You are on page 1of 231

Department of Informatics and Media

Social Science major in Media and Communication Studies

Fall 2012 Master Two Years Thesis

Occupy Wall Street in alternative and mainstream media

A comparative analysis of the social movements framing in the media

Andra Stefania Negus
Fall 2012

Supervisor: Christian Christensen


The Occupy Wall Street movement is one of the strongest and most visible reactions to the
economic crisis that began in 2007. As a result, it has consistently generated media attention
since its birth on September 17, 2011, despite the fact that it was repeatedly criticized for lacking
a clear agenda.
This thesis provides an analysis of the different ways the Occupy Wall Street was presented by ( the movements own media source), and The New York Times, The Wall
Street Journal and USA Today from July 2011 up to the end of June 2012. This was done by
using Entman theory of media framing together with Castells network theory of power. The
former provided a way of addressing the different types of frames that mainstream media utilize,
while the latter offered an understanding of how power is built through the media processes.
Additionally, Castells theory described another type of media frame which is mostly used by
alternative media, the counter frame, which could successfully be applied to study the content
that the social movement decided to provide about itself.
The study first employs a quantitative approach by using Crawdad, a centering resonance
analysis (CRA) software. This provides a reliable pool of data that was then analyzed by using
the above theories. Additionally, in order to check the reliability of the qualitative conclusions, a
statistical test was done for the overall top centers resulting from the CRA.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. What is Occupy Wall Street? ................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Timeline of the OWS Movement ..................................................................................... 4
2.2 The sources: ....................................................................................... 5
2.3 The sources: The New York Times.................................................................................. 5
2.4 The sources: The Wall Street Journal .............................................................................. 6
2.5 The sources: USA Today ................................................................................................. 6
3. Literature review ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Connective vs. collective action ....................................................................................... 8
3.2 Social media: can it generate long term support? ............................................................ 9
3.3 A cross-media analysis .......................................................................................................... 9
3.3 A social movements changing media exposure ............................................................ 11
3.5 Social movement websites: what are they used for? ........................................................... 12
3.6 Alternative media: definition, structure and content sourcing ............................................ 12
4. Theoretical background ......................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Network Society ............................................................................................................. 17
4.1.1 Power and Counter-Power in the Network Society ...................................................... 18
4.1.2 Counter-power and Social Movements ........................................................................ 22
4.2 Media Frames ................................................................................................................. 27
4.2.1 The media and the public: how the connection is built ................................................ 27
4.2.2 How to create and recognize a frame ........................................................................... 29
4.2.3 Types of media frames ................................................................................................. 32
4.2.4 Counter-frames ............................................................................................................. 33
5. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 34
5.1. Source Material .................................................................................................................. 35
5.2 Extracting and Processing the Source Data......................................................................... 37
5.2.1 Extracting and processing the primary corpus ............................................................. 37
5.2.2. Extracting and processing the secondary corpus ......................................................... 38

5.2.3 Creating datasets for analysis ....................................................................................... 39
5.3 Centering Theory and Centering Resonance Analysis ................................................... 39
5.3.1 Centering Theory .......................................................................................................... 40
5.3.2 Centering Resonance Analysis ..................................................................................... 46
6. Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 53
6.1 Brief description of the overall newspaper content on Occupy Wall Street ....................... 53
6.2 Monthly evolution ............................................................................................................... 54
6.3 Overall top centers: how do they compare? ................................................................... 83
7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 89
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................. 100
Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................. 104


1. Introduction

The topic that I will be looking into is the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) social movement and the
messages that it used in order to achieve a broad social appeal and support. The movement that
began on September 17, 2011 and is ongoing at the time I am writing this paper, came as a
response to the economic and political factors behind the economic crisis that started in the late
The choice of topic came as a result of a combination of reasons. On one hand, the idea of the
many but socially, politically and economically weak joining forces to fight for what they
believe in and actually looking like they might make a dent is certainly appealing. On the other
hand, the academic interest came from the desire to understand the way that the OWS movement
managed to be long lived and to spread across nations, and from the interest in seeing the way in
which social movements function and how they can be better explained and understood.
The attitude towards new media platforms is ambivalent. Some believe they generate no real life
/ offline reactions, while others are sure that they will and they are currently changing in a
profound manner the way people interact and assemble. First of all, online interactions may or
may not lead to action, but what is certain is that the new media platforms are unique means of
communication. Some of their users may not be satisfied with simply posting or commenting and
do feel the need to further their actions, but not all of them act in such a way. Second, the
message of OWS seems to be reappearing in different geographical settings and despite changing
location it still manages to gain support. Therefore, I would like to see exactly how that message
is built and why it is so popular.
After considering and reconsidering the topic of this paper, I returned to my initial choice:
looking at the Occupy Wall Street social movement and comparing the way they portray
themselves with the way they are portrayed by mainstream media. At first, having seen a few
random OWS articles from The New York Times it seemed that the picture they were drawing
was simplistic and stereotypical. Those involved in the movement were often described as
disorganized, not knowing exactly what they were fighting for and even completely unaware of

the situation. At other times, participants were simply presented as strange: protesters chant, a
flag was burned as a tantrum, someone discovered an apparently abandoned infant (Emery
2012). However, upon further review the story looked much more diverse and nuanced and
definitely worth the effort of looking into.
A comment that often comes up when talking about this non-violent social movement is that it
functions without a clear agenda, and that the various voices from within produce messages that
are quite distinct from one another. Therefore, an attribute that is generally accepted when it
comes to political campaigns (where very few would question the politicians need to have a
message that gathers as much support as possible, thus one that is generally broader and less
clearly defined) is considered a flaw when it comes to social movements. A possible reason
might be that while political campaigns are a part of a normal and regulated reality, social
movements are considered disruptive forces and as such they need to work harder and are
measured up against tougher standards in order to gain legitimacy.
The main research question I will look at is How does Occupy Wall Street portray itself versus
the way that mainstream newspapers portray it and what is the impact of the difference between
these images? More particularly, I am interested in answering the following:

1. What are Occupy Wall Streets main messages as they appeared on How
did the messages evolve across time (if they did)?
2. How does use these messages (what is the outcome of the way they use
"new" media). A more general question would be "what did they do to attract attention and
gain support?"
3. What are the main messages generated by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and
USA Today regarding Occupy Wall Street? How did their messages evolve across time (if
they did)?
4. Is there a difference between the two main types of sources (the movement vs. mainstream
media)? If this is the case, what are the main discrepancies and similarities, can they be
linked to the type they appeared in, and if so, how?

I will focus on the content generated by and about the movement by the above newspapers and from July 2011 to June 30, 2012.

2. What is Occupy Wall Street?

The Occupy Wall Street movement states on its unofficial de facto online resource
( 2012) that its purpose is fighting back against the corrosive power of major
banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in
creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations (ibid).
Occupy Wall Street began with an Adbusters e-mail sent in June 2011 stating that America
needs its own Tahrir (Schwartz 2011). Adbusters is a Canadian media foundation aimed at
toppling existing power structures and forging a major shift in the way we live in the 21

century (Adbusters Website, 2012). The e-mail quickly spread and, as enthusiasm grew,
Adbusters created the #OccupyWallStreet Twitter hash tag and specifically urged its subscribers
to flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall
Street (Adbusters blog 2011) on September 17, 2011.
Some even point to an even earlier moment, as on February 2, 2011 the magazine published a
blog article titled A Million Man March on Wall Street (Matsu 2011). This made references to
Egypts Tahrir Square protests that contributed to ending Hosni Mubaraks 30 year reign. It also
asked whether a similar popular reaction could happen in the United States of America and made
an argument as to why such a thing might happen:
Over 25 million folks are now unemployed, 2.8 million homes are in
foreclosure while the investment bankers who brought this economic
misery cynically reap obscene bonuses and rewards. Blatant corruption
rules at the heart of American democracy. (Matsu 2011)
The article ends on an activist note: If we want to spark a popular uprising in the West like a
million man march on Wall Street then let's get organized, let's strategize, let's think things
through (Matsu 2011).

2.1 Timeline of the OWS Movement
After the Adbusters articles and the e-mails that circulated among its subscribers, on August 30,
2011 the hacktivist group Anonymous posted a YouTube video stating their support of the OWS
cause (Mother Jones news team 2011). On September 17, 2011 approximately one thousand
people started the protest by the Wall Street Charging Bull statue in New York while others
camped in Zuccotti Park (Weigel and Hepler 2011). On September 20 the first arrests were made
as five protesters are taken into custody for violating a 150 year old law banning masks at
public gatherings; four days later eighty more were arrested during a peaceful protest (Mother
Jones news team 2011). By the end of the month, the movement had supported the postal
workers strike against the five day work week as well as gained the support of the Transport
Union works (ibid). On top of that, the New York State United Teachers union, the American
Federation for State, County, and Municipal Workers, the Service Employees International
Union's 1199 Chapter along with the Transport Workers Union Local 100 had all declared their
support of the Occupy Wall Street cause (ibid).
On October 1, the OWS protesters marched across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York blocking
traffic and leading to over seven hundred arrests (Mother Jones news team 2011). The next major
event for the movement happened on November 15

when occupiers were evicted from Zuccotti
Park, an action that led to seventy arrests (Weigel and Hepler 2011). A few days later, on
November 18,

a student protest was held at the University of California, Davis, and a campus
police lieutenant pepper sprayed the students who were sitting on the campus grounds. The
filmed incident quickly spread over the Internet and led to the temporary suspension of some
members of the campus police.
The following months consist of nonviolent demonstrations that spread across the country and
are occasionally interrupted by the police. On March 17, 2012, in an attempt to mark the six
month anniversary of OWS, protesters returned to Zuccotti Park. Over seventy arrests were
made, as some tried to once again camp in the park (Francescani 2012). A month and a half later,
on May 1, 2012, International Labor Day not celebrated in the US, OWS organized marches
across the country most of which were peaceful (Abrahamian and Berg 2012). The majority of

the events after this date and up to June 30, 2012, were of a much smaller scale than the May 1

2.2 The sources:
As stated above, the website is the unofficial de facto online resource or the
growing occupation movement happening on Wall Street and around the world (OccupyWallSt
Website About 2012). It is equally used to spread OWS messages, to organize occupations and
to gain physical and financial support. This is the top ranked website regarding the OWS
movement ( 2012). Also, has over 131 thousand likes on
Facebook, has been tweeted almost 36 thousand times ( 2012) and Adbusters
refers to it as the news website for OWS ( 2012). Relatively to the general users of
the Internet, in its audience the 18-24 age group is over-represented, as well as those without
children and the website is browsed mostly from at home or at school ( 2012). The
25-44 and 55-64 age groups are similar to the general population of the Internet, while the 35-55
age group is under represented (ibid). Those with some college education or who have graduated
from college are over represented while those with no college education as well as those who
went to graduate school are underrepresented (ibid).

