Sunday, October 9, 2011

Occupy Wall Street Protests: Clear or Misinformed Message?

            In the blog article “A message that ‘should be obvious,’” Steve Benen mirrors the New York Times editorial claim that the Occupy Wall Street protesters’ message is obvious. The protesters are characterized as demanding improved economic conditions and proclaiming outrage for bank bailouts. Benen goes on to pit the Republican Party against the Democrat Party claiming the former is against the protests while the latter is in support. The blog concludes by summarizing the response of Washington—restoration of the middle class versus maintenance of the status quo—and proposes the 2012 presidential election will be the deciding factor on which vision for the economy prevails.
            Benen’s blog is an arm of the Washington Monthly, which is left-leaning. Additionally, Benen refers to the New York Times, another left-leaning media source. Thus, it’s safe to say the blog’s audience, are liberals. Moreover, mainstream media strives to inform the masses, therefore, the audience tends to be the general population. However, the blog assails politicians, spurring them to take action. Therefore, the blog reaches out to the masses as well as those in Washington.
            Generally speaking the New York Times is considered a credible news source. One would then assume Benen’s blog article, which predominantly draws its content from a New York Times article, is reasonably reliable as well. Additionally, Benen has an extensive biography legitimizing his journalism as cataloged by the Huffington Post.
            In some ways Benen’s message is accurate, it is essentially impossible to deny the protesters’ disgust with the economy, banks and essentially, big business. However, as Ann Coulter points out, the protesters support Obama, who bailed out the banks, yet hate Wall Street, who donated to Obama’s campaign. Despite this, Benen’s claims and evidence is in some ways self-evident. It’s uncontested that unemployment continues to average 9%. Thus, the root of the Oppose Wall Street protests—anger at the failing economy—is accurately highlighted. However, the quote “the economy is not working for most Americans” seems an exaggeration considering the statistics—approximately 91% of Americans are employed. Granted, this does not address whether or not they are underemployed.
Furthermore, Benen quotes the New York Times’ attack on regulators, elected officials and the rich in the name of the protesters. The blog’s source and its focus (the protesters) all smack of liberalism, which by definition favors government intervention to promote equality, including economic equality. However, as previously mentioned, the left-leaning protesters are attacking industries that financially support the Democratic Party, which passed legislature bailing out the same industries. Thus, it sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. Moreover, the protesters are attacking the rich. However, empirical evidence “demonstrates that wealthier and better-educated citizens show a greater commitment to values such as fair play, diversity, and respect for civil liberties,” which contradicts the attacks of the protesters (Losco & Baker, 2011).
Also, Benen highlights the youthfulness of the protesters. Evidence indicates today’s youth lacks political knowledge, which is crucial to political consistency. This seems to be the general concern with the Oppose Wall Street protests, no unified, consistent message. Thus, some protesters appear to be rationalizing their political stances without consistent, supportive information as illustrated about.
Therefore, while there is some merit and supportive evidence for Benen’s blog article, it remains riddled with contradictions. 

No comments:

Post a Comment