Opinion

Anthony De Rosa

Don’t dismiss the Wall Street occupation

Anthony De Rosa
Sep 26, 2011 11:11 EDT

It would seem that a populist uprising against corporate greed would find a widely approving audience, yet the current occupation of Wall Street has mostly been received with a mix of muted support and mockery. The now week old protest, which has been reported to have attracted several hundred activists this past weekend, is struggling to be understood.

There is no leader, by design, and the demands are still being formed by General Assemblies, a loose group of protesters who gather to discuss their grievances with what they see as a system that takes from the middle class and poor and protects the rich. They represent what they call “the 99%,” the population outside of top 1% of income earners.

Protesters complained early on that they were not receiving attention from mainstream media, so they took to social media, using the hashtag #occupywallst (and apparently spreading to #occupyboston #occupyLA #occupydenver #occupytexas #occupynola #occupychi #occupyphoenix as well,) sharing minute by minute accounts on Twitter, posting photos and video, and live streaming nearly the entire time.

The claims that there is a lack of mainstream coverage doesn’t seem to hold water, and could simply be a ploy to encourage even more coverage. The protests have been covered by ReutersThe New York Times, and major networksAnonymous and Ad Busters are major promoters and loose organizers of the protests but the movement doesn’t appear to be born directly from the groups.

Are they a mob of over-privileged, unemployed trustafarians? Many of them likely are. Does it matter? Dismiss them if you will, they’re motivated and mobilized. An apathetic population asked to foot the bill for the fallout from credit default swaps is exactly what the 1% ordered. The last few years the country has been told to fear an economic collapse if the masses fail to fork over what amounts to corporate welfare, and more recently, that more jobs will be lost if we close tax loopholes. Many claim that these protesters are anti-capitalist, but most are simply disillusioned by a form of capitalism they suggest is so far out of whack that the opportunity for bootstrap pulling is nearly non-existent. They propose that the current environment unapologetically favors the richest of the rich.

There is concern, by people like Ginia Bellafonte the New York Times, that these protesters are simply flakes. These are a “noble but fractured and airy movement of rightly frustrated young people.” She refers to the gathering as a “carnival” and uses quotes of ridiculous demands, to “get rid of the combustion engine” and their muddled unfocused kaleidoscope of “liberal” causes: “concerns about the death penalty, the drug war, the environment.”

Bellafonte paints the picture so it can be easy for the comfortable Times readers to dismiss these seemingly misguided youth. Where have I heard this before? If you’re someone of my age, a thirty-something, ask your parents. Chances are they were once young and “misguided” and maybe even motivated by the likes of merry pranksters like Abbie Hoffman. Many of them likely would easily have identified with these so-called court jesters. Every movements starts somewhere and often it begins with very lofty ideas and few well-defined tactics. A week in, their goal was simply to do exactly what their namesake describes: occupy and control the public space in or near Wall Street, to have their presence felt and voices heard, even while they haven’t yet found the words.

To give Bellafonte the benefit of the doubt, even a supporter, in the form of successful tech entrepreneur Tim O’Reilly, was disheartened by the attire and approach of the protesters, if not the cause. If only the protesters dressed more formally, acted like grownups and came with a power-point presentation outlining their demands, maybe they’d be taken more seriously.

This weekend, the police, who up until then had been relatively docile, began to flex their muscles. Photos and videos documented alleged incidents of police brutality:

(links via Pantless Progressive)

Police pen up and mace female protesters [Raw Story]

Young man arrested simply for walking down the street [laurasthinkingwithportals]

Protester thrown over barricade by police [Video shot by Daniel Fitzsimmons, link via evanfleischer]

Protester shouts, “Is this what you’re about?”, gets cuffed [@LibertyPlazaRev]

Officer pushes sitting protester, man stands up, cops arrest him [@LilKing420s]

Cops Tackle, Mace Wall St. Protesters for No Obvious Reason [Gawker]

The movement has been steadfast in imploring members to remain non-violent, in response to apparent police violence.