2.3 The sources: The New York Times
According to its media kit, The New York Times promises to offer an insightful view of the
world through thorough and uncompromising coverage in the world(2012). The newspaper
has a total average paid circulation of 1.586.757 for the Monday through Friday editions, making
it the third largest in the country (Audit Bureau of Circulation 2012), and is owned by the New
York Times Company. Its audience is of 4.601.000, made up of men and women in equal
proportions (ibid). The median age of its readers is 51 and the median household income is
99.669 $ (ibid). Most of them are college educated (60%), while 42% are professionals or
managers and 13% are top management.

2.4 The sources: The Wall Street Journal
In its public relations material, The Wall Street Journal states that it offers readers, described as
the world's most powerful business leaders, active investors and affluent luxury consumers, the
most crucial news of the day, insightful opinion and fair-minded analysis (Wall Street Journal
Media Kit 2012). The WSJ is published by Dow Jones& Company (Wall Street Journal Media
Kit Fact Sheet 2012). It has an audience of 2.881.000 (ibid) and a total average paid circulation
of 2.118.315 for the Monday through Friday editions, meaning that it is the countrys largest
newspaper (Audit Bureau of Circulation 2012). Of its subscribers, 82% are men and 18%
women, with an overall average age of 57 and an average household income of 257.100$ (Wall
Street Journal Media Kit Audience Profile 2012). They are more likely to be top management
(57%) as well as have a college degree or above (88%) (ibid).

2.5 The sources: USA Today
In the content provided by its media kit, USA Today is described as supplying a range of
information in a concise, easy-to-read format to its 3.100.000 readers (2012) who consider it
approachable and friendly but also smart and informed (ibid). Of these, 65% are men and
35% women with a median age of 50 and a median household income of 89.731$ (ibid). Only
44% of them are college educated, while 33% are in managerial positions (ibid). The newspaper
is owned by the Gannett Company (ibid) and has a total average paid circulation is of 1.817.446
for the Monday through Friday editions, making it the countrys second largest newspaper (Audit
Bureau of Circulation 2012).


3. Literature review

As the Occupy Wall Street movement is a relatively new topic, it has generally been discussed
either from an essayistic perspective or, occasionally, from a descriptive new media perspective.
Some papers simply present possible ways of approaching the subject, while others seem to be
personal accounts of participants who also have an academic career. Media scholars beginning as
early as the 1970s have produced a body of research which shows that US mainstream media are
more likely to marginalize movements for social change and to reinforce the status quo rather
than question it (Rauch et al. 2007, 132). Mainstream media is clearly an important resource for
broadcasting the social movements messages. However, because of their reluctance to do so in a
way that casts a positive or at least objective light upon them, social movements need to use
alternative media in order to promote their cause and the Internet can become their main ally
(Stein 2009, 750).
The fact that news are constantly framed in the same way is partly because journalists use
existing templates to guide the assembly of facts, quotations and other elements in a story
(Rauch et al. 2007, 133) and partly because they must use sources that are established within
their respective fields, thus always reaching for the primarily official and elite ones (ibid).
When it comes to the media representation of social movements, the partiality of the news
towards the status quo is somewhat caused by the fact that journalists need to maintain the
contact with officials, including the police, thus also needing to support them (ibid). Whereas
journalists occasionally use a debate or balanced frame for reporting social movements, and thus
allow the movement to gain legitimacy, they most often use riot, confrontation or circus
frames (138) and achieve the exact opposite.
In the following pages, I will do a review of previous research on social movements focusing on
the way they are presented in mainstream and alternative media as well as on the manner in
which they use online tools in order to gain notoriety and support. This will be done so as to see
whether the two types of media, alternative and mainstream, use their resources differently when
it comes to presenting such movements.

3.1 Connective vs. collective action
Bennett and Segerberg (2012) analyze social movements, including the OWS, from the
perspective of connective action. This is defined as action based on personalized content
sharing across media networks (739) as opposed to collective action which is based on high
levels of organizational resources and the formation of collective identities (ibid). Collective
action requires participants to invest vast amounts of resources in their support of a cause. They
need to socialize more, educate themselves better, and require more formal types of organization.
Even though new media can reduce some of the necessary costs they do not fundamentally
change the action dynamics (748).
In order for connective action to be efficient, it makes use of two approaches. First, social
movements based on such action formulate political statements in ways that are easy to adapt
and personalize (for OWS the role was played by the we are the 99% message and website).
Second, they use personal communication technologies that enable sharing these themes and
[] further personalization (Bennett and Segerberg 2012, 743). However, organizations with
strong elements of connective action may still have attributes that are similar to those of
conventional organizations, thus becoming communities based on a hybrid of connective and
collective action. Some forms of loose organizational coordination of action (756) appear
because they are necessary, as is the case of OWS General Assemblies or the various resource
centers such as the OWS library, medical assistance centers and others. Nevertheless, these
clearly defined structures are adjacent and not central to the groups existence or persistence:
Occupy was defined by its self-organizing roots (757). Another element that made it apparent
that the OWS was centered on connective action is that even after gaining publicity thanks to the
we are the 99% message it steered clear of choosing official leaders or spokespeople (754).
This hybrid type of community can gain support particularly because there are no stronger
demands for membership or subscribing to collective demands (757). Consequently, even
though the group may be larger thanks to its lack of strict rules and codes for participation, the
bonds within it may also be much weaker.

3.2 Social media: can it generate long term support?
While Bennett and Segerberg (2012) analyze the OWS movement from the perspective of
connective and collective action, Juris (2012) looks at Occupy Bostons use of social media and
how this influenced the manner in which it was organized. His main assumption is that new
media are an important organizational tool for movements but that places, bodies, face-to-face
networks, social histories, and the messiness of offline politics continue to matter (260).
The OWS movement built on the media tools used by previous social movements and
complemented, rather than replaced them, with social media (Juris 2012, 260). OWS has a
website (, a blog (, a printed
newspaper (The Occupied Wall Street Journal), but it is also a heavy user of Facebook and
Twitter. The last two elements are mainly used for spreading information and coordinating
action, but they are most effective at generating protests [] which disaggregate as easily as
they aggregate (267). The range of online communication tools that are easily available and
come at a rather low financial cost is so wide that it can turn into a hindrance. The large amount
of OWS Twitter feeds, forums, websites, wikis and blogs become a drawback of organizing in a
social media age that mirrors the proliferation and fragmentation of #Occupy Bostons physical
gatherings (271). Additionally, OWS avoids putting forward a concrete set of demands despite
disparate in-group initiatives to create them (272). However, unofficial representatives of the
movement state on that they will not come up with a specific set of political
or economic demands. Doing so would mean that they believe in and trust the system that has led
to the negative situation their country is in, since they would be accepting its formal rules and
processes (Graeber 2012). Overall, the article offers an account of the Occupy Boston
movement, some interesting theoretical points but never goes beyond simply describing what

3.3 A cross-media analysis
After looking at the way the OWS was built on a combination of connective and collective action
(Bennett and Segerberg 2012), and at how their intensive and seemingly unfocused use of social
media can become a problem (Juris 2012), lets shift the focus to the way another social cause

was presented across different types of media. Thus, Edgerly, Toft and Veden (2011) analyze the
way that the May 1, 2006 day without an immigrant marches for the rights of USA immigrants
were presented in three media sources. These were selected so as to be representative of Parkins
(1971 in Edgerly, Toft and Veden 2011, 5) types of situated reading: dominant, which upholds
the status quo interpretation; oppositional, which superimposes on the message an interpretation
that works in direct opposition; and negotiated, which decodes the broadest possible meaning of
a message to find a middle ground (317). The researchers looked at 297 front pages of
newspapers which had a negotiated reading position, Lou Dobbs Tonight TV show on Fox
Business Network with an oppositional reading, and Democracy Now! with a dominant reading
position (322-25). Their discourse analysis was based upon a framework of three distinct topics:
economy, policy/rights, and law/order (314).
Activists must balance providing the media with content they are likely to broadcast and
transmitting what the movement is actually interested in showing, such as its agenda. Too much
accent on the first aspect and they risk being described as illegitimate and hostile fools (Edgerly,
Toft and Veden 2011, 315), too little and they risk not being seen at all. The paper evaluated the
media success of the day without an immigrant by using the description of media success for a
social movements representation in the media: 1. get on the media agenda; 2. manage the
coverage so as to avoid a negative portrayal; 3. increase internal movement identification []
and commitment (316). The movement managed its media coverage somewhat successfully as
it was quite visible in many sources and was not portrayed as violent or deviant. However, it
could not generate comprehensive coverage of [its] legislative goals in the mainstream press
(329) or escape the trope of illegality that has driven coverage of immigration for decades
(ibid). Additionally, as the movements organizers decided to communicate two distinct
legislative agendas (both immigration reform and opposing bill H.R. 4437 that would have
turned immigration into a felony) they made it easier for the newspapers to present disparate
accounts of their political goals. Lou Dobbs account of the movement built upon his audiences
beliefs and selected information about the march so as to support a negative reading of the event
while Democracy Now! produced an interpretation of the march that coincided with the
intended purpose of the events organizers.

