A Tale of Media Coverage American Style

[Foxfyre]

The difference between mainstream media coverage of "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea Party movement has been most interesting and instructive. Ditto the rhetoric coming out of the White House and Congress.

Has anybody else noticed this?

Typical MSM coverage of OWS:

Warren compares Occupy Wall St., at this stage of its life, to the nascent Tea Party, when protesters were seeking a vehicle through which to express frustration with the Obama administration.

What's different here? "The Tea Party seemed to be a movement of older Americans, more conservative, whiter," he says. OWS protesters "are younger, more diverse." They've got a sense of humor and they play better music. Some protesters Monday dressed as zombies so that financial workers could "see us reflecting the metaphor of their actions," according to OWS spokesman Patrick Bruner.

"I was down there yesterday," says Warren, en route to making his second visit to lower Manhattan to observe the goings-on today, "and what surprised me was how festive the atmosphere was. Nobody would describe a Tea Party meeting as festive."

Occupy Wall Street Declaration Says What New York Protesters Want - ABC News

Compared to how the media covered the Tea Party events:

Despite their efforts to drive a critical narrative of the occupy protests, though, tea partiers mostly have been disappointed by the mainstream media coverage, particularly when compared with what they contend was highly negative early coverage of the tea parties.

Few of the photos, videos and intelligence gathered by conservatives have gotten wide play.

Steinhauser of FreedomWorks, a top tea party group, has been among the organizers encouraging activists to record and disseminate untoward behavior by liberals, but he says he’s been frustrated by the lack of pickup outside the conservative echo chamber.

“I’m not getting any media calls except from folks asking how we compare to the Wall Street protest,” he said, conceding that the approach he’s preaching to discredit the Occupy protests echoes that which the left used against the tea party.

“The means that we’re using are the same. The difference is that we don’t have ABC, CBS and NBC reporting all this stuff,” he said. “Part of it is that the left is more effective at it, but part of it is that the journalists appear to be in the tank. If this stuff was happening at tea parties, it would be the leading story on all the networks.”

Tea party disappointed by OWS coverage - On Media - POLITICO.com

What do you think? The groups are similar? Dissimilar? Are the Tea Partiers the hateful, unsmiling, unhumorous ones as the Left wants to depict them? Or are the OWS groups similar to the Marxist uprising of the new Bosheviks that some are seeing?

 

[Rozman]

Main stream media LOVES this bunch.....
Chris Mathews was spitting up blood as he was critical of the tea party being all white...
All I see in this bunch are for the most part,let's say 98% white....all college kids there more for the social
event then the cause as far as I can tell.

 

[Foxfyre]

Main stream media LOVES this bunch.....
Chris Mathews was spitting up blood as he was critical of the tea party being all white...
All I see in this bunch are for the most part,let's say 98% white....all college kids there more for the social
event then the cause as far as I can tell.

That struck me too in watching video footage on the nightly news. How almost all 'white' the OWS groups were. But is that getting the same coverage from the MSM as the demographics they reported for the Tea Party events they did cover? Nope.

 

[Kuros]

The difference between mainstream media coverage of "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea Party movement has been most interesting and instructive. Ditto the rhetoric coming out of the White House and Congress.


What do you think? The groups are similar? Dissimilar? Are the Tea Partiers the hateful, unsmiling, unhumorous ones as the Left wants to depict them? Or are the OWS groups similar to the Marxist uprising of the new Bosheviks that some are seeing?

I think you're a baby boomer. Only your protest is legitimate to you.

A clash of generational protests

Why Baby Boomers don't understand the OWS protests

 

[Foxfyre]

The difference between mainstream media coverage of "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea Party movement has been most interesting and instructive. Ditto the rhetoric coming out of the White House and Congress.


What do you think? The groups are similar? Dissimilar? Are the Tea Partiers the hateful, unsmiling, unhumorous ones as the Left wants to depict them? Or are the OWS groups similar to the Marxist uprising of the new Bosheviks that some are seeing?

