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.
Continue reading this full article at ChrisWeigant.com, complete with our weekly picks for the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week and Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards. Then we end with a special "talking points" section which expands the idea of a Media Contact Person for Occupy Wall Street.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution
Occupy Wall Street : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News
Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it - CNN.com
Occupy Wall Street: FAQ | The Nation
How Occupy Oakland Is Stealing Occupy Wall Street's Mojo - TIME
Michelle Malkin » More ugly Occupy Oakland pictures that won't ...
Occupy Oakland debated by residents at public forum - latimes.com
You take care, too, I need every fan I can get.
:-)
Sorry, but my Spanish is pretty much limited to "otre cervesa, por favor." Heh.
-CW
OWS protestors any favorable or even informative coverage.
News in the U.S.A. is conservativecorporate propaganda, nothing else allowed, except on FauxNews and they don't bother with news at all only the promotion of
Fear, anger, hate and kissing up to the big money.
So I beg you speakers to come forward in time as we organize ourselves and put forth the slogans that echo back, to us.
We the people have a serious problem spreading a truthful word. If only a couple hundred people showed up on 11-5-11 San Diego Civic its because the word does not get out. All tech guys we need your help in spreading the word to strengthen the resistance by numbers of people. more web sites with repetitious messages registered in foreign lands are good and any thing you smart people can come up with. Our US society is still OBLIVIOUS TO OUR EXISTENCE and mainstream media intends to keep it that way. Finally People MUST UNITE under a few basic ideas which should be pushed forward as a collective beginning of the change, such as abolish the Federal Reserve, corporations are not people, no special interests in our government and maybe a few more simple slogans (our amendments to be).
Good luck to us all they have all the power money can buy.
For instance, I have no proof that CNN is a right-leaning media corporation, even though everything I hear on their channel sounds for the most part in that direction. Yet, listening to the comment sections and various bloggers, the complaint is that they're a left leaning newscast. Hah! What world do they live in. Perhaps, CNN could have an ombudsman to address these issues one by one as they emerge and then regularly report on the conflicts that arise. NPR does this, though with less interest then they did in years past.
I have no delusion that CNN is merely in competition to out-fox FOX in vying for a portion of their audience, not necessarily in reporting the news as their main objective. Back in the day when Headline News was the only cable game in town, their hourly reporting of straight news stories with no editorializing was considered revolutionary, even though it repeated throughout the day. Now we get repeated stories, ALL editorialized and its "impact" opined upon, with actual reporting on a subject only as a second thought, if at all.
CNN/Time/Warner, just another global mega-corp.
Providing a spokesperson is merely playing into the large sucking noise that all left-leaning stories fall into, without ever threatening the faulty foundation the whole corporate media structure is now based upon. The corporate media nowadays manages to get away with highlighting stories that conveniently tell narratives and push these stories into a parallel universe that most people don't experience firsthand. The stories most of "the masses" care about are never even reported on. For example, issues of labor in this country are always about corporations productivity and their profits, not about the actual work people do that make those companies profitable. The same is true on issues of infrastructure, until something breaks or crashes and kills people, not about the people that build things. And its true of the conservation of our lands or environment, unless the voices of companies can be equally heard from to tout their victimhood.
The media no longer reports the news. They're infotainment which strives to create news narratives pushed for ratings. It's not for an informed electorate. At it's worst, it's constantly pushing false equivalencies and forcing unqualified candidates, bigots, and white collar criminals from being held responsible for their actions and words.
We have a long year of campaigning ahead including a long hot summer of discontent. Take the winter off and plan strategic actions all through 2012.
This one year from this week we hold elections.
So you're admitting the movement is destined for defeat and irrelevancy? Just curious, your comment seemed pretty defeatist....
-CW