3.3 A social movements changing media exposure
While the first three studies had a more limited time frame for their analyses, the Rauch et al.
(2007) research focuses on the media image of the movement for democratic globalization from
the 1999 protests during the WTO meeting in Seattle up to the 2004 protests at the Republican
National Convention in New York (133). Its main research questions were the following:1. Did
journalists use of official and nonofficial sources in protest coverage change in the five years
after the new social movements emergence? 2. Did journalists use of terms that legitimize or
delegitimize the new social movement change in its first five years? 3: Did the new social
movements visibility in the mainstream press change between 1999 and 2004? (134). A total of
503 articles from The New York Times were used as their only media source (ibid). The
framework for their analysis was divided into two categories: legitimizing (external support,
influence, and stating their goals) and de-legitimizing language (activists appearance, behavior
and attitude) (135-6). The main findings of the research are summarized within two categories:
improving activist access and legitimizing the goals of the movement (137-9). The research
observed an overall shift of 8% from official to non-official sources during the five years, with
articles focusing on official, established sources especially at the beginning of the social
movement (137). The non-official voices that gained the most media space came from
individual protesters, sympathetic celebrity figures and members of marginal activist groups
(137). On top of that, during the five years both the average number of legitimizing and de-
legitimizing terms increased, however, the first category had a more pronounced change for the
better ( 353% to 23.3 legitimating terms per story versus 141% to 14.5 per story for the de-
legitimating ones) (138).
Another positive conclusion is that the demonstrations put the democratic globalization
movement on journalists agendas (Rauch et al. 2007, 139) as only one article on the topic
existed in the newspaper in the entire year prior to the 1999 protests but 209 appeared afterwards
(1999-2004). Also, while the number of the stories clearly decreased six months after the WTO
protest with 72 % over the 5 year, the prominence of the articles only decreased by 5% during
the same period (139). Overall, the portrayal of the movement remained rather stable with some
of its initial elements staying the same despite the long timeframe (for example the reference to
the 1999 Seattle protest) (141).

3.5 Social movement websites: what are they used for?
The previous studies have described social movements from a rather empirical perspective. Stein
(2009), on the other hand, not only looked at how they use the Internet but also created a
typology of the functions that new media support (752). These were to: provide information;
assist action and mobilization; promote interaction and dialog; make lateral linkages; serve as an
outlet for creative expression; and promote fundraising and resource generation (752-3). The
sample of established national social movement organizations (SMO) was split into six
different types of causes: environmental; lesbian/gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT); anti-
corporate globalization; human rights; media reform; and womens movement (756), and a
survey was used in order to assess how and which of the functions their usage of the Internet
The social movements that were the subject of the study are only moderately or occasionally
highly active when it comes to using the web for providing information but have a low or even
no web activity for coordinating action and mobilization; engaging in fundraising and resource
generation; and making lateral linkages (Stein 2009, 763-4). It is likely that this limited activity
is caused by the fact that the members who have access to the web resources of the organization
have different interests and fail to coordinate properly (764). Another possibility is that they trust
traditional means of communication more (face-to-face communication, posting flyers, etc)
(ibid). On top of this, as the SMOs are already established, they may simply choose to add the
Internet as another resource within their communication tools instead of using it to its full
potential (ibid).

3.6 Alternative media: definition, structure and content sourcing
Moving on from the typology of functions supported by new media, the next studies analyze the
differences and similarities of the journalistic work ethic on both sides of the barricade
(mainstream and alternative) as well as show how the two influence each other. As such,
researchers have noted that alternative media need to adopt and adapt mainstream media
practices in order to survive and advance their political aims (Sandoval and Fuchs 2009, 146).

However, they can make use of capitalist structures and at the same time criticize these
structures (146). The similarities in processes and function of mainstream and alternative media
are necessary if alternative media are to gain support beyond their restricted, already persuaded
readership. Most of them come in the form of commercial financing or professional
organization (148). Whereas some resemblances need to exist, alternative media need to have
on the structural level, critical media content and/or complex form [and] on the actor level
media producers produce critical content (146). Critical content is the central defining element
of alternative media as it gives voice to suppressed possibilities of existence, antagonisms of
reality, potentials for change, questions domination, [and] expresses the standpoints of oppressed
and dominated groups and individuals and argues for the advancement of a co-operative society
Atton and Wickenden (2005) analyzed the types of actors presented as sources by the activist
newspaper SchNEWS, the frequency of their appearance and the amount of space dedicated to
them (352) over a one year period. The research questions they sought to answer were how the
newspaper sourced its content and how this process differed from that of mainstream media
(351). The studys theoretical background is based on a critique of the theory of primary
definition (Hall et al. 1978). This argues that the media rely on elite sources because the elites
have better access to information that is viewed as important, and the media are under constant
financial and time pressure (Atton and Wickenden 2005, 352). However, this does not account
for the different levels of media access that various members of the elite have or for the way that
voices that were once disregarded can become primary sources.
Alternative medias sourcing routines are described with the concept of native reporting (Atton
and Wickenden 2005, 349) which relies on participants, eyewitnesses and activists. These can
offer a comprehensive description and analysis of struggles within a community from a
perspective that is relevant to it because the reporters are a part of the community (ibid). Despite
the fact that these insider voices may be anyone, with or without formal training, they do tend to
be highly educated and are usually already involved in the life of their communities (ibid). Also,
through the content it makes available to its readers, it becomes apparent that the counter-
agenda of the radical community newspaper is often in direct opposition to local, commercial
newspapers (350) and that it seeks to balance these out. Also, the lack of professionalization

in alternative news media does not prevent them being subject to pressures similar to those in
mainstream media, as low pay, or none at all, deadlines and unexpected changes occur just as
well in alternative media contexts (351). Thus, it is better not to ignore these limitations and
idealize alternative media as some sort of <<free spaces>>, mysteriously liberated from the
everyday, structural considerations of the practice (ibid).
SchNEWS seeks to counterbalance and critique the established voices in mainstream media.
Thus, in an inversion of Hall et al.s theory of primary definition, [it] gives ordinary people
privileged media access (Atton and Wickenden 2005, 357). However, the ordinary voices they
favor are protesters and activists, a counter-elite that dominates an alternative hierarchy of
sources (ibid). Also, as they focus on this particular groups views and opinions, and thus, limit
the opportunities for the other voices to be heard (ibid), they are acting in a way that is very
similar to that of the mainstream media. SchNEWS is preserving the dominant model of
sourcing in its assumptions about power, legitimacy and authoritativeness (ibid). Additionally,
SchNEWS sourcing of news is extremely dependent upon shared interests, ideologies and
notions of expert knowledge (358) to an extent that may be even greater than that of mainstream
media. This means that the paper is far from the idealized <<free space>> theorization of
alternative media and is instead prompted primarily by political ideology and the philosophy
of direct-action protest (ibid).
In one of Attons (2002) previous studies, he compared the coverage of the July 2001 G8 summit
produced by SchNEWS and The Guardian, which he describes as part of the liberal press. He
noted that while the more mainstream newspaper occasionally offered activists the chance to
speak, the activist paper did not do the same (499). Atton attributes this inclusion of non-
mainstream voices to The Guardians personal history of having activists as its columnists. Also,
while other researchers have observed that social movements are often portrayed in mainstream
sources in a way that is less accurate but more entertaining for the readers (Stein 2009, Rauch et
al. 2007; Edgerly, Toft and Veden 2011), this analysis shows that the alternative source itself had
a subversive use of a tabloid writing style (Atton 2002, 503) with headlines that ranged from
insensitive to crude and were dominated by accounts of violence (498). Not only this, but
SchNEWS journalists were the central voice within the newspaper, though they remained
anonymous (503). Furthermore, instead of a departure from the journalistic style that denies one

side, usually the protesters, thus lowering its credibility, SchNEWS used the same style against
the authorities. Thus, this was done both to describe the development of the protests and the way
that the authorities were handling them: protesters were presented as victims, while the police
used extreme force (498). Haas (2006) reached a similar conclusion regarding weblogs. As
such, weblogs are not a radical departure from more established media of communication as
they reproduce rather than challenge existing media formulae and larger blogs work as agenda
setters for the smaller ones (387). They also usually focus on the same topics as mainstream
media as well as use it as one of their primary source of information (394). As alternative media
is sometimes approached as being completely different from mainstream media, Harcup (2005)
tries to avoid presenting them using the David versus Goliath framework (371). His
comparative analysis of the two types of media showed that they influence and limit each other.
As one of the respondents of Harcups survey said, mainstream media tends to be <<less
sensationalist and/or dogmatic when it knows it could itself become the news>>, in alternative
media (ibid).
Overall, the literature review has provided a comprehensive description of the way in which
social movement are analyzed in the field of communication. While some studies tried to create a
typology of how new media either was employed or influenced the strength of the group
connections (Bennett and Segerberg 2012, Juris 2012, Stein 2009), others focused on comparing
the portrayal of social movements in alternative and mainstream media (Rauch et al. 2007,
Edgerly, Toft and Veden 2011; Atton 2002, 2005; Harcup 2005).


