Sunday’s New York Times "Media & Advertising" section featured not one but two different articles about the difficulties of satisfying everyone when it comes to reporting on the ongoing multi-city, mass sit-in for economic fairness.
 |
| Occupy Boston seen from The Fed. |
The first story examined criticism at both ends of the political spectrum – and the protestors themselves – of how journalists have portrayed Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Occupy nodes active in cities throughout the country. “Lacking a list of demands or recognized leaders, the Occupy movement has at times perplexed the nation’s media outlets,” the story concluded.
Nearby in the same section, Times reporter David Carr analyzed what might lie ahead for the movement once its tent-city encampments are dismantled. “In addition to the 5 W’s — who, what, when, where and why — the media are obsessed with a sixth: what’s next? Occupy Wall Street, for all its appeal as a story, is very hard to roll forward,” Carr wrote.
Those stories followed a November 13 column in which Times Public Editor Arthur S. Brisbane surveyed journalism experts for ideas about how to improve the paper’s coverage of “the seemingly formless mass of a movement that pointedly eschews leadership and formal demands.”
Brisbane’s best idea was buried amid a lot of hand-wringing: “In its future coverage, The Times should examine how these issues are changing America, giving rise to movements like Occupy Wall Street and its ideological counterpart, the Tea Party.”