For every Ginia Bellafonte, they have a Chris Hedges, a Noam Chomksy and an Amy Goodman. While Bellafonte found the silliest in the crowd to quote, Goodman found David Graeber who teaches at the University of London.

“For the last 30 years, we’ve seen a political battle being waged by the super-rich against everyone else, and this is the latest move in the shadow dance, which is completely dysfunctional economically and politically. It’s the reason why young people have just abandoned any thought of appealing to politicians. We all know what’s going to happen. The tax proposals are a sort of mock populist gesture, which everyone knows will be shot down. What will actually probably happen would be more cuts to social services.”

Perhaps that kind of quote doesn’t fit into the neat narrative of misguided, yet noble, cast of characters wasting their wealthy parents money at a sleepover in the park that Bellafonte was looking to portray. I’m not naive enough to think Graeber is representative of the crowd as a whole, but I also haven’t had the last ounce of idealism beaten out of me to think the inmates are completely running the asylum. The answer, I think, lies somewhere in between and if successful and given time to evolve, could inspire others in America to find the will and motivation to finally stop allowing themselves to be taken advantage of.

COMMENT

The Wall Street protest has Americans struggling with just who these people are and what they represent. So, naturally, they are also questioning their true motivations. Many view OWS as a “spontaneous” extension of President Obama’s own war on the rich which seemed to have conveniently reached a crescendo just as the first protesters appeared on Wall Street.

Others suspect, along with many of the conservative pundits, that it is a George Soros-backed conspiracy to stoke the anti-capitalist flames. And, there are others who see it as a ploy by the unions to build up their stature and their ranks.

Due to the lack of a coherent message or rational demand out of this largely disjointed association of activists, Americans are having trouble accepting it as a pure, grass-roots movement with legitimate intentions. The circus like, and borderline violent atmosphere, as opposed to the serious Tea Party demeanor, raises skepticism that the Wall Street protest is nothing more than a ploy to distract the American public from the abyssmal job performance of the current administration.

Having spread from Wall Street to main street it has garnered much more media attention, but the focus is as much on its unruliness and non-conformity as it is on any cogent message it is trying to convey.

Whether it is real or not, opportunistic or sincere, it is bringing to a much brighter light what most Americans are already sensing – that the country is sinking further into economic distress and the last drops of optimism have evaporated into a dark cloud of uncertainty. That a small number of people, although misguided and largely misinformed, would stand up to fight for jobs and their share of influence over policy making decisions, doesn’t seem so extreme or radical to the average American.

No one would argue with the need for more urgent action to turn the economy around. And, you won’t find too many people siding with the very institutions that, through their incessant hunger for profits, were willing accomplices to one of the worst financial calamities in our history.

In fact, at their core, the grievances that form the basis of many of its demands are shared by people on both sides of the aisle. Even Tea Partiers find little to fault with OWS’s assault on crony capitalism and lack of accountability of Wall Street’s complicity in the financial crisis. They just believe that their anger is misdirected.

The Tea Party see’s the government and its designs on the people’s liberties as the root of all evil, while the OWS crowd sees Wall Street, the banks and corporate America as the evil doers. While there is enough blame to spread around, the reality is that, by targeting the private sector, the protesters are biting the hands that feed them – literally.

True, many of the protesters are recipients of government handouts – many are unemployed and a good number are receiving some sort of welfare. But, the government isn’t going to give them a job, and it certainly doesn’t produce the many products and technological innovations that they are now enjoying even as they mount their assault on capitalism. By disrupting the thousands of local businesses, the wall street protest are hurting the economies of dozens of cities which will only exacerbate the financial distress of their communities.

If instead, they joined hands and marched, peacefully, on Washington and targeted the politicians who perpetuate the crony capitalism they abhor, and who have broken their promises to “fix” Wall Street and get the lobbyists out of the White House, and who, through their actions or in-actions, are suppressing the ability of businesses to generate more jobs, they will have a much greater impact.