4. Theoretical background

After looking at the various studies of the media portrayal of social movements, it became
necessary to find a theory that could help explain the differences and similarities in the content
produced by established or alternative media. This needed to address them in the context of the
social changes and struggles for power in a globalized society. As such, Castells network theory
of power (2009, 2011) combined with a theory of media framing were considered relevant for
the study and will be presented in the following chapter.
The sustained effort to produce social change and the negation of institutions that once created
strong social ties are both related to globalization [and] have resulted in the growing separation
of individuals in late modern societies from traditional bases of social solidarity such as parties,
churches, and other mass organizations (Bennett and Segerberg 2011, 770). Fewer young adults
in the Western world state that they believe in God and an even smaller proportion of them goes
to church for events other than marriage ceremonies, baptisms or funerals. People switch
between religions, often remarry, choose not to have their children baptized. Army service
remains mandatory in fewer countries than before. While in difficult times people might go back
to doing things in the traditional way, this generally comes as a temporary decision in the search
for momentary stability. On the other hand, while they are moving away from the causes that
used to be predefined for future generations by their parents and grandparents, they keep looking
for things to do and a cause to believe in and fight for. This search is complemented by a desire
to personalize everything around them so as to represent them perfectly. This includes both
objects and subjects and this growing individualization can be seen in the tendency to engage
with multiple causes by filtering the causes through individual lifestyles (771). Thus, one
person can be at the same time a feminist, an environmentalist, a liberal and a member of the
church choir.
The ability to define individual affiliations in a very precise and personal manner can help build
a stronger relationship with various causes. However, it can also mean that as people undergo the
normal changes that occur throughout life, as their values and attitudes change, the causes that

they fight for will also change accordingly. This tends to be particularly true for younger people
who seem to be constantly looking to define themselves and thus to try new things and
appropriate new identities. What the attitude some have towards the fashion of the day could
become the one they have towards the cause of the day, which can make a cause suddenly
popular and then help it lose its appeal just as quickly.
However, gaining support for a cause is an imperative for social movements and the easiest way
to do so is through mass media, and particularly through online media. The latter is often talked
about as if it were the solution for all social ills. Despite this overenthusiastic embrace of the new
communication platforms and while they definitely can help build up the support for various
events, causes and movements, they cannot organize a movement or supply momentum to a
protest that was not there (Iskander 2011, 1228). However eager the new media prosumers
might be for a new cause to fight for, the specifics of the ideas that will light up their spirits are
within them and not within the new medium for broadcasting the message. They are not mindless
followers; most have a strong sense of what moves them and what deserves their energy and
attention. Instead, while new media do not generate the content of the messages that cause their
users to react, they can just as the traditional media, tap into and amplify it and elicit an emotive
response (1231). With this general description of the media environment providing a
background, the following pages will address the actual theories that will be employed in this
paper. As such, they will explore the means used by the media in order to create and re-create
power, the processes by which decisions are made regarding media content as well as a theory of
media framing that will offer the means to understand the actual content that this study examines.

4.1 Network Society
In the context of social movements using new media as their ally (since established media may
or may not present them as intended) a theory that would shed light on the way they use
resources in order to gain or preserve legitimacy and power was essential. Thus, as stated above,
Manuel Castells network theory of power will be applied. First of all, a network society is one
where social structures are organized in accordance with digital technologies of information and
communication (Castells 2009, 24). Second, social structures are understood as organizational

arrangements of humans in relationships of production, consumption, reproduction, experience,
and power expressed in meaningful communication coded by culture (ibid).

4.1.1 Power and Counter-Power in the Network Society
Power is a basic aspect of any type of society. Whether it is democratic or authoritarian, its grasp
on everyday life cannot be denied. A basic reason for this is that organizing human activities and
generally making order out of chaos seems to depend on hierarchies and a certain limitation of
the social actors freedom. Power can have various sources. It can come from the threat of
violence (physical or psychological), the respect or attraction for a charismatic leader or it can be
based on the trust in someones superior knowledge of a particular topic. No matter what its
source is, power has to be communicated and built through communication, otherwise the costs
are steep. A political regime that wants to be regarded as democratic cannot blatantly force its
citizens into submission. It has to find more elegant ways of doing so. Therefore, power is
primarily exercised by the construction of meaning in the human mind through processes of
communication enacted in global/local multimedia networks of mass communication, including
mass self-communication (Castells 2009, 416).
By continuously defining and broadcasting what is normal, acceptable or expected of someone, it
becomes easier to generate that particular type of behavior. This functions for most aspects of
society. Thus, it is not only the individual normality that is defined through the mediated
message but the institutional one as well. As the attitudes and the expectations that people have
from certain institutions are shaped through this process, it, in turn, establishes whose power
can be exercised and how it can be exercised (Castells 2009, 416-7). Additionally, if it should
become necessary to resort to violence or coercion, it is essential to build the particular mindset
within which they can be considered acceptable and even appropriate alternatives (416).
The external definition of what is acceptable is imposed upon the individuals life as well as the
individuals interaction with institutions. The narratives define everyday life but they also act as
a form of social control (Tichenor et al. 1980 in Edgerly, Toft and Veden 2011, 316). This
invisible form of social control is reproduced through the use of language which is itself a form

of power (Edgerly, Toft and Veden 2011, 316). Therefore, the mass mediated discourse is the
most widely spread and generally well funded expression of power. This does not mean that
people simply accept whichever message is bestowed upon them. On the contrary, people
transform and adapt it according to personal histories or state of mind and then accept or reject it
fully or partially. However, this is a vicious circle as the mental processing is conditioned by the
communication environment (Castells 2009, 417).
But what exactly is power? Castells defines it as the structural capacity of a social actor to
impose its will over other social actor(s) (Castells 2007, 239) within a particular social context,
and its opposite force is counter-power (ibid). Castells (2011) has three basic assumptions about
the network society and the way that power functions within it. First of all, power is dependent
upon multidimensional networks that organize all the aspects of human life. The multimedia
networks of mass communication are among the main, but not the only, means of influencing
the mind; as such, mass communication networks are an important source of power in society
(786). Second, because the various networks organize all aspects of human life and identity, they
need to be specialized and have distinct roles. Thus, they do not become one large network but
maintain their identity and function either as partners or as competitors, depending on the
projects, other partners and specific contexts (ibid). Last, though it may seem that global
companies have worldwide influence irrespective of local rules, the state with its political system
continues to possess a fundamental role in the overall networking of power (ibid). By and
large, the network society functions according to four different types of power: networking
power, network power, networked power and network-making power (Castells 2009, 2011).
Networking power is the capacity that in-network actors have to accept or reject the external
actors entrance into the established network (Castells 2009, 2011) and is based on network
gatekeeping (Castells 2009, 43). Network power, on the other hand, refers to the shape and the
protocols that an out-of-the-network message or medium needs to comply with in order to be
functional within the established network it wants to permeate: power is exercised not by
exclusion from the networks but by the imposition of the rules of inclusion (Castells 2011, 773).
Network power stems from the structure and management of the networks (Castells 2009,
418). Network power refers to the form that the messages need to have in order to function
properly within the network; it does not refer to gate keeping for the sake of the content but for

that of the configuration of the message. The ones capable of creating the aforementioned
structures and protocols are the programmers of the network. They are a network in themselves:
a decision-making network [that] sets up and manages the programs on the network (419).
Despite having an obvious amount of power, its scope is limited. Thus, programmers are only
interested in the fulfillment of the goals of the network, which is, primarily, to attract audience
(ibid), other scopes are beyond them. Furthermore, the actual programming of the networks is
less about content than about format (420).
These first two types of power illustrate the ability of the network nodes (the actors that have the
network power) to include or exclude elements coming from outside the network. In contrast, the
networked power is the influence that actors within the network have over other actors that are
also inside the network (Castells 2011, 773). In the case of networks of communication this
translates into the agenda-setting, managerial, and editorial decision-making power in the
organizations that own and operate multimedia communication networks (Castells 2009, 419).
The last of the four, the network making power, is exactly what its name would lead you to
believe. It is the ability to create and structure a network according to a certain actors interests;
therefore this is in the hand of media corporations (Castells 2009, 2011). They are the ones that
decide on the type of messages and the format they will have to comply with in order to access
the network and these two factors are set according to the goals assigned to the network: profit-
making, power-making, culture-making, or all of the above (Castells 2009, 420). Network
making power is the one that all the others stem from. The network is the system that allows for
power relationships to be built. In its absence, there is no point in having rules for access that
refer to content and form or authority over peers and subordinates. The ability to influence
others depends on two basic mechanisms: (a) the ability to constitute network(s) and to
program/reprogram the network(s) in terms of the goals assigned to the network; and (b) the
ability to connect and ensure the cooperation of different networks by sharing common goals and
combining resources while fending off competition from other networks by setting up strategic
cooperation (Castells 2011, 776). Those holding the first type of power are the programmers,
while those insuring the interaction and connection between networks are the switchers and
these are the two types of actors who have network making power (776-7).

