Occupy Wall Street has been getting
more coverage little by little over the past week. But the protests have
actually been going on for almost three weeks now. What has made the media so
slow to react? And when they finally did react, why at first was it so
dismissive? Is American media so disenchanted with protests now that they give
them no heed until violence breaks out? Do protests have to contain a concise
purpose? A sense of unity in order for it to become legitimate? According to
most mainstream media outlets, yes.
When coverage first began, it was
quick to label and dismiss the protestors as societal oddballs, the weird
hippies and delinquents of New York. But as it spread and grew, they realized
that image wouldn’t fly anymore. So they started to question the purpose, since
so many protestors were giving different answers when asked why. But they are
missing the point of the whole thing. There’s no way they can ask for specific
things to be done, if they don’t want to keep the current system in the first
place. You don’t ask the system to change if you don’t like the system
fundamentally.That's the whole point of Occupy WallStreet, to show the American people's general dissatisfaction with the
government and the way society is run now, and the desire to change it. Issues
such as employment, homelessness, poverty, corporate corruption and greed are
all part of this massive movement.
| Occupy Wall Street at Foley Square |
The fact that the media has to have
video of violent reactions by police and rights violations in order to cover it
properly reflects the growing sentiment that the media is “in bed” with the “1%”.
And this might be the case. Media is run by some of the wealthiest people in
the world and corruption can be rampant. I mean, just look at the case of
Rupert Murdoch. That is basically the problem in a nutshell with the media. A
corrupt media with its own agenda does not reflect the will of the people and
for a long time now this has been going on. So much so that people nowadays don’t
question what the media says. They shouldn’t have to, media should be
objective, but it’s not so they should. But they don’t and that’s where it goes
wrong. When real issues are being dismissed, or set aside, or reported in a
biased manner, the media is not doing its job. And so far, this has been the
case.
No comments:
Post a Comment