How the Occupy Movement has Shifted the Media Debate

The sight of Adam Boulton comparing OccupyLSX protesters to Nazi occupiers in France during WW2 on Sky News this week was not just indicative of Boulton, but also demonstrates how progressively desperate and defensive those who wish to defend the status quo have become since the Occupy movement began (see also spying on protesters with thermal imaging equipment, the now debunked reporting of the number of overnight campers). Why are they so worried? Because we’re changing the terms of the debate right under their noses.

Since the financial crisis of 2008 the national, and indeed global discussion has been dominated by phrases such as ‘austerity’, ‘debt’, and ‘bond markets’. This suited those in the financial sector who wished for things to carry on business as usual, and they were helped by friends in parliament, who spent all of their efforts deflecting blame from the banks onto government spending, and in the media, who stifled debate on the issue. The debate had thus been framed in these terms, and despite the fact that austerity during difficult financial periods has never worked throughout history, politicians from all sides campaigned during the general election on how quickly they would get the debt down, how many jobs they would cut, and how many services they would slash. Issues such as jobs, essential services and economic growth were sidelined, and with them went any opportunity to tackle the underlying causes of the financial crisis, which was not public spending but an unregulated, immoral, out of control financial sector which was symptomatic of a deeper, more systemic culture of corporate greed.

That changed on the 15^th October, when the OccupyLSX movement began. Since then the movement and its grievances have been the focus of discussion right across the media, and the debate that should have been had 3 years ago (and probably before) about the state of our economic and democratic system is being played out. The camp has found support in some unexpected quarters; The Daily Telegraph led with the headline ‘it doesn’t take a Marxist to see that the St Paul’s protesters have a point’ and asked, ‘if bankers don’t pay a price for their folly, why should the poor?’, while Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail – normally slightly to the right of Hitler – said ‘most of us would probably agree that the anti-capitalism demonstrators in the City of London have a point. You don’t have to be Wolfie Smith to work out we’ve all been screwed by the banks’. Paul Mason, economics editor of BBC’s Newsnight points out that most of those at the camp are ‘ordinary people’ and ‘for every protester camped in the freezing dawn there may be many more quietly fuming in their living rooms who feel the same way’. A remarkable editorial in the Financial Times, the newspaper of choice for the discerning financier, came out in complete support of the movement, while the Guardian have been wonderfully supportive. The Independent, perhaps surprisingly, have been absolutely nowhere on the issue.  The very fact that they are talking about us and our issues justifies our existence.

The effects of the shift in the debate can be seen in the analysis published by Think Progress regarding the impact of the OccupyWallStreet movement on the media debate within the United States. They examined the use of keywords over three major US television networks in the weeks before, and the weeks after the establishment of the camp.  In the weeks before the camp the word ‘debt’ was used over 7500 times. In the weeks after the camp, the word debt was used just 398 times, with the phrases ‘jobs’, ‘occupy’ and ‘Wall Street’ at the top of the list. Piers Morgan Tonight recently held a one hour special with Oscar winning documentary maker and Occupy champion Michael Moore on the Occupy movement in front of a live studio audience made up of those hit hardest by the crisis. This reframing of the debate within the media has helped to sway public opinion towards the side of the protesters (54% of the US public back the camp), which has led to Democratic politicians (belatedly) championing the cause of the Occupy movement.

Of course, in this country, not all the media have been supportive. Many are attempting to smear or belittle the camp and its aims, hence constant references to the ‘anti-capitalist movement’ designed to isolate us (the camp isn’t anti-capitalist, there are a broad range of views on capitalism within the camp), or news coverage that concentrates on the closure of the church, or on the lack of concrete demands, rather than focusing on the behaviour of the banks, or corporate greed. The same people in the media criticising us now are the same vested interests who helped cement the Thatcherite neo-liberal economic consensus that led to the crash by brow beating an increasingly feeble left. It is little wonder they are feeling threatened, because they can see that world beginning to crumble around them.

Others are confused by the message coming from the camp. This is a more understandable criticism. The system of decision making the camp uses – consensus decision making – can be cumbersome and certainly doesn’t lend itself to the demands of a media obsessed with news cycles and sound bites. But this system is designed to be this way. People at the camp feel the current model has let them and others down, and refuse to run the camp on the terms of others. The camp is a place for discussion, ideas and will eventually, as with the announcement of demands to reform the City of London Corporation, lead to some concrete demands.

The criticism is irrelevant anyway, as the role of the camp isn’t to come up with a concrete set of demands that we wish to be enacted. The mere fact that the camp exists is enough to keep the debate going. In the US public support is behind the Occupy movement, and politicians are engaging with it. In the UK, a Guardian poll showed 82% support, whilst a poll taken after a BBC Radio 4 debate in Devon showed support for the camp. Even a poll in the Daily Telegraph shows 42% support for us. You don’t have to agree with every decision the camp takes in order to support it, you just need to have the desire to see the debate take place. The existence of the camp has created space for this debate to take place, and the continued publicity will help to fuel it.

By David Robinson