However, though it may seem that true power, the one that leads to making a profit or
establishing a particular cultural reading of an event lays in the hands of the few people leading
the major media conglomerates, reality is not that clear cut as multimedia conglomerates are
intertwined with financial investors of various origins (Castells, 2009, 420). Also, despite the
fact that the end users of the network (the consumers or the prosumers) cannot choose the shape
and content that a certain network will have, they can choose to switch between networks. A
commercial television channel, a radio station or a website are only profitable if their format and
content reach a certain proportion of the audience. In the case of the Internet people would use
it less if it lost its fundamental features: interactivity and unfettered communication, regardless of
how surveilled it is (420-1).
The web 2.0 and web 3.0 and their attributes of interactivity and instant communication and
(almost) instant co-creation or co-production have the ability to commodify freedom (Castells
2009, 421). Its users build on content and formats that are already online as well as generate new
content both directly, through sharing their knowledge and know-how, and indirectly, by sharing
their online surfing habits. A good example of such a situation is the fact that users of web search
engines not only get their information through them but due to their search habits they are
helping to determine the accessibility and dominance of that information source for other users
in the Internet sphere (97). They thus become users, producers and products who surrender
their privacy and become advertising targets (421). However, this is not a one-way tragic story
of the used masses that are unaware they are pawns in the hands of the rich and few. The more
networks of communication are created, the greater the number of people who generate their
own networks of mass self-communication, thus empowering themselves (ibid).
While for the time being, there is an unequal competition between professionalized media
production and our low-quality home videos and blog gossip (Castells 2009, 422) the balance
definitely shifts as more people having the skill set necessary to work in a professional media
environment choose to use it outside their professional lives. Thus, content that does not strictly
come from the corporate media environment can have a level of quality (aspect, formatting and
text) similar to that produced by the media industry. On top of that, while using a given network
layout as it was decided by those who have the various types of network power, a change of
power structure happens to a certain extent. Though the structure of the media that people are

using is not one that they create themselves, they do use it according to their own intentions and
purposes. Whether or not structure is a central aspect of communication, that is not the purpose
of this paper, but its content is definitely one that people can focus on. The medium is not the
message, although it conditions the format and distribution of the message (418).
The message may have to conform to a certain format which is predefined by online spaces as
digitization operates as a protocol of communication (Castells 2009, 418). However, most
messages face no serious difficulties in order to undergo this process, thus it is unlikely that the
standard inhibits the message (ibid). A basic rule of digitized media is that its format is rather
strict and universal. Therefore, as long as an author uses the proper protocol for entering the
network, once the message is in place, the network can help amplify the diffusion of the
message beyond anyones control (ibid).
New media have the ability to quickly transport a message across borders of all types. However,
gate keeping remains the major instrument of the networking power as most socialized
communication is still processed through the mass media, and the most popular information web
sites are those of the mainstream media because of the importance of branding in the source of
the message (Castells 2009, 419). So, though it may be tempting to say that new media are
starving old media of their audience, they still require the former in order to gain legitimacy and
for their message to be shared quickly by individuals through their online communities.

4.1.2 Counter-power and Social Movements
As long as power exists, so does counter-power. The latter is defined as the capacity of a social
actor to resist and challenge power relations that are institutionalized (Castells 2007, 239).
Irrespective of how much effort and how many resources are invested into either keeping
everyone happy or everyone quiet, there always will be people who disagree with the generally
accepted rhetoric of their everyday lives. The very moment that the oppositional voices become a
majority, the values and norms, and ultimately the system in which they exist will have to
change, although not necessarily according to their wishes (238-9). Generally, such a change has
to be or at least appear to be according to their expectations; otherwise the discontent that led to

the initial shift will persist and will require a new shift in order for the system to regain some
balance. Also, the more unstable the economic, social, and political context, the more likely the
rise of social movements becomes. The postmodern shift from traditional values and expressions
of authority to a world where everything is questioned and nothing is taken for granted is also
partly responsible for this. More recently, alongside the growing crisis of political legitimacy,
we have witnessed in most of the world the growth of social movements, coming in very
different forms and with sharply contrasted systems of values and beliefs, yet opposed to what
they often define as global capitalism ( 249).
Through counter-power, social movements seek to modify the balance of power. As the easiest
way to communicate and influence people is through the mass mediated message, the media
have necessarily become the space where power is decided (Castells 2007, 242). Therefore,
social movements must first gain access to the mass media and then simultaneously adjust to
their formulas and change the type of message that is accepted and broadcast through them. The
content of communication has to be built upon what is already in the media and needs to create a
hybrid out of its own agenda and the context and contents that the media present. Therefore, not
only the ideas that stand as the core of the social movement, but also what they choose to say to
the world about themselves are adapted to and are the result of a negotiated meaning. These have
to take into account the societies within which they are born as they adopt values and take up
organizational forms that are specific to [them] (249).
Though counter-power is the reaction force aimed at the established power, those seeking to hold
it have to use the same or similar means of gaining influence as established power actors.
Consequently, counter power is also built through the two main sources for network making
power: the programmers and the switchers. This means that social movement must either
introduce new instructions and new codes into the networks programs (Castells 2011, 778) or
disrupt the dominant switches while switching networks of resistance and social change
(Castells 2009, 430). This disruption is done by interrupting and stopping the switches that
allow the networks to be controlled by the metaprogram of values that express structural
domination where the metaprogram is understood as the source code for the programs of the
networks that operate organizations and institutions (Castells 2011, 778).

Traditionally, the institutions that were the holders of power and counterpower were the parties,
unions and other types of organizations based on common interests. However, with the increased
usage of new media in order to communicate, collaborate and organize action, the new means
of digital communication constitute their most decisive organizational form [...] [and are]
evolving toward the new organizational model built around networked communication (Castells
2007, 249-50). Nevertheless, any kind of movement, old or new, irrespective of time of
existence, depends on a secure means of communication. Ideas, values and projects have always
had to be shared in order to keep a group alive. Consequently, new media essentially intensify
and expand the internal and external communication. Throughout history the modes of
communication were critical factors in determining the extent and consequences of revolts and in
explaining how isolated incidents could reach societal proportions (Castells 2009, 347) and this
remains a fact for contemporary movements.
The new mass media have become more accessible both as a source of information and as a
means of sharing content created by individuals outside the established network. They allow
more people to interact and find common interests or common sources of discontent. As
communication is the basic means of building communities, this new media environment has two
important effects. First, it helps legitimize individual feelings of discomfort and disagreement
with institutional decisions and events that may otherwise be considered normal and acceptable.
Second, it helps create a community of those who do not believe in them. The sharing and
legitimization increase the chances that the members of the community will try to do something
in order to change the state of affairs. If communication helps build larger groups of people who
do not agree with certain decisions, by controlling it the opposite can be done: the narrower the
circle of discontented, the easier the repression of their protest and the faster the restoration of
order (Castells 2009, 347).
Online media allow people to broadcast their ideas and values as well as communicate with other
people who share them. As they are usually informal means of communication, this leads to the
creation of networks of horizontal communication (Castells 2009, 431). At a different level,
this happens to social movements using websites, forums or other online communities to spread
their messages. The sharing of values, aspirations and plans helps individuals overcome the
powerlessness of their solitary despair by networking their desire (ibid) and legitimizes their

discomfort by showing that others share their discontent. Therefore, by presenting the stories of
their members, their values as a group, as well as their plans, this type of online presence helps
build a stronger relationship with their supporters at least within this medium.
The global network society, that online media help build, is characterized by two important
traits: networked individualism and communalism (Castells, 2009, 362). This means that two
somewhat opposite attitudes coexist. First of all, individuals strive to define themselves as
independent, self sufficient and uniquely creative while at the same time they are using and
producing the resources of their online (and offline) communities. Social movements benefit
from both facets. For one thing, the more accurately individual tastes are defined, the more likely
a certain movement is to find its particular group of supporters. Then, as the movement has
defined, found and built its audience, it can start to use this community as an informational,
social and material resource. This becomes a self propelling circle. However, networked
individualism is a culture, not an organizational form (ibid), you build on it and around it but
you need to end up with some sort of community. So, while it may begin with the values, plans
and desires of the individual it needs to lead to a system of exchange with other individuals,
thus reconstructing society rather than reproducing society (ibid). Individual creativity needs to
translate into societal creativity. In addition, as in developed countries the cost of using the
Internet is rather low, people looking for information or support for a certain cause will have to
spend fewer resources by using it. This turns the Internet into an "essential platform for debate,
[a] means of acting on peoples mind, and ultimately serves as [the] most potent political
weapon (Castells 2007, 250).
Removing or at least lowering the barrier for entering the conversation means that more people
can become involved. If more people are involved in the discussion, then more of them may be
looking for an outlet for their discontent and for solutions, and those people might eventually
become a majority. The power of the majority over the minority is part of the definition of
democracy: democracy [...] resides in the capacity to counter the power of heritage, wealth, and
personal influence with the power of the multitude, the power of numbers the numbers of
citizens, whoever they are (Castells 2009, 366). If enough people speak up, and if enough
people are listening, then they might actually realize that they, as a group, are capable of
changing their reality. This is arguably an optimistic view of new media and its impact because,

