenters

I've said this before, although it obviously didn't have a whole lot of effect. When you identify your movement (not just each individual protest) as "Occupy" or "Occupiers," it is an exclusive term rather than an inclusive one. Occupiers, by definition it seems, are occupying something or somewhere. In other words, people at home can't identify easily with the movement as a whole because they're not part of any individual Occupy protest. Call the movement something expansive and inclusive. Fortunately, you already have a brilliant slogan to springboard off of.

"While the Occupiers who are protesting at Wall Street or in Oakland, or in any of the hundreds of other towns and cities are the heart and soul of our larger movement, we prefer to be known as the 99 Percenters, because that better defines who and what we are fighting for. What I'm saying to Americans watching at home is you may not be part of an Occupy protest, but you are more than welcome to be part of the 99 Percenters."

 

   Condemn the violence in your own terms

The movement faces a clear choice: condemn all violence and vandalism with one loud voice, or lose a lot of public support by not doing so. Having a Media Contact Person available to be interviewed at any time means you get this message out there immediately whenever anything like what happened in Oakland goes down. Use your own terminology to define who the jerks are.

"We, as a movement, utterly condemn all violence and lawbreaking. That is not who we are, and that is not what we are about. When 99 people march peacefully and one idiot smashes a window, which video runs on the nightly news? I am here talking with you today to get the message out that the 99 people not shown in the video clips strongly condemn the tiny fraction of people who use violence under the cover of our peaceful protest. Anyone in our ranks caught committing violence or vandalism will be turned over to the police immediately, and expelled from any association with our group. I urge the media, and all Americans, to listen to the 99 who are condemning the one."

 

   Move Your Money

There once was a movement called "Move Your Money," a while back. It even had a celebrity spokeswoman. It seems to be asleep, now that a larger movement has picked up on the tactic, which is a shame. But, regrets aside, this is a powerful message which the 99 Percenters are putting forth for tomorrow.

"We are calling on all Americans who are fed up with the big banks to transfer your money to a local bank, a credit union, or any other institution which puts customers ahead of greed. The big banks get away with treating their customers like dirt because one customer closing their account in frustration doesn't mean a thing to a bank that big. However, when hundreds of thousands of people do the same thing on the same day, even the big banks wake up and realize the power of the 99 percent. We call on any American with money in a banking behemoth to march down to your local branch Saturday and inform them that you're sick of being treated like you don't exist. Demand to close out your account, and then walk across the street and open up a new credit union account. You'll be glad you did. It's the only way the big banks are ever going to change their ways, and you can help make it happen."

 

   Tout your early victories

When you win a tactical battle, brag about it for Pete's sake. Get the message out! Hammer it home as a warning to others, as many times as you possibly can.

"I see that Bank of America is already changing its ways. This giant corporation realized how mad Americans are getting at banks which throw their customers under a bus to score a cheap political point. Bank of America realized it had become the poster child for bad corporate behavior, and in the face of rising customer anger it backed down. That is a victory for the 99 percent, and it is a clear victory for the 99 Percenter movement. True, it is a small victory in the grand scheme of things, but we still claim it as a victory nonetheless. If Occupy Wall Street didn't exist, do you really think Bank of America would have backed down?"

 

   Financial transactions tax

This story got buried in the bad news from Oakland, and it is a shame, because it is a good idea which deserves a lot more attention than it is getting.

"This week was an eventful one beyond Oakland, even though it didn't get nearly as much coverage as the idiots lighting fires and breaking windows did. There was a march in Washington, D.C. which called for a financial transactions tax to be levied on Wall Street. The tax would be miniscule -- perhaps twenty-five cents on a hundred dollars -- but it could raise enough money to solve the deficit problem. The Dow Jones has recovered from the recession already. The other 99 percent has not. The solution is simplicity itself -- tax the trillions of dollars sloshing around on Wall Street to raise the funds so the other 99 percent can progress."

 

   End corporate personhood

This one is a long and tough road to travel, but that doesn't mean the first steps shouldn't be taken.

"One of the problems America faces is our own Supreme Court has equated corporations with actual persons. This is wrong, and it will likely take a constitutional amendment to fix. We are calling for politicians to support amending the Constitution with one simple sentence: 'Corporations are not considered persons under the law.' That is a simple idea which most Americans support, and would fix the horrible precedent set in the Citizens United case."

 

   Introduce yourself

This one really probably should have been first, but it's a good place to end, as well. Once a Media Contact Person is established, you'll need to explain the concept to the media.

"I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce myself, and to introduce my position as spokesperson. Occupy Wall Street has decided to name one person per week as the go-to contact person for the mainstream media. While I cannot speak on issues which Occupy Wall Street has not achieved consensus on, I can and will explain things we have already decided. If you have questions I cannot answer on the spot, I promise to bring the issue up to our group and get back to you with their response. I am not a 'leader' of the movement, so please don't identify me as such -- I am merely a temporary mouthpiece for the movement. I am here today, first and foremost, to issue a strong condemnation of the recent violence at an Occupy protest -- that is one subject we all agree upon unanimously. But I also wanted to introduce you to the concept of the position I represent for the movement -- a position whose definition will not change, even while the person holding that position will rotate among others."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

[zentrum]

1. Agreed. It is really important...

..to occupy the media, and in addition to having a media liaison, we need huge numbers right in front of the NYT's and Fox and all the rest, demanding that they do their job as the fourth estate and start reporting the truth and stop only representing the 1% in their narratives.

We need to demand that they give free air time over the people's air waves to spokespeople from OWS, and from labor etc. We don't need leaders, as you say, in order to have teach-ins in all the venues we occupy.

We need 5000 right on the steps of all media.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Well said!

And need I even add...as usual?

Recommended.

[saras]

3. Another thing OWS can do for the country is to provide a better model of media

Excellent plan.