The Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Canada protests seem to be occupying – and perhaps unhinging – the minds of media pundits – at least, those who are mired in the dogma of “free market” fundamentalism.
One recent example from CBC Television came in the form of a personal attack on author Chris Hedges. A well-known American writer, Hedges had agreed to appear as a guest on the Lang O’Leary Exchange to discuss the Occupy movement. He was in the process of calmly and lucidly explaining that movement’s rationale when interviewer Kevin O’Leary interrupted to dismiss Hedges as “a leftwing nutbar.”
A second example, also from CBC TV, came from the October 13 edition of The National’s “At Issue” panel. Along with two journalists, the At Issue panel consists of a senior advisor with a Canadian partner of the global public relations giant Burson-Marsteller, and the economically conservative commentator Andrew Coyne.
Asked whether the rallies currently sweeping the globe could bring about real change in Canada, Coyne could barely contain himself:
“Even in the U.S. where people have far more problems to actually worry about, it’s not clear that these people represent anybody other than themselves,” he frothed. “There’s always a constituency that doesn’t like capitalism (or) rich people… They just decided to get together and shout about it some more.”
Evidently Mr. Coyne can’t bring himself to read opinion polls showing many middle-class Americans share the demonstrators’ worries about growing economic inequality and unemployment. Concern about corporate greed and corruption is certainly not confined to those currently in the streets.
So Coyne’s glib dismissal is itself easily dismissed. But the pundits (and some journalists) also make a more plausible point. The protesters, they say, are a motley bunch. They don’t have a single message, or specific solutions.
It is true that the movement hasn’t answered the question posed by AdBusters, the Vancouver-based magazine that originally inspired the rallies: “What is our one demand?” But that’s not surprising. And it’s certainly no reason to dismiss the movement.
Social movements have often started out with a shared grievance, not a particular solution. Think of the flagship of today’s global movements, environmentalism. It ranges from conservationists who want to preserve wilderness, to more politically-oriented groups advocating policies to counter global warming, to radicals who see civilization itself as the problem. A smorgasbord of approaches. But united by a concern that the ecosystems on which humans depend are threatened, and need our conscious protection.
So too with Occupy Canada. The people involved share one belief: that the currently dominant “neoliberal” or “free market” version of capitalism is not working for the vast majority of people. While it creates wealth for some, it is also the destructive global engine behind massive and growing inequality, the current fiscal and economic crisis, and climate change and environmental collapse.
An economic system that is rumbling along out of democratic control creates so many types of perceived injustices, affecting so many different constituencies, that it is hardly surprising that there is no “one size fits all” solution.
It’s also hard to nurture citizen-based political campaigns in a society that teaches people that rebellion is a matter of buying edgy fashion accessories. That so many people have come out into the streets demanding change – political change – is an impressive achievement in and of itself.
That doesn’t stop some journalists from complaining that they don’t know what Occupy Wall Street is about. Perhaps they don’t know how to deal with a movement that doesn’t provide blue-suited leaders, glossy handouts, and a narrow message box test-marketed in focus groups. Today’s generation of activists values participatory and consensus-based processes, more than programmatic statements.
To observers like me, schooled in the movements of the 1960s and 70s, that can be frustrating. I’m told that the first ninety minutes of the Occupy Vancouver rally on October 15 were taken up deciding how to make decisions. But in a networked, “social mediatized” society, maybe that’s the way to build the trust and buy-in needed to launch a new and sustainable movement.
Eventually, protest must eventually be turned into policy, if there is to be change in how the world allocates resources. And there is no shortage of ideas about policy alternatives. AdBusters itself has touted a tax on financial transactions (originally proposed by conservative economist James Tobin) to reduce the volatility of global money markets, and to raise funds for international development. Amongst the folks I met at Occupy Vancouver, there would likely be common ground in policies like a more progressive tax system, and public investment to reduce youth unemployment and develop sustainable energy and technology.
Last May (have the pundits forgotten?), 30 percent of voters elected the NDP as Canada’s official opposition – a party with progressive policies on a range of issues. Maybe the Occupy movement should add another demand: that media pundits on our public airwaves reflect the realities and diversity of our society, rather than rehash hackneyed “free market” dogma.
Cliff Boldt // Oct 28, 2011 at 6:06 pm
At my age and stage of life (I’m 70) I’m thrilled that people who have never been engaged, don’t know how to engage are suddenly doing something. I don’t pretend to understand OWS and where it is going on, but it has suddenly become OK to call the corporate world on their stuff. Even on CKNW.
Journalists are frustrated because they suddenly have to think outside the box, something the mainstream media isn’t good at – their jobs would be threatened if they did too much of it.
Journalists today are being challenged and they aren’t sure how to respond, they are struggling to deal with a new and very different paradigm.
I have some sympathy for Pete and Co.
Jerry Sheppard // Oct 26, 2011 at 5:40 pm
If you have to really dig to get the sentiment of the group you get a sense of what the group is asking. Of course, if you don’t really want to know then it’s frustrating because it makes it hard to attack, of distort. If a clearly articulated statement of demands were to be made it would provide an easy opening to either distortion, refutation, or cooptation. It’s actually a brilliant way to get people interested and avoid some likely attacks.