while they can provide an outlet for diverging opinions the technologies of freedom are not
free (414). The question is what actually happens when a message, which is against the main
voices within the media, appears. How does it grow, what are the attributes that help it grow
despite the fact that it goes against the stream and how can it become efficient?
Part of the reason why the Internet has become such an important ally of social movements is the
fact that the networking processes it sustains are central to the movement from a strategic,
organizational, and normative (Castells 2009, 343) perspective. Having a distinct and relatively
cheap and easy to use element, that can be utilized in quite a varied manner, means that more
resources can be directed elsewhere. As new media have become an important part of everyday
life, the skills and the community acquired through them can easily be put to a different use. To a
certain extent, it can be said that for the most consistent users of new media the tools are already
in place for them to become online activists.
Obviously, social movements need a real life presence in order to draw from and then shape
reality. Thus, they root themselves in their local lives and in face-to-face interaction (Castells
2007, 250). Social movements need to gain supporters. As the incentives for staying loyal to a
movement are mostly intrinsic and sometimes weak, some participants will choose to leave. In
order for the social movements to survive and grow, they need to gain supporters faster than they
lose them, therefore the networking form of the movement, a decisive organizational tool,
becomes the networking norm of the movement (Castells 2009, 342).
New social movements need to reach a certain balance between publicizing their cause, gaining
new support, attracting media attention and staying true to their intentions and plans. They need
to build upon the cultural conventions that are preexistent and coexistent. They do not live in a
void and do not build ideas in a void. Thus, some of its main members, the activist-hackers,
need to function as relayers and exchangers [of networked movements], receiving, interpreting,
and routing information to diverse network nodes (Juris 2008, 14). These activist-hackers have
similar functions to those of Castells switchers, as they assure the interactions within and
between networks, but they also create content. This is done through combining and
recombining cultural codes in this case political signifiers, sharing information about projects,
mobilizations, strategies and tactics within global communication networks (ibid). Their

actions are directed at partially changing what is taken for granted in society such as the values
and interests institutionalized in society, what is tantamount to modify the power relations
(Castells 2007, 249).
However, the message is effective only if the receiver is ready for it [] and if the messenger is
identifiable and reliable (Castells 2009, 2). This draws the full circle, as similar states of mind
need to coexist in different areas of society in order to create a successful social movement. The
agenda and values of the audience that will later on become the online or offline activists, the
core ideas of the central nodes of the social movements that create the message and need to make
sure it is broadcasted and a certain permeability of the established media to the messages that
may eventually disrupt its core values, all need to meet at the starting point of a social movement
if it will have any chance to survive.

4.2 Media Frames
Power is a central notion in the network society. As power relationships start at a mental level,
they are based on the shaping of the human mind by the construction of meaning through
image-making (Castells 2009, 193). This shaping, in turn, happens partly through media
exposure. This is not to say that the media have the power but that, instead, they are the space of
power-making (194). Media is the main source of socialized communication, capable of
reaching a large portion of society, and thus the framing of the public mind is largely performed
through processes that take place in the media (157).

4.2.1 The media and the public: how the connection is built
According to Castells there are three major phenomena that define the relationship between the
media and the public: agenda setting, priming and framing (Castells 2009, 157). Each concept
will be presented briefly in the following paragraphs. The first is McCombs and Shaws (1972)
agenda setting theory which pointed out that even though mass media do not directly tell the
reader what to think about certain topics, they do instead decide what topics the readers will be

thinking about and what he/she will consider as important. As such, mass media influence the
importance that the readers put upon a certain issue according to the amount of information and
the positioning of the topic within the media source. Furthermore, they even noticed that there is
a coherence and repetition of content and quantity of information on many distinct topics
throughout different media sources (ibid).
Priming happens when the media tell their audience that they should use particular issues in
order to assess the actions of their leaders and government (Scheufele and Tewksbury 2007, 11).
This is considered a by-product of agenda setting, as by making some issues more visible than
others they also help build the appearance that those issues should be used as the benchmarks
for evaluating the performance of political actors and their decisions (ibid).
The third process, framing, is defined as selecting and highlighting some facets of events or
issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation,
evaluation and/or solution (Entman 2004, 5). Its content can be used to analyze and asses the
power of a communicating text (Entman 1993, 51). Media frames are the persistent patterns
of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which
symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual (Gitlin 2003, 7). They
are consistently used by journalists because they allow them to handle large volumes of
information quickly and routinely: to recognize it as information, to assign it to cognitive
categories, and to package it for efficient relay to their audiences (ibid). Framing is an important
aspect of the media-audience relationship because it does not exist only in the media content but
it creates and strengthens associative neural networks (Castells 2009, 158). Frames exist in the
mind and those of them that manage to connect their message to pre-existing frames in the mind
become activators of conduct (ibid). Whereas this brief discussion is about the way that frames
affect the mind of the media consumer, which is not the purpose of this paper, it is important to
make this connection in order to argue for the significance of choosing media framing as a means
for interpreting the data. Entman uses the term schemas to relieve the ambiguity between media
frames and the audiences personal frames. As such, schemas are applied in the process of
interpretation by the human mind while frames are applied to texts (Entman 2004, 7).

Researchers (Sandoval and Fuchs 2009, Atton 2002, Atton and Wickenden 2005) have
repeatedly shown that alternative media do not represent a significant departure from mainstream
media in terms of processes and structures. For this reason, the concept of media frame can be
used to analyze them as well. In the case of discourse analysis, frames are particularly important.
They allow the researcher to choose which terms have the most strength in the text being
analyzed as well as not treat absolutely everything as if it were equally salient and influential
(Entman 1993, 56). Additionally, during the process, researchers informed by framing theory
will not only look at the text within its context ( the newspaper, TV program, etc) but they will
measure the salience of elements in the text, and [...] gauge the relationships of the most salient
clusters of messages-the frames-to the audiences schemata (ibid). Also, the researcher can
safely assume that if a message in the media is salient, it is more likely that the same topic is
salient in the mind of the audience (ibid).

4.2.2 How to create and recognize a frame
The content of frames, textual or visual, can be identified within the news due to its ability to
generate either opposition or support for a particular cause, an ability that can be evaluated
through its cultural resonance and magnitude (Entman 2004, 6). Such texts or images are
capable of making aspects of the story more salient by placement or repetition, or by associating
them with culturally familiar symbols (Entman 1993, 53).While the type of frame associated
with an issue is important, it turns out that the moment when the frame is presented to the public
is just as important. Thus, when covering major political or economic issues, the earlier a frame
is established within its news coverage, the more likely it is that it will become the generally
accepted frame for that issue, the so-called dominant frame (Entman 2004, 7). This happens
because such early framing can activate and spread congruent thoughts and feelings in
individuals knowledge networks, building a new event schema that guides responses to all
future reports (ibid). Additionally, using a frame that has already been accepted for an issue is
beneficial for the journalists producing the media texts, as conveying the congruent frame yields
career-enhancing attention (or avoids career-damaging inattention and criticism) from editors,
colleagues, and the public (15).

The framing of issues can have such power that as soon as a particular mode of referring to an
issue has become generally accepted, using another is to risk that the target audiences will
perceive the communicator as lacking credibility or will even fail to understand what the
communicator is talking about (Entman 1993, 55). Thus, once they have been built, broadcast,
accepted and internalized by the audience, trying to shift the frames can be a dangerous process.
In part, this happens because frames do not exist only with the communicator but also with the
text, the receiver and the culture (52). If any of the four creates a dissonant frame, the other
three will react to the loss of balance. The framing process itself consists of choosing certain
elements of reality and then turning them into the more salient in a communicating text, in such
a way as to promote a particular problem denition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation,
and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (Entman 1993, 52). These choices are
the result of an interaction between different types of power-holding actors or groups and
Entman (2004) offers a model of this process that he refers to as cascading network activation

(Entman 2004, 10)
According to this model, frames are the result of a continuous interaction between the
administration, the elites, the media and the public. There is first a top-down relationship, as the

upper power structures define the issues-du-jour and pass them on to lower power structures,
followed by a feedback loop, a bottom-up relationship, where the public offers its response and
reaction to the notions it is provided with through the media.
Frames increase the salience of an element of communication, meaning that they make it more
noticeable, meaningful or memorable to audiences (Entman 1993, 53). However, though they
may provide information that reinforces clusters of facts or judgments (52), the frames may or
may not coincide with the frames (the schemas) the reader is using to interpret the text (ibid).
Thus, though they can make certain aspects more obvious to their audience, they might do so in
ways that were not intended by the broadcaster. As communicators make conscious or
unconscious framing judgments in deciding what to say, guided by frames (often called
schemata) that organize their belief systems (ibid) so do those that are at the other end of the
communication situation. As such, the feedback loop helps the senders of the message better
understand how their content was received by their audience and thus influences the content of
their future messages. The upper structures need to take this into account if they want to build a
message that is easily digestible and quickly adopted by the general public.
Putting conscious or unconscious effort into presenting a reality within a certain framework
means that most frames are defined by what they omit as well as include (Entman 1993, 54).
The Atton and Wickenden (2005) study, for example, found that SchNEWS purposefully
presented the stories in such a way that the point of view of the conventional authority figures
was completely omitted. Instead, the activists were the only ones giving their version of the facts
in the newspaper.
The cascading network activation model complements Castells network society model well. In
the network society all its actors are connected: administration, elites, media and the public. The
flow of information, regulations and limitations is top-down but it needs to adapt according to
the feedback loop in order to remain relevant and accepted. The media conglomerates exist in an
environment that is regulated by the administration, as Entman defines it, as well as the other
elites. The network making power is in the hand of the elites. The networked power, the
influence the network actors have over other members of their network, is similar to Entmans
idea of an informal network of association (Entman 2004, 10) where one actor sets the tone for

the others. Anyone standing outside the network activation site needs to apply the rules and
protocols that exist in it in order to be accepted into it by the networks core actors, which are the
ones who have the networking power, and thus can approve or deny access into their network.
These similarities make the two models appropriate for the current analysis.

