Between 80 and 100 members of the so-called “99 percent” were arrested for impeding traffic; some were charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. According to protest spokesman Patrick Bruner, the police response was “exceedingly violent.”
“I was shocked because it seemed like one person after another was being brutally tackled, and it wasn’t clear why,” rally attendee Meaghan Linick told the New York Daily News. “I was deeply disturbed to see them throw a man [down] and immediately they were pounding on him. Their arms were going back in the air. I couldn’t believe how violent five people needed to be against one unarmed man.”
Perhaps the most egregious incident involving excessive force came after NYPD officers began kettling protesters with orange police nets. In a video posted to YouTube, a uniformed officer can clearly be seen approaching a corralled group of women and macing them without warning or provocation, before quickly leaving the scene (see below).
In a statement to CBS New York, the NYPD said every arrest made was “justified.” The official Occupy Wall Street website is demanding jail time for the police officer responsible for pepper spraying the barricaded women.
Ironically, by attempting to curb the protesters’ continued Wall Street presence, the police may have unwittingly supplied the “diffuse and leaderless convocation of activists against greed, corporate influence, gross social inequality and other nasty byproducts of wayward capitalism” with the “infusion of energy” they had long hoped for.
So even as the members of Occupy Wall Street seem unorganized and, at times, uninformed, their continued presence creates a vexing problem for the Police Department.
New York Times writer Joseph Goldstein • In an article about the NYPD’s seemingly poor handling of Occupy Wall Street. The article as a whole makes intelligent and understandable points (and goes in-depth about the use of pepper spray on Saturday), but this particular line really bothered us. This comes off as The New York Times ripping the dirty hippies for being dirty hippies, which is just an approach they should not take here. It’s condescending and shows a lack of respect for the protesters. What if they just dropped a line like that into an article about the Tea Party? It’d get savaged by the blogs! Instead of just interviewing your sources at the NYPD, Mr. Goldstein, why don’t you interview the protesters (who, we don’t know if you’ve noticed, have been clamoring for media attention), instead of discretely calling them idiots? You did it before, with this article. This piece feels like you’re writing an article about one side of the story. source(via • follow)
NYTs #Editorial #Bias demonstrated…remember the run up to the Iraq War & Judy Miller, etc.
An analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism indicates that the movement occupied 10 percent of its sample of national news coverage in the week beginning Oct. 9, then steadily represented about 5 percent through early November.
Coverage dipped markedly, to just 1 percent of the national news hole, in the week beginning Nov. 6, supporting Ms. Shepard’s assertion that it had “died down” before the early morning eviction in New York last Tuesday. It has since rebounded strongly.
But really, the key line of the story is this one:“Newspapers and television networks have been rebuked by media critics for treating the movement as if it were a political campaign or a sideshow — by many liberals for treating the protesters dismissively, and by conservatives, conversely, for taking the protesters too seriously. The protesters themselves have also criticized the media — first for ostensibly ignoring the movement and then for marginalizing it.” The lesson from this? You can’t please everyone, but you can annoy everyone all at once.