Occupy the P.U.-litzers! | Media Obfuscate Occupy
- December 30, 2011 by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)
Occupy the P.U.-litzers!
This year has given us simply too many worthy contenders for FAIR's annual P.U.-litzers--recognizing the stinkiest journalism of the year. A big part of the problem was that so many outlets were striving to distinguish themselves with especially awful coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement. So to note those lowlights, we bring you a special installment of P.U.-litzers: The OWS edition.
--Early Warning System Award: CNN's Wolf Blitzer
On September 19: "Protests here in New York on Wall Street entering a third day. Should New Yorkers be worried at all about what's going on?"
--We Could Do It Better Award: New York Times' Ginia Bellafante
Under the headline "Gunning for Wall Street, With Faulty Aim" (9/23/11), Bellafante turned in the quintessential corporate media dismissal of progressive protests. The reporter discovered "a default ambassador in a half-naked woman...with a marked likeness to Joni Mitchell and a seemingly even stronger wish to burrow through the space-time continuum and hunker down in 1968."
The movement's cause "was virtually impossible to decipher," Bellafante complained, slamming [it] for "lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgeably." And who has more knowledge about grassroots progressive activism than the New York Times.
--What's News Award: NPR's Dick Meyer; Washington Post
Asked to explain NPR's non-coverage of OWS, executive editor Meyer said (NPR.org, 9/26/11): "The recent protests on Wall Street did not involve large numbers of people, prominent people, a great disruption or an especially clear objective."
And the massive demonstrations around the world October 15th made it onto the front page of the next day's Washington Post--in the form of a lower right-hand corner blurb approximately one column inch long, directing people to page A20 to find news about protests in "more than 900 cities in Europe, Africa and Asia."
--Channeling Glenn Beck Award: Reuters
Under the headline (10/13/11) "Who's Behind the Wall Street Protests," the news agency provided an answer straight from one of Glenn Beck's conspiratorial chalk boards:
One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros, who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans. Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a secret Soros agenda.
Who exactly is bringing up Soros' name? Reuters names one slightly less than credible source: right-wing talker Rush Limbaugh. But Reuters did its own digging, going on to suggest "indirect financial links" between Soros and the group Adbusters, which issued the original call for the Occupy protest. The links were mostly figments of the right-wing imagination, as even some Reuters reporters pointed out. Reuters eventually changed the headline to "Soros: Not a Funder of Wall Street Protests."
--The Suites to the Streets Award: New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin
The Times star business writer (10/4/11) did little to dispel critics who say he's too close to his Wall Street sources by admitting that he checked out the protests--after a banker told him to:
I had gone down to Zuccotti Park to see the activist movement firsthand after getting a call from the chief executive of a major bank last week, before nearly 700 people were arrested over the weekend during a demonstration on the Brooklyn Bridge.
"Is this Occupy Wall Street thing a big deal?" the CEO asked me. I didn't have an answer. "We're trying to figure out how much we should be worried about all of this," he continued, clearly concerned. "Is this going to turn into a personal safety problem?"
As I wandered around the park, it was clear to me that most bankers probably don't have to worry about being in imminent personal danger. This didn’t seem like a brutal group--at least not yet.
--Those Facts Are Biased Award: WNYC's Takeaway
Web producer Caitlin Curran was photographed at an OWS protest holding a sign that said this:
It's wrong to create a mortgage-backed security filled with loans you know are going to fail so that you can sell it to a client who isn't aware that you sabotaged it by intentionally picking the misleadingly rated loans most likely to be defaulted upon.