4.2.3 Types of media frames
Though the concept of media framing is a popular one in media and communication research, a
strict typology of it is difficult to find. The closest to such a typology is Entmans model (2004)
that defines two types of frames: substantive and procedural. Substantive frames have at least
two of the four possible functions:
1. Defining effects or conditions as problematic
.2. Identifying causes
3. Conveying a moral judgment
4. Endorsing remedies or improvements (5).
Procedural frames are more limited in scope as they steer the audience in evaluating an actors
legitimacy, based on their technique, success, and representativeness (Entman 2004, 6).
Further clarification is rather limited.
Matthes (2009) content analysis of the media framing studies published in the leading
communication journals between 1990 and 2005 observed that 78% [of the frames that were
used] were issue-specific, and 22% reported generic frames (356), meaning that the majority of
the research did not have a typology that might be used successfully in later studies. Of the
generic frames, the most frequently used were: the conflict frame, the issue frame, the thematic
frame, the attribution of responsibility frame, the economic consequences frame, the episodic
frame, the human interest frame, the leadership frame, the morality frame (ibid). These frames
are similar to Semetkos and Valkenburgs (2000) five generic frames: attribution of
responsibility, conflict, economic, human interest and morality (93).

4.2.4 Counter-frames
Castells (2009) proposes a type of frame that is external to the general typology of frames: the
counter-frame. The counter frame contains information about events and issues that is packaged
in different ways than that prevalent in the mainstream media. Thus, only if such frames exist do
the members of the audience have a chance of having a balanced opinion of the matters
presented by the media. Counter-frames provide the citizens with an opportunity to have an
informed opinion and a choice in interpretation (160). Should such frames not exist or if they
should become inaccessible, the audience will tend to adopt what it is offered: the preferred
frames (158).
As the dominant frames are usually ingrained in the mind of the public, it is more likely that a
counter-frame will be successful if the issue it is describing is culturally ambiguous (Castells
2009, 164). In this case, there might not be one dominant frame that is used across media
sources. In the context created by the dissonant discourse about that particular issue, the chances
for a counter-frame to reach the public and be accepted by it increase exponentially.
Furthermore, if they should stand a chance to challenge the elite-induced frames (ibid), their
content needs to be culturally resonant with the public or at least with the journalists
perceptions of public opinion (ibid). The concept of counter-frame complements the earlier
concept of counter-power, as the capacity of a social actor to resist and challenge power
relations that are institutionalized (Castells 2007, 239) starts with the kind of message it is
capable of getting across to its audience and peers.
Throughout this chapter, Castells network theory of power was presented with its different types
of internal and external power (network, networked, networking and network making power)
while a fifth type that challenges the others was also introduced (the counter-power). As the aim
of the paper is to analyze how these types of influence affect media texts, the theory of media
framing theory was presented. This will allow for a proper investigation of the two different
types of media that this paper has chosen to address.


5. Methodology

Having decided that Castells and the media framing theories would be used to explain the media
content, an appropriate method also needed to be found. As such, the main technique used for the
analysis of the data is based on Centering Theory and Centering Resonance Analysis (CRA), two
strongly related quantitative discourse analysis techniques (Corman et. al 2002, Canary and
Jennings 2007). After the application of the quantitative method was complete, the results were
studied qualitatively using a variation of critical discourse analysis. This particular combination
of quantitative and qualitative helped create a more objective study of the media content in focus
and has been used successfully for the same purpose by previous studies such as Papacharissi
and Oliveira (2008).
Unlike more classical methods of quantitative text analysis that employ simple frequency-of-
word in text analyses, CRA uses a more sophisticated approach, geared towards rule-based
numerical processing of text (McPhee, Corman and Dooley 2002, 274-278). The method works
by applying linguistics to create networks of standardized concepts (centers or utterances)
(Canary and Jennings 2007, 268). Furthermore, as these networks are calculated based on an
estimation of the influence of each concept in relation to other concepts in the text (McPhee,
Corman and Dooley 2002, 276-278), CRA allows analyses to go beyond identification of the
connections between ideas to the calculation of the resonance of an idea in a large body of text
(278). For calculating CRA networks and scores Crawdad, a commercial software, was used
(Corman and Dooley 2006). Based on the knowledge of the author, it is the gold standard in
CRA analysis, endorsed by leading scholars in the field. Below follows a detailed presentation of
how the data was gathered, as well as the CRA technique and Centering Theory, to aid in the
understanding of the way the software works and why its choice was appropriate. Also, the
quantitative part of the research was used in order to generate reliable data for the qualitative
analysis. As such, the results provided by Crawdad were then employed in what its creators
referred to as the application (Corman et al. 2002), a step that will be explained towards the end
of this chapter.

5.1. Source Material

For the purpose of the analysis, two distinct corpora of text were used. The first consists solely of
primary material and contains the entire archive of the website from its
inception in July 2011 up until 30 June 2012. The choice of was difficult, as
there are no claims of overarching leadership or even official representation (indeed, claims to be the unofficial de facto online resource for the growing
occupation movement ( 2012)). describes itself as an
independent group of activists working to help people learn how to get involved in #occupy in
whatever way they find meaningful ( 2012) while
links to a large number of sites, including those above, all of which are described as connected
with the Occupy Wall Street movement but none official or authoritative (
2012). Note, however, that all of the websites linked to the Occupy Wall Street Movement
collaborate and are on good-standing with one another, acting as complements to each other
rather than competition ( 2012, 2012, and 2012). They not only share posts, information and are being frequently
cross-referenced, but also feature links to each-other on their respective front-pages. was chosen because it is (and has been) the top result in both Google and Bing
searches regarding OWS over multiple months. Further, was described as
being the most 'news' oriented of all Occupy web-sites (e.g. it is the first link under #OCCUPY
NEWS on occupy), thus presumably making it more compatible in style, target expectation and
target audience with traditional news sources than other Occupy web-sites. Further, the choice of
using data extracted from web-pages may seem old-fashioned, especially since much of the co-
ordination of the movement took place through various forms of social media, such as Twitter
and Facebook. However, for the most part, these two social media platforms seem to be used for
organizing and linking participants together, as well as spreading content (via retweets,
comments and posts).
As for the content itself (such as ideology, news, in-depth opinions), it is a mlange of links,
heads and leads, linked (or copied) from the various websites belonging to the movement, where

the said content is available and presented in depth. In essence, the website becomes an element
of the Web 2.0 / social media strategy used by the group, with websites being the repository of
discourse and knowledge and Facebook and Twitter being the organizational and command-and-
control chains. Thus, the website is far from being 'old fashioned', but is rather a facet in the
multi-pronged strategy of the Occupy Wall Street movement. As the website is the 'content
prong', it is by necessity the main object of the study.
To exemplify the content-is-on-the-website versus the network-is-on-social-media, a snapshot of
OccupyTogether's Facebook timeline front page was taken on 31 July 2012 at 13:00 CET. This
showed that it had 16 posts containing a 'head and lead' and a link to an article published on a
movement's web page indicating extra content out of a total of 32 posts. Further, out of those 32
posts, 10 are pictures sourced and linked to various web pages (OccupyTogether on Facebook,
2012-06-31). Similarly, a snapshot of the Facebook page contains 17 links to
various web pages belonging to the movement and 19 pictures, with little if any content created
specifically for the Facebook page ( on Facebook 2012-06-31).
Additionally, there is a technical impediment to using Twitter as a source of data for longitudinal
analyses. As of July 2012, Twitter only indexes and thus makes possible the downloading of the
latest 3200 tweets (Twitter 2012), which means that for the main part, the initial stages of the
movement, as well as the protests in the later part of 2011, have already become inaccessible for
any retrieval technique (as of 31 July 2012, posts before February 2012 cannot be retrieved for
@Occupywallst) (@Occupywallst on Twitter 2012). Moreover, Twitter is limited to 140
characters (approximately 15 words) (Twitter, 2012), imposing severe limitations on any form of
mixed-methods or quantitative content analyses. Further, while tools like Rowfeeder exist to
create analyses based on Twitter or Facebook, they are mainly tailored to network analyses, such
as extracting usernames, follower networks, networks of references or geo-locating the poster
(Rowfeeder 2012), rather than content analyses. Additionally, as they too rely on Twitter's
Application Programming Interface (API), they too are limited to historical analyses spanning
back no more than 3200 tweets.
The second corpus consists of secondary material (i.e. external references, analyses and
descriptions of the movement) and contains the entire body of articles referring to the Occupy

Wall Street movement published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and USA
Today between September 2011(as no articles were produced about the movement prior to its
first street protests) and June 30, 2012.
The choice of these three news sources was determined through a twofold reasoning. On one
hand, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today and The New York Times are the largest three
newspapers in the United States, having, by far, the highest circulation numbers (Audit Bureau
of Circulation 2012). On the other hand, all three are directly connected, and indeed, directly
affected by the events unfolding in New York - as both the New York Times and the Wall Street
Journal have their headquarters inside the main area affected by protest, while USA Today is the
only other major national East Coast newspaper (ibid), and further, the only newspaper claiming
a focus on national rather than regional events (USA Today Media Kit 2012).

5.2 Extracting and Processing the Source Data
In the following section I will describe the methods used in order to gather and process the data
necessary for the current study.

