Light Rays on Saturdays: Occupy, FOX News and Content Creation

The Occupy movement never seemed very strategic, as discussed here previously.  Correcting economic unfairness is an admirable goal, but how exactly does squatting on public land suggest a solution?  Occupy’s lone success (thus far) was to generate a national discussion in October and early November among virtually every opinion leader and editorialist in the nation. Beyond that, a lot of people were left camping out, waiting for orders that never came. It will be interesting to see if the “movement” can define and push a specific action plan in time for the 2012 elections.

What’s left to say about FOX News? Today’s New York Times adds to the legend, discussing in detail the channel’s behavior around the Iowa caucuses. Here’s what people need to understand: Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have built a network that doesn’t bother compete for viewers like others do. FOX owns its audience’s hearts and minds. It engages them on an emotional, sociological and/or ideological basis. FOX’s brand loyalty comes from being an utterly consistent reaffirmation of “the truth” for millions of people who feel the world is out of control. They don’t see their values reflected elsewhere, so they turn to FOX News for succor. You don't have to like it; just don't ignore it.

There’s no shame in putting “content creation” on your resume. It may drive a particular demographic of reporters nuts, but welcome to the modern news and information buffet that has empowered consumers with unlimited and unfiltered choices. Another example of the dynamic occurred this week when former Digitas CEO Laura Lang was named to run the media holdings at Time, Inc. David Carr, the New York Times media reporter, explained it exceptionally well. Still don’t get it? Read this piece by Dow Jones reporter Damian Ghigliotty.

Media Coverage of Occupy Wall Street: Bigger Stories Obscured

The media has nothing to be ashamed of in its coverage of the Occupy movement.  The question now is whether they will start digging into the complex issues that have been obscured by the headline-grabbing civil disobedience.

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.”