I asked (the Washington) Post Managing Editor ... if she could shed light on the thinking behind using the tackle photo for the paper's front page Saturday. She responded that the photo was "the most original and the most newsy" of the options that day.
-- from Occupy Wall Street's struggle for nonviolence (Justin Elliot/Salon)
Aggression is different from anger. Anger is an emotion; aggression is a behavior. There are better ways to deal with anger than behaving aggressively. Aggressive talk, gestures or behaviors belong to the old way of being. Once we tune in to a higher level of consciousness, aggression is as unnecessary as is the hand-held plow in modern day agriculture.-- Gwen Randall-Young, Growing Into Soul
Salon's Justin Elliott has already done the heavy lifting in terms of fleshing out the context surrounding Saturday's Washington Post front page photo.
According to Justin's research, we don't really know if the protester actually tackled the police officer, nor does the photographer (in spite of the caption crediting him with a tackle). Given the tension in Zuccotti Park last Friday night, with the city and the NYPD threatening to clear the place out the next morning, the brief physical skirmishes that were clearly documented that evening -- see the video Elliott also posted -- seemed to have primarily been instigated by the police.
What's so significant about this photo, however (accentuated by the innocence of the Managing Editor), is how it plants the seeds of demonization. Although the OWS movement has been overwhelmingly peaceful and non-violent so far, even in the face of provocation, my concern is seeing an "anger meme" creep into the reporting.
Besides the selection and labeling of this photo, Justin is astute in also noting the proximity of the adjacent "Wall Street angst" headline. If you read the completely separate article -- about "the public's frustration and anger" toward Wall Street -- the juxtaposition with the photo serves, just as much as the photo and caption, to suggest some kind of violent underbelly to OWS. And then, raising the possibility of a theme here, yesterday's NYT pushed the same thesis, the title of their front-page article, "Countless Grievances, One Thread: We're Angry." In this case, the accompanying photo-collage offered peaceful demonstrators -- their signs more determined than angry) as evidence, somehow, of a bottled rage. And then, does The Times really feel that anger is the one thread that runs through this movement?
If anything, the volume of imagery so far, opposed to aggression or hostility, speaks loudly in favor of poise and deliberation and almost cringingly-peaceful resistance. I should add, putting my shrink hat on for a moment, that there is a serious deficit in the commons when it comes to the understanding of anger. As stated in the Randall-Young quote above, it might be rare to find agression without anger, but anger, as an emotion, can be as contained, mediated and constructively motivating as it can be the ignition for a swing. But then, when it comes to selling stories, we know there are two sure-fire emotions that will garner eyeballs: one is greed and the other is fear. And in an atmosphere like this, all you need is 1% of one and a few headlines and pictures questioning the temperature of the other 99%, and you've got a two-fer.
(photo: Andrew Burton/AP WAPO caption: A man affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street protests tackles a police officer during a march in New York. Police arrested 15 people during demonstrations Friday, but the movement gained a victory after a plan to clear people from a Manhattan park was halted.)
Follow Michael Shaw on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagnewsnotes
Bennett L. Gershman: "Tent City" Is Protected Speech
George Lakoff: How to Frame Yourself: A Framing Memo for Occupy Wall Street
Cathleen Falsani: #OccupyWallStreet: Without a Vision, the People Will Perish
Domestic terrorism has many faces, all of them ugly, all of it carried out by U.S. citizens.
Defined by the FBI in 1994 as,”the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives,” that definition of domestic terrorism was expanded by the Patriot Act to incorporate actions of “mass destruction, assassination, and kidnapping occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The British may have construed the Boston Tea Party as domestic terrorism even before the term existed. However, most of us are more familiar with contemporary incidents, those perpetrated by the KKK, the Black Liberation Army, the Jewish Defense League, the Weather Underground, the Unabomber, the Fort Hood Muslim, and the deadliest of all, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombers.
Depending on one’s sociopolitical perspectives, almost any domestic crime can be considered an example of domestic terrorism.
Thus, the 2009 senseless murder of the abortionist Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder, a man crazed by the inhumanity of late term abortions, has been termed by some as domestic terrorism. . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5758.)
"Well, clearly Jesus has returned and the cops are protecting Him from hordes of autograph seekers. Jesus wants to give out a few more, but NYPD officers can see that they are getting into a dicey crowd situation, and they're trying to extricate Him from His fans."
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-17/politics/obama.protest.rifle_1_protesters-weapons-assault-rifle?_s=PM:POLITICS
Or perhaps stomping on a young woman's neck after knocking her to the ground.
Or being bused in by Americans for Progress (nee Koch) and scripted to shout down and bully people who supported health care reform.
white collar cops protecting white collar criminals...the blue collar cops are too scared to go against the grain...sad...
I hate our media and our country's leaders right now...disgusting..
all the stuff said about obama during the tea party movement and no negative publicity against them....guns...they brought guns to rallies with senators and no arrests were made...
these peaceful protestors are just exercising their rights...and they would be doing that really if there were jobs...but since they have no jobs, then why not protest? this is why republicans are so stupid...they could have kept their scheme going for decades more, if they just didn't get so greedy...now we all see it.
Occupy Wall St. is going to see a lot of this because it behooves the Corporate press to marginalize this entire effort. At the rate we are going, I think it will have to continue for 5 years or more before either the Banks give in or the people arm themselves (don't forget the Tea Party has the SAME argument - Wall St. Bail outs were bad! and the Tea Party is armed). Also remember the police on the street - even the older ones - have never had to deal with protests like this. They were in Grammar School when we marched against the war, for civil rights and for nuclear disarmament. They are scared and overwhelmed.
It's the same reason that coverage of Gay Pride parades usually include the most outrageous-looking guys instead of the majority who are marching like they're on their way to California Pizza Kitchen.
It's the same reason why TV news crews show a group of people burning an American flag in some Middle Eastern city when it's only six guys and if you pulled back from that scene, you'd see most people on their way to work or the store or wondering why the flag burners are blocking traffic again.
Most photographers and editors are not looking to advance a corporate agenda or distort reality. They want to put their best, most interesting work on display. That's it, really.
is an invisible violence;
and it is ubiquitous.
it is insidious.
it permeates every household in america,
and probably the world.
if someone beat your child in front of you
or raped your wife, you would not remain passive
and hold a sign that said: "please don't do that, please."
even gandhi would have hauled off and slugged someone.
p.s. there's nothing more dangerous than a peaceful man pushed too far.
-billy jack
The media is an easy target and often the criticism is well-deserved. But can we try to avoid using absolutes? The First Amendment is a great thing and, despite plenty of imperfections, this country has a great variety of media outlets and a lot of people who are genuinely trying to do a good job covering the events of the world and in people's home towns.
But seriously...what would appease these people?
If they all got a check? If they all got a job?
What...do...they...want...
you what they want? That change we could believe in that we were promised...
all of it....change to the system......change to the way corporations run our country, instead of people running our country.
within that idea umbrella are a ton of small complaints....
http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/
I'd be very surprised if you don't see a number of items with which you agree.
And you are right, I do agree with many of those bullet points.
I'm still wondering, however, what will satisfy them. As they state at the bottom of the declaration, these grievances are not all inclusive.
We could scrap our entire system and start again from the ground up and I still don't think they would be appeased. I do, however, understand the frustration.
Thank you, again, for sharing that.