I think you're a baby boomer. Only your protest is legitimate to you.

A clash of generational protests

Why Baby Boomers don't understand the OWS protests

When the OWS doesn't understand the OWS protest, I don't think whether I am or am not a baby boomer has anything to do with it. But in any case, I think you think wrong.

 

[California Girl]

The difference between mainstream media coverage of "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea Party movement has been most interesting and instructive. Ditto the rhetoric coming out of the White House and Congress.


What do you think? The groups are similar? Dissimilar? Are the Tea Partiers the hateful, unsmiling, unhumorous ones as the Left wants to depict them? Or are the OWS groups similar to the Marxist uprising of the new Bosheviks that some are seeing?

I think you're a baby boomer. Only your protest is legitimate to you.

A clash of generational protests

Why Baby Boomers don't understand the OWS protests

Did you actually read that piece by Ferguson - a man who I know personally and respect?

And... you're wrong... it's got jack shit to do with being a 'baby boomer'... it's about who is responsible for the current clusterfuck. OWS blame Wall St.... TEA Partiers are wiser and blame the Government... because the Government are responsible.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the OWS group actually knew what they were protesting, they would be camped out at the White House or the Capital Building instead of Wall Street. They would be complaining about where the problems originate, what escalates them, and what perpetuates them instead of some sort of vague movement against faceless people that had little or nothing to do with it.

 

[Luissa]

Main stream media LOVES this bunch.....
Chris Mathews was spitting up blood as he was critical of the tea party being all white...
All I see in this bunch are for the most part,let's say 98% white....all college kids there more for the social
event then the cause as far as I can tell.

Sure they do.
Just because you want mainstream media to like them, doesn't mean they do.

 

[Luissa]

If the OWS group actually knew what they were protesting, they would be camped out at the White House or the Capital Building instead of Wall Street. They would be complaining about where the problems originate, what escalates them, and what perpetuates them instead of some sort of vague movement against faceless people that had little or nothing to do with it.

Hear of Occupy DC?
Have you guys thought about going to their Facebook page and actually read what they are saying? If you did you would know who they are speaking out against.

 

[Kuros]

The difference between mainstream media coverage of "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea Party movement has been most interesting and instructive. Ditto the rhetoric coming out of the White House and Congress.


What do you think? The groups are similar? Dissimilar? Are the Tea Partiers the hateful, unsmiling, unhumorous ones as the Left wants to depict them? Or are the OWS groups similar to the Marxist uprising of the new Bosheviks that some are seeing?

I think you're a baby boomer. Only your protest is legitimate to you.

A clash of generational protests

Why Baby Boomers don't understand the OWS protests

Did you actually read that piece by Ferguson - a man who I know personally and respect?

And... you're wrong... it's got jack shit to do with being a 'baby boomer'... it's about who is responsible for the current clusterfuck. OWS blame Wall St.... TEA Partiers are wiser and blame the Government... because the Government are responsible.

Mainline Tea Partiers (not the proto-Tea Partiers under Ron Paul's (r)Evolution) want to lower taxes while preserving entitlements. It is a baby boomer strategy: tax the future for present payouts.

I have a lot of respect for the original Tea Party, i.e. the (r)Evolution. They knew that unpaid for tax cuts are future tax increases, something Boomers may understand but don't care about.

Yeah, I read Ferguson's article.

 

[Kuros]

If the OWS group actually knew what they were protesting, they would be camped out at the White House or the Capital Building instead of Wall Street. They would be complaining about where the problems originate, what escalates them, and what perpetuates them instead of some sort of vague movement against faceless people that had little or nothing to do with it.

First of all, there is an Occupy DC movement.

As protests against the financial system spread around the world Saturday, marchers in Washington, D.C., shouted slogans in front of the Treasury Department and held up signs reading "foreclosed" in front of downtown bank branches.