RickW // Oct 25, 2011 at 6:13 pm
As for the second link to the editorial, all I have to say is that, when the average CEO take an entire day-and-a-half to “earn” what the average Canuck makes in a year, that is all that really needs be said…….
RickW // Oct 25, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Thank you, Sarah!
Regarding Pete McMartin’s piece, there is an opinion put forward by the systems theorists that “There isn’t anything unnatural in this kind of concentration…” about the worl’d economy being owned/controlled by147/737 companies out of 37 MILLION enterprises.
I would venture that this is HIGHLY unnatural, and that this concentration of ownership would not be possible were it not for compliant, complacent, complicit governments. In other words, this kind of control just isn’t possible, were a true market economy actually in place.
RickW // Oct 25, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Regarding the notion that the MSM are not a “monolith”, why is it then that the descriptors “left”, “leftie”, left-leaning” are frequently used throughout the MSM, but one very seldom reads as descriptors “right”, righties”, “right-wing” when referring to the Andrew Coynes or Rob Fords or Stephen Harpers?
To me, it is a fundamental indicator of the monolithic nature of the MSM, Pete McMartin’s consternation notwithstanding.
Pete McMartin // Oct 25, 2011 at 10:15 am
Speaking as a media “pundit,” I would ask only that you exhibit the same balance you would ask of the big bad media. There are examples of journalists in Canada who express sympathy for the Occupy-ers — Rod Mickleburgh’s column of Oct. 23rd in the Globe and Mail comes to mind, and a couple of mine in The Vancouver Sun — and your piece could have used some like examples to even things out. The mainstream media — and the term itself is an insult — is not the right-wing monolith its critics believe it to be. It would have been nice to see that reflected in your piece.
Bob Hackett // Oct 25, 2011 at 11:33 am
In response to Mr. McMartin, I had thought that the introduction to the piece had made it clear that it refers to those media pundits who are “mired in the dogma of free market fundamentalism”. Those who have given Occupy a fair shake are not so mired. Given word constraints, I had to rely on readers to keep in mind that qualification throughout; as Mr McMartin says, the media are not a monolith, but (if I may be permitted a bit of academic jargon) a site of struggle that is nevertheless structured in dominance. My concern is that those who are stuck in the free market worldview have a disproportionate influence in key media, including Canada’s main publicly funded public broadcaster.
seth Klein // Oct 25, 2011 at 12:18 pm
I note that today’s column by Pete McMartin in the Vancouver Sun is excellent. Nice work Pete! However, and to Bob’s point, the position taken in the Editorial of the same day’s paper is very different.
RickW // Oct 25, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Seth: Could you provide a link to Pete McMartin’s article for those of us “stuck in the boonies” (outside the lower mainland)?
Sarah Leavitt // Oct 25, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Hi Rick: You can read Pete McMartin’s column here: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/Opinion+little+preoccupations+Occupy+Vancouver+critics/5600117/story.html and the Sun’s editorial here: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Mayor+should+deadline+Occupy+Vancouver+movement+move/5599687/story.html
Bob Baynham // Oct 25, 2011 at 5:59 am
I too have been disappointed with the media’s response to and analysis of the Occupy initiative. The fact that they are able to engage so many people across so many locations with no single demand is, I believe, one of the movement’s more intriguing characteristics. Despite this, the central message they want to get across – the inequity in our society and the disillusionment with the wealthy class – has been been recognized and reported. For analysts such as CBC’s at issue panel and Margaret Wente on Q, they simply don’t get it. It does not fit into their view of the world or of how people with such concerns should speak out. What they fail to recognize is the deeply held view that the protesters have that something is not right with how Western society is functioning. I see the occupy actions as being connected to many others in civil society where growing numbers of citizens are taking action because of their sense that our current collective behaviours are both unsustainable and just plain wrong. There is so much that needs to change that to try to summarize it into a single demand or statement is simply not possible. We need a different discourse and the pundits don’t know the language. As for Kevin O’leary’s comment, what he failed to recognize is that he had the lens turned the wrong way – it is he who is the nutbar.
Sandra Currie // Oct 24, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Don’t you just love it? The media complains that the occupiers don’t know what they want and don’t know what they are talking about, and every time someone tries to explain, they just name call. What happened to investigative journalism and the ability to think beyond sound bites? The CBC is acting like a corporate shill. In fact, all the issues raised by those of us who want to have a planet left for our children and grandchildren, know that they are all interconnected. But I guess the only people with that capacity to think are the dirty hippies and ne’er do well bottom feeders who are part of the occupation movement.
RickW // Oct 24, 2011 at 4:40 pm
To those who insist that we have “free markets”, and that the “free market system” (can anything free be systematized?) do they even know what that term means? When confronted with the FACT that our governments are bailing out inept institutions by the bucketsful, they either fall back into “they should be allowed to fail” (but conveniently after the fact of a bailout) or they insist that because the markets aren’t really free in the first place, governments are obliged to bail out the inept “for the greater good” (even though the free market doesn’t recognise a “greater good” – Gordon Gecko anyone?)
So it would seem the Andrew Coynes of the world like to have their proverbial bread buttered on both sides – free enterprise when it suits them, and “the greater good” when it suits them.