So anyway, like I was saying; when the story becomes about the protestors -not the protest- it's time to change tactics. Stop camping in parks: you look silly.
Oh good. "Ian Smith" is testing out the boundaries of its rhetorical game! Get ready, y'all! A fucking LOL-ster thinks it's being clever! A twelve-year-old is arguing policy! A...ah, fill in the fucking blanks.
Like how all the conservaTARDS are just jumping all over this. I've never seen anyone make such a fuss over acouple of arrests for minor drug offenses. AS IF drug crimes or drug arrests didn't take place EVERYWHERE in the city. AS IF noone has ever been arrested in a public park for an alleged drug offense.
@#1: It's the media's failing when they avoid substantive coverage of the reasons people are doing this across the country. There's nothing inherent in an occupation-based protest that makes people look silly; it's the way it's covered. There has been some interesting reporting of all this, but there's been a lot treating it as a sideshow. Of course that angle is there, but it's all too easy and is not the most important or ultimately interesting.
geyser: sure, I agree that the media -as usual- is doing this story badly. To view yourself as needing to reach the largest possible audience means always striving for the lowest common denominator. But (a lot of) the protestors still do themselves no favors, and I still say that the story needs to not be about the camp, but about these things we're finally getting around to talking about that we've deferred talking about for so long.
The conversation has begun, so don't wait for the occupation to get stale. Take it where it really needs to go.
But does anyone with a sliver of rationality think is going to end well?
Makes me think the media is doing just fine.
The conversation has begun, so don't wait for the occupation to get stale. Take it where it really needs to go.