Instead of coalescing around an unpopular campaign (1% versus the 99%) to pit the rich against the middle class, it is only going to stoke the fires of the President and other leftist politicians who have been trying the same strategy without success. The people don’t want to hear it.

The problem for OWS, is that, with no clear leadership and no clearly articulated message, they have been, and are still in the process of being hijacked by every activist group or whacko cause out there, and now the unions, the Marxists and the politicians are co-opting the movement for their own purposes.

While all of the added support and encouragement from these groups has emboldened the movement and made its voice louder, all it has really done is made it more shrill and even more disjointed. Add to the soup, the infiltration by every homeless person, drug addict, ageless hippie and teen in search of a rave party, and you have a spectacle that few Americans can relate too, which is unfortunate.

Everyone from the Fed Chairman to Warren Buffet, from Hollywood liberals to conservative talk show hosts, from Tea Partiers to the President, agree that the anger is real, the outrage is justified, and that Wall Street and the politicians need to be held to account for the malaise in which we find ourselves. But the assault on the private sector and capitalism is misguided.

Capitalism has done nothing but create prosperity for all who actively participate in it. It’s the Washington politicians who, throughout history, have tried to control capitalism that have inflicted the damage. That’s where OWS needs to go right now. 

Posted by afreshup | Report as abusive

An interview with New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller

Anthony De Rosa
Jun 22, 2011 10:46 EDT

Editor’s note: This article spurred quite a bit of discussion on Twitter. If you’d like to join the conversation, use the hashtag #smnets. Carl V. Lewis storified some of the discussion that took place.

Bill Keller has spent the last eight years as executive editor of the New York Times. He recently announced he will step down from his post in September and hand it over to Jill Abramson, who will become the first female executive editor in the history of the paper. I asked Bill about his transition and some of the controversy around his statements regarding aggregation and Twitter.

You’ve been doing more writing as of late. Do you miss having the time to devote your energies to that entirely?

I spent the first 25 years of my working life swearing I’d never give up reporting for editing. But while it took some doing — Joe Lelyveld says it took him two years — to talk me into trying it, I’ve found it hugely rewarding. Sure, I’ve missed reporting and writing, and I’ve had some reminders along the way of how much I missed them.

I had a two-year involuntary break from editing in 2001-2003, my blissful exile, which I spent writing an op-ed column and pieces for the Times magazine. In 2009 I was on one of those hang-out-with-the-correspondents missions in Iran when all hell broke loose and I reenlisted as a notebook warrior. It was thrilling. But stepping down as executive editor is not about missing writing, except in the sense that I suppose it’s easier to give up a great job if you have something else you want to do.

Stepping down is about wanting to hand over the newsroom when it’s in good shape, when it’s on a journalistic roll and feels financially more secure, when there’s a strong bench to take over, and while I’m still enjoying it, before I burn out or wear out my welcome.

You clarified your position on social media in response to what Nick Bilton wrote. What is the biggest misconception people have about your view of social media?

I think there’s a misconception that I’m opposed to social media. Some of it comes from people who haven’t paid close attention to what I’ve said on the subject, and some of it, I think, comes from people who know better but who have made a reputation for themselves by being digital evangelists and cyber-puritans, who treat any hint of skepticism as heresy.

My view of social media is that it is a set of tools, not a religion. Twitter and Facebook are brilliant tools, the journalistic uses of which are still being plumbed. They are great for disseminating interesting material. They are useful for gathering information, including from places that are inaccessible. They provide a kind of serendipity, a sense of discovery, that some people thought would be lost as print periodicals declined.