Second of all, Wall Street has captured Washington, DC. That's why Occupy Wall Street went to the source. The Tea Party protestors were absolutely correct to blame DC. And OWS is doubly right to blame both DC and Wall Street.

Man, reading your posts you'd think you supported the Bush-Obama TARP bailouts and the significantly larger Fed Reserve loans.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the OWS group actually knew what they were protesting, they would be camped out at the White House or the Capital Building instead of Wall Street. They would be complaining about where the problems originate, what escalates them, and what perpetuates them instead of some sort of vague movement against faceless people that had little or nothing to do with it.

First of all, there is an Occupy DC movement.

As protests against the financial system spread around the world Saturday, marchers in Washington, D.C., shouted slogans in front of the Treasury Department and held up signs reading "foreclosed" in front of downtown bank branches.

Second of all, Wall Street has captured Washington, DC. That's why Occupy Wall Street went to the source. The Tea Party protestors were absolutely correct to blame DC. And OWS is doubly right to blame both DC and Wall Street.

Man, reading your posts you'd think you supported the Bush-Obama TARP bailouts and the significantly larger Fed Reserve loans.

I was and am 100% opposed to TARP, all the bailouts thus far, the stimulus package, Obamacare, and every other stupid waste of the taxpayer's hard earned dollars. I was and am also opposed to disrespect for the taxpayer prior to TARP going back a long ways. The problem, however, is NOT Wall Street but the dishonest and downright evil ability of elected leaders being able to use the people's money to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. Take that away from them and there is no problem with Wall Street, no problem with misuse of the people's money, no problem with the Fed, no problem with the financial institutions as we would have public servants in office instead of professional, self-serving politicians.

 

[California Girl]

I think you're a baby boomer. Only your protest is legitimate to you.

A clash of generational protests

Why Baby Boomers don't understand the OWS protests

Did you actually read that piece by Ferguson - a man who I know personally and respect?

And... you're wrong... it's got jack shit to do with being a 'baby boomer'... it's about who is responsible for the current clusterfuck. OWS blame Wall St.... TEA Partiers are wiser and blame the Government... because the Government are responsible.

Mainline Tea Partiers (not the proto-Tea Partiers under Ron Paul's (r)Evolution) want to lower taxes while preserving entitlements. It is a baby boomer strategy: tax the future for present payouts.

I have a lot of respect for the original Tea Party, i.e. the (r)Evolution. They knew that unpaid for tax cuts are future tax increases, something Boomers may understand but don't care about.

Yeah, I read Ferguson's article.

No, they don't. They want the government to stop pandering to special interests at the expense of American taxpayers.

You may not have noticed but our government - and some of our private sector (the banks) are out of control.

For the record, I supported the bank bailouts - not for the sake of the bankers, but for the immeasurable damage that my fellow Americans would have sustained had the banks gone under. I am more rational than ideological - I want the best for the country... and the way to achieve that is to follow the Constitution. The Founders set up a Constitutional Republic for very good reason.... it works.

 

[daveman]

If the OWS group actually knew what they were protesting, they would be camped out at the White House or the Capital Building instead of Wall Street. They would be complaining about where the problems originate, what escalates them, and what perpetuates them instead of some sort of vague movement against faceless people that had little or nothing to do with it.

The OWS group assemble where they're told, say what they're told to say, and think what they're told to think. They're nothing more than useful idiots.

 

[Trajan]

heres the thing, you want to go down to wall st. and hang says the ceo of AIG in effigy, cool, as long as you hang barney frank, chris dodd and any other friends of angelo mozillo,and not to be left out- Former Fannie Mae CEO heads James A. Johnson and Harold Raines.... rep or dem, along side them, then count me in.