At the Times, we embrace social media, we use it, we experiment with it. We have a staff dedicated to figuring out new ways to make the best journalistic use of it. We have staff seminars on social media. I encourage reporters to look at Twitter and Facebook and to figure out if there’s a way these services can be helpful to them. Like many tools, Twitter will fit some people’s toolkits more naturally than others, and will be used more skillfully and creatively by some people than others.

None of this should be a revelation to anyone who has paid attention, but Twitter is not always a friend of paying attention. I’m pretty sure that a fair number of the people who joined the buzz about my column, and a more-than-fair share of those who retweeted it, didn’t actually take the time to read it. Which kind of confirms my point about Twitter not being a great medium for serious discussion.

The point of my column was that most technological progress comes at a price, and it’s okay to consider the price along with the progress. For some people, Facebook is a way to engage more openly with the world. But there’s an opportunity cost. The time you spend keeping up with your 200 Facebook friends is time you are not getting to know someone really well in person. Twitter is all the wonderful things I said above and then some, but Twitter is mostly reductionist. It does not lend itself to deep, rich conversation, with context and persuasion. It CAN be a stimulus to serious discussion, but that is not the nature of the tool, which is reach rather than depth.

In case you’re wondering, by the way, I do not believe that Twitter literally makes people stupid. If you read the column, you know that I posted a hashtag — #twittermakesyoustupid — followed, please note, by the word “discuss.” The point was to throw out a subject for discussion, and see how the medium dealt with it, which was pretty much the way I expected. (A hashtag is a topic, not an argument. ) I think Twitter can encourage distraction, superficiality, short attention spans, bumper-sticker-level discourse. It can make you SOUND stupid. But, no, I don’t think it makes you stupid.

People go to the Times for great original reporting, but increasingly people also want to be able to go somewhere that synthesizes all the news around different subjects. Personally, I think Huffington Post tries to do this but is very disorganized and difficult to follow. More of a marketing mousetrap than an actual news service. I get the sense you don’t believe in aggregation but if done properly and presented in a clear and ethical way, would you encourage the Times to do more of it?

Ah, aggregation. You apparently missed this. In our newsroom, I’ve been an enthusiastic promoter of aggregation. I think readers come to us not just for our original reporting, but for our judgment. So they want to know not just what we’re reporting, but what we’re reading and watching, and they want us linked to sources that back up our reporting or enlarge on it. My caveats are a) aggregation is not a substitute for original reporting. If you don’t have original reporting, you’re aggregating smoke. And b) a business model built on excerpting or rewriting other people’s work at length in order to keep the traffic and reward for yourself is stealing.

You don’t seem to engage much on Twitter, I was the only non-New York Times staffer you ever replied to in over two years over Twitter. I happen to think one of the most useful things about Twitter is how you can interact with people, especially those who read the New York Times. What has prevented you from doing so and would you consider doing more of it in the future?

I follow Twitter and pay attention to it, but I rarely Tweet because I have a rather large platform here, called The New York Times. If I run across something interesting, or have a thought that might merit reporting, my instinct is to send it to an editor or reporter, in hopes it grows into a story — not to share it first with a Twitter universe that includes most of our competitors. (Or I might save it for a column of my own.) I’m sure I could do a better job of responding to Tweets about the Times, but that takes time, and mine is usually fully booked.

What would you like to do as you transition out of your current role, what are you excited about devoting more time to in the future?

I look forward to surprising you, and to being surprised.

What is the most difficult challenge you’ve faced as Executive Editor of the New York Times?

We’ve had a multi-course menu of challenges. How do you choose? Maintaining and expanding our journalistic ambitions (and sustaining morale)  through all the recessionary pressure and Doomsday talk? Defending and explaining our decisions to publish articles based on classified documents? Trying to uphold high standards of fairness as the public debate grew more polarized? Coping with crises in the field — reporters kidnapped, arrested, injured and killed for doing their jobs?

We — and I do mean we — had enough challenges to fill a crisis management handbook. I suppose if I had to pick one challenge we met with lasting impact, it would be our successful adaptation to the digital world. Over the past six years or so the newsroom has forged an integrated, Web-savvy newsroom that wins prizes for innovation and quality online without sacrificing the depth of reporting and reflection people demand of the Times.

We also had a hand in retooling the company’s business model to create a digital subscription system that shows great promise. A lot of people made this happen, starting with a publisher who was alert early on to promise of the Web and the danger of complacency, and including a successor who has immersed herself in digital strategy. But I’m proud that The New York Times newsroom became a thriving digital venture on my watch.

COMMENT

#trigeminal, or, treatments for, has been my exile. I have a tough time poof-weeding (reading-Period) through New Hampshire’s newspaper: http://www.unionleader.com/

I found @nytkeller #twittermakesyoustupid – a couple of days after the discussion, so my chronology isn’t…
8 Reasons Why Twitter Can Make You Happy | World of Psychology: http://bit.ly/jDLTHY

I will look forward to your audio book, Mr. Keller.

Posted by dbobsnodgrass | Report as abusive

“Page One” film breathes life into The New York Times

Anthony De Rosa
Jun 14, 2011 17:03 EDT

On the surface, the story of a newspaper company during an age of digital revolution does not seem like the best candidate for a gripping drama. In the hands of Andrew Rossi and through the eyes of David Carr, Brian Stelter, Bruce Headlam, and Tim Arango there lies something akin to The Social Network for the news business, a movie uniquely capturing this moment in time.

There’s a scene midway through Page One when David Carr goes to meet the guys who run Vice, a brash and unvarnished multimedia content company that CNN just partnered with in an effort to court a younger demographic. “I don’t do corporate portraiture,” Carr tells them as they attempt to give him their pitch. Vice co-founder Shane Smith tries to make a case for why Vice is doing the job that the New York Times failed to do. “Everyone talked to me about cannibalism! That’s fucking crazy! So the actual — our audience goes, “That’s fucking insane, like, that’s nuts!” And the New York Times, meanwhile, is writing about surfing, and I’m sitting there going like, “You know what? I’m not going to talk about surfing, I’m going to talk about cannibalism, because that fucks me up.” Carr interrupts Smith for a history lesson “Just a sec, time out. Before you ever went there, we’ve had reporters there reporting on genocide after genocide. Just because you put on a fucking safari helmet and looked at some poop doesn’t give you the right to insult what we do. So continue.”

That moment sort of crystallizes the two worlds that Carr and the Times now live in. Countless outlets like Vice and others were born in an age where virtually anyone can cobble together a place on the media landscape, but often with little regard for those who came before them. Some are outright contemptuous of the Times and newspapers in general, as a few attendees at SXSW, the annual Austin gathering of digerati expressed by a show of hands that they would not miss the Times if it ceased to exist.

Others, like Markos Moulitsas, are annoyed by the perceived authority that the Times has, citing Judy Miller’s blind acceptance of WMDs in the lead up to the war in Iraq as essentially being a stenographer for the Bush administration. The movie pulls no punches when it comes to the fiscal crisis at the Times and also the confidence crisis some had in their ability to provide the news, following the failings of Miller and Jayson Blair.

The fallout following their scandals coincides with the Times beginning to find its legs again, with the help of digital natives like Brian Stelter. Carr and Stelter come from different generations but they’re both digital hybrids — one adapted to the present who has became even more influential because of it; the other absorbed by the wisdom of the past who has became a force to be reckoned with.

Page One weaves together the day to day machinations of hunting down a story; misdeeds at the Tribune company being a particularly compelling one. Carr coaxes the truth out of sources in a vibrant and unexpectedly exciting way. Drama drips from the clouds of uncertainty during an uneasy moment in the paper’s history. A moment, the film admits, that seems like it has always existed. The numbers are more stark and the challengers more formidable than in previous eras where network news and radio grew as alternatives sources for information. Disruption has always been the norm, but the digital age brought the institution to a point where it was forced to stare into the abyss, consider its mortality and find a way to save its own life.