.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have visited all the 'official' websites now I think and I still don't see any coherance in either group. The "Occupy DC" group says get rid of the special interests without specifying what a 'special interest' is. The Tea Party in fact is a 'special interest' in that they have specific goals they wish to accomplish through the people they send to Washington. The OWS group doesn't seem to have a clue what they want other than they somehow want the banks and financial institutions and the stock exchange punished without specifying how.

Again, restrict the federal government's ability to favor anybody for any reason and all the other issues disappear except that there will still be rich and there will still be poor because that is the human condition and is not avoidable among even free people. It is just with maximum freedom, the poor are far less likely to remain poor.

 

[Kuros]

I have visited all the 'official' websites now I think and I still don't see any coherance in either group. The "Occupy DC" group says get rid of the special interests without specifying what a 'special interest' is. The Tea Party in fact is a 'special interest' in that they have specific goals they wish to accomplish through the people they send to Washington. The OWS group doesn't seem to have a clue what they want other than they somehow want the banks and financial institutions and the stock exchange punished without specifying how.

Again, restrict the federal government's ability to favor anybody for any reason and all the other issues disappear except that there will still be rich and there will still be poor because that is the human condition and is not avoidable among even free people. It is just with maximum freedom, the poor are far less likely to remain poor.

This 'coherent message' criticism is so much malarky. "Occupy Wall Street" really says it all: what Wall Street has done is unacceptable, and they needed to be held accountable for fraud, not bailed out.

 

[editec]

EVERY POPULIST movement, right or left, is going to be put down by the media.

The last thing the masters want is the people discovering their own power.

 

[Claudette]

I have visited all the 'official' websites now I think and I still don't see any coherance in either group. The "Occupy DC" group says get rid of the special interests without specifying what a 'special interest' is. The Tea Party in fact is a 'special interest' in that they have specific goals they wish to accomplish through the people they send to Washington. The OWS group doesn't seem to have a clue what they want other than they somehow want the banks and financial institutions and the stock exchange punished without specifying how.

Again, restrict the federal government's ability to favor anybody for any reason and all the other issues disappear except that there will still be rich and there will still be poor because that is the human condition and is not avoidable among even free people. It is just with maximum freedom, the poor are far less likely to remain poor.

This 'coherent message' criticism is so much malarky. "Occupy Wall Street" really says it all: what Wall Street has done is unacceptable, and they needed to be held accountable for fraud, not bailed out.

Sounds good. But Wall St. can't do jack unless DC paves the way for em. DC is inhabited by greedy politicians. Are they as greedy as the Wall St. crew.

You bet.

Oh and BTW. I'm still waiting for MSNBC and the rest of the LSM to call these folks on Wall St. Racists and terrorists. You know just like the Tea Partiers.

Ain't holding my breath.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have visited all the 'official' websites now I think and I still don't see any coherance in either group. The "Occupy DC" group says get rid of the special interests without specifying what a 'special interest' is. The Tea Party in fact is a 'special interest' in that they have specific goals they wish to accomplish through the people they send to Washington. The OWS group doesn't seem to have a clue what they want other than they somehow want the banks and financial institutions and the stock exchange punished without specifying how.

Again, restrict the federal government's ability to favor anybody for any reason and all the other issues disappear except that there will still be rich and there will still be poor because that is the human condition and is not avoidable among even free people. It is just with maximum freedom, the poor are far less likely to remain poor.

This 'coherent message' criticism is so much malarky. "Occupy Wall Street" really says it all: what Wall Street has done is unacceptable, and they needed to be held accountable for fraud, not bailed out.

I am 100% in agreement that government bailouts for anybody are not acceptable. But Wall Street didn't force anybody to bail them out. In most cases the government forced Wall Street to take the bailouts. You do understand that nobody in Wall Street can write themselves a government check?

Focus the blame and accountability where it needs to be and that is squarely on the folks we elect to Congress of whatever party and the man we elect to be President. Make THEM accountable and make THEM own up to their sins and cease and desist the unconscionable practices they have condoned, endorsed, and implemented, and Wall Street will be just fine.