The movie does not have all the answers — we are all still trying to figure them out ourselves. It does, however, give pause to those who think the Times is replaceable.

There is much that we have gained in the last decade or so with the  invention of Twitter and Facebook. These platforms, along with the web itself, have given us a tremendous ability to publish and transmit information far faster and wider than ever before, but those who think we can simply replace the DNA that exists within the walls of The New York Times building are simply ignorant of what role it has played and will continue to play for years to come.

The publication has not always been perfect, as a collection of mortals will often fail to be, but the film displays an institution that tells stories that still have wide impact on our lives with an influence that still reigns above many of their digital counterparts. This story is their own. It is a story well told, that left me rooting for it to continue to be told for years to come.

Traditional media’s refusal to enter the link economy

Anthony De Rosa
Apr 13, 2011 10:28 EDT

Blogger ethics tend to be better than traditional journalism ethics when it comes to linking to sources. It’s actually far more likely you won’t find a single link in any articles in most mainstream news publications online. Sometimes they may even write out the source, but won’t link to it.

Here’s an example of where the New York Post cites TV Newser and Mediaite, but refuses to link to either. Both Newser and Mediaite are generous with links to their sources. Apparently the New York Post is a common offender. The Post has gone so far as to have allegedly admitted, by way of correspondence from one of their reporters, that they in fact have a policy to not credit blogs (or anyone else) if they can verify independently after they’ve been tipped off from the source they choose not to cite. Other parts of News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch’s empire, which includes the Post, may have the same policy as well.

Recently, NBC New York used a good deal of their reporting from a post written by NYC The Blog, which does excellent coverage of stories that often fall between the cracks, and does so with great detail. The author of the post originally did not bother to mention his source, then added the mention, but has yet to link to it.

Why are mainstream news outlets so averse to the link economy? Even here at Reuters, links are rarely seen, if ever, in the context of the articles we post. Felix Salmon recently referred to the Wall Street Journal as “the kid in class with his arm around his homework” in reference to their refusal to link. The New York Times is just as stingy with their links, relegating their modern link-friendly journalism to excellent places like The Lede.

The Lede is one of the few places I’ll return to multiple times a day, because it’s indicative of the way the world works now: real-time and part of a cooperative effort among outside sources, linking back and forth to one another, without regard for their internal or external affiliation.

Journalism today is a collaborative effort and the digital natives link to their sources as a matter of course. They understand the value of the link economy and it is rarely a one way street. Linking out doesn’t take traffic away from your site; instead, it makes your site more valuable as a comprehensive source of where information is flowing, it helps to show you’ve done your homework and are able to back it up.

This is not particularly new ground I’m covering here. Jeff Jarvis has written extensively on the link economy. Our own president of media, Chris Ahearn, believes in the link economy and Felix Salmon has weighed in on how the link economy benefits Reuters.

The issue is both technical and cultural. Many of these crusty old media behemoths are still embedded in the maw of very old editorial workflows that simply make it impossible to link out. Personally, I find this hard to believe, since if they’re publishing to the web, surely they have some way of linking within their articles. What I find more easy to believe, but not entirely a valid excuse, is the culture.

The culture of current “old media” newsrooms does not have the ethical inclination to link. They’re still provincial and afraid that once someone has clicked a link to a referring source, they’re gone forever. The digital natives practically have the link embedded into their DNA. Sure, there are some bloggers with loose ethics when it comes to citing their sources by way of a link, but few of them do it by way of policy and the ones who do so often are not the ones running a business behind it.

How long will it take for the old guard to make way for the link friendly digital natives? Considering how much the powers that be are relying on those natives to help them transform the media business into something that can feasibly exist in the current landscape, sooner than you think.

COMMENT

From what I’ve seen, it looks like reuters is as guilty as any other news organization.

Posted by ac1981 | Report as abusive
  •