5.2.1 Extracting and processing the primary corpus
For the first corpus, the website was downloaded using GNU wget, an
automatic crawler and bulk downloader of web-pages (GNU 2012). As with many other
template-based websites, breaks each and every article in two parts: a main
segment (usually having between 200 and 1000 words for each article) and an optional additional
information segment. The main segment is visible on the main page (and subsequently in the
archives), while the additional information segment is available by clicking on a 'Read More'
button located next to each article where applicable.
Only the main segment was kept for the analysis, as it was expected that the body of text would
be too large to process in an effective manner otherwise. Further, as the choice over what is

primary and what is additional information belongs to the original posters, it was considered that
the most important content is stored, with only context and further explanation being eliminated.
As wget extracts the full webpage HTML markup, not just the text content, a PHP script was
used to eliminate all CSS, HTML and JavaScript tags from the files as well as join all the files.
Another PHP script was used to further eliminate text inserted automatically by the website
template (i.e. 'Comment Now' or 'Share via Twitter'). The same script performs extremely basic
text mining by individually marking each article and extracting the date of posting and the title in
a machine-processable format. This resulted in a plain text (1-byte ASCII) file containing the
entire archive of articles published on website. The processing ensured only the
content of the articles was kept, without anything else (images, tags, links, comments,
automatically generated text, navigation, author names etc.).

5.2.2. Extracting and processing the secondary corpus
For the second corpus of text, Factiva was used to extract all the news articles in The New York
Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. Factiva is a news aggregator and data mining
application containing the entire archive of over 35.000 sources, including these three
newspapers, updated and indexed continuously (Factiva 2012). To limit data retrieval to articles
containing text related to Occupy Wall Street, the following search string was used: ("occupy
wall street" or "occupy movement" or "occupy wall st." or "occupy wall st"). No other
restrictions were put on Factiva, except the time limits (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012) and the
sources (the print editions of the three newspapers). A summary of the number of articles, broken
up per month of publishing is available in appendix 1. The articles were downloaded in their
entirety (title, head, lead and full text). A similar processing strategy as in the case of the first
corpus was applied, eliminating all indexing elements and Factiva introduced content. Titles and
dates were made, similarly, machine-readable using PHP scripts.

5.2.3 Creating datasets for analysis
Both processed corpora were then split in monthly datasets for each source, each covering a
source in a calendar month (e.g. one file for The New York Times articles in January 2012,
another for The Wall Street Journal in May 2012, another for in October 2011
etc.), resulting in a dataset of 41 files (9 source-months contained no data, so they were
excluded). Each of these files are of varying size, from 3.6 KB (3379 characters or 587 words) to
1.29 MB (973033 characters or 158748 words), and contain exclusively plain text. On average,
each dataset contains 166.513 characters or 26.918 words (all computations made with the wc
program supplied with MacOS X). The extremely wide range and large variation of the sizes of
the files occurs almost exclusively due to the varying interest of the media in the Occupy Wall
Street phenomenon, with relatively little variation for each month in the primary data.
A final pre-processing step was used in light of the way the analysis software works. The
software employed (Crawdad) does tokenization, treating groups of commonly used words
belonging to the same concept as a single concept or token a "noun-phrase" described as "a noun
plus zero or more additional nouns and/or adjectives, which serves as the subject or object of a
sentence" (Corman et. al 2002,174) while ignoring verbs, numerals and pronouns (174-175). As
such, concepts containing verbs-treated-as-nouns such as "Occupy Wall Street" would be split by
the tokenizer in "Occupy" (ignored) and "Wall Street". For this reason, manual tokenization was
done for a few concepts such as "Occupy Wall Street" (changed to OccupyWallStreet), "May
Day", "1 May", and "Occupy Movement". Also, concepts that were important to the movement
and wound have otherwise been split into their respective pieces by Crawdad were each turned
into a unique tokens: ninetynine_percent, one_percent, and Zuccotti_park.

5.3 Centering Theory and Centering Resonance Analysis
Crawdad, the program used in order to create a quantitative analysis of the texts from the four
sources, is based on centering theory and is build upon the technique of centering resonance
analysis both of which will be explained hereafter.

5.3.1 Centering Theory
The central assertion of centering theory is that to the extent a discourse adheres to centering
constraints, its coherence will increase and the inference load placed upon the hearer will
decrease (Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein 1995, 210). Coherence is a defining quality of discourses
as in order for a succession of utterances to be considered a discourse it mustexhibit coherence
(206). Centering theory looks at the way that the discourse creation process is a combination of
relationship of attentional state, inferential complexity and the form of referring expressions
(Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 1) or of a linguistic structure, an intentional structure, and an
attentional state (Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein 1995, 204).
Centers are made up of nouns-phrases. Nouns are chosen because they are the more stable
entities as they are not time-dependent, while verbs, given that they describe actions, are time
dependent and thus, more unstable and susceptible to change (Hopper and Thompson 1984, 705).
Also, verbs offer additional information about the nouns such as explaining the contexts of
action that link the centers (Corman et al. 2002, 174) and are, thus, centered on and dependent
upon the nouns they describe.
Centering theory defines discourses as being made up of subparts such as utterances and centers.
The centers are the smallest meaning bearing elements of a discourse and work as a link between
utterances within a discourse (Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein 1995, 208). However, centers are not
words and utterances are not the same as sentences. Centers are discourse constructs and
semantic objects (ibid) while utterances are defined as a sequence of words at a certain point
in the discourse (ibid). The centers can belong to one of two categories. First, there are forward-
looking centers, Cf(U
,D) center within utterance U
i in
discourse D, which are discourse entities
evoked by an utterance U in a discourse segment D. Second, there are backward-looking
centers, Cb(U
,D), which are the discourse entity that the utterance U
most centrally concerns
and are similar to the concept of discourse topic (Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 2). Cb is often
formed by the pronominalization of nouns from previous utterances (i.e. Mary ate a pie. She
liked it), where pronominalization is one way to indicate discourse salience (4).
Forward looking centers are partially ranked, and the one with the highest rank, the most salient
in the discourse, is the preferred center, Cp (Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 2).The preferred

center works as a prediction of backward looking centers that are in the following utterance (3).
Thus, the Cb is built upon previous content and Cp guides the interpretation of the following
content (ibid).
The following sentences are a simple example of how Cb and Cf are used:
a. Ann helped Mary build an IKEA cabinet.
Cb: none
Cf: Ann, Mary, cabinet
b. She put the parts together while Mary read the instructions.
Cb: Ann (she)
Cf: Ann, parts, Mary, instructions
c. She added the doors upside down at first.
Cb: Ann (she)
Cf: Ann, door

On top of these basic defitions of the elements of discourse, centering theory has three
constraints that are used in order to create a coherent discourse. Centering Constraints
For each utterance U
in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U
1. There is precisely one backward looking center Cb(U
, D)
2. Every element of the forward centers list, Cf(U
, D), must be realized in U

3. The center, Cb(U
,D), is the highest-ranked element of Cf(U
,D) that is realized in U
(Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 3)
The first constraint states that only one Cb can exist in a sentence. Any more than that and
sentence b. in the above example would become She put the parts together while she read the
instructions making it ambiguous. The second constraint specifies that all the forward looking
centers must be present or described in their respective utterances (Walker, Joshi and Prince
1998, 3). The third constraint, states that the Cb needs to be the most salient from the set of Cfs
from the previous sentence. Again, take the sentences:
a. Ann helped Mary build a cabinet.
Cf: Ann, Mary, cabinet
b. She put the bigger parts together.
Cb: ? (must be Ann)

Looking at both sentences, the third constraint says that the Cb for sentence b. must be Ann
(the most salient center in sentence a. If, instead, the speaker meant Mary, then sentence b.
becomes ambiguous. Other than the three constraints, centering theory also has two basic rules. Centering Rules
For each U
in a discourse segment D consisting of utterances U
1. If some element of Cf(U
, D) is realized as a pronoun in U
, then so is Cb(U
, D).

2. Transition states are ordered. The CONTINUE transition is preferred to the RETAIN
transition, which is preferred to the SMOOTH-SHIFT transition, which is preferred to the
ROUGH-SHIFT transition. (Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 4)
The first rule states that if any of the Cf from the previous utterance (Ui-1) is pronomialized in
the next utterance, Ui, then that pronoun must be the Cb of utterance Ui. The second rule refers
to the way communicators should best shift topics.

(Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 5)
)=[?] means that there is no Cb(U
) (Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 5). The ranking of
the transition states is done from the most easily followed and unambiguous (CONTINUE: keeps
the Cb from the previous utterance and also realizes in Cb the Cp of the utterance) to the most
difficult to follow and the most ambiguous (ROUGH SHIFT: Cb changes from one sentence to
the next and the current sentences Cb does not realize its Cp).
In order to better explain how the different types of centering transitions work, examples of each
are provided below. All the examples are the authors own but are based on examples provided
by Walker, Joshi and Prince (1998).
a. John gave Mike a puppy.
b. He told him to walk it often.

Cb: John
Cf: John, Mike, puppy (it)
c. He asked Mike if he liked his gift.
Cb: John
Cf: John, Mike, puppy;
Centering transition: Continue.

a. John gave Mike a puppy.
b. He told Mike to walk it often.
Cb: John;
Cf: John, Mike, puppy (it)
c. He asked him how often.
Cb: Mike;
Cf: Mike, John;
Centering transition: Retain.

Smooth Shift
a. John gave Mike a puppy.
b. Mike thanked John.

Cb: Mike;
Cf: Mike, John
c. This was the best thing.
Cb: Puppy (this);
Cf: puppy, thing;
Centering transition: Smooth shift.

Rough Shift
a. John gave Mike a puppy.
b. He told him to walk it often.
Cb: John;
Cf: John, Mike, puppy
c. Susan said she loved the puppy too.
Cb: puppy;
Cf: Susan, puppy;
Centering transition: Rough shift.

The way that a discourse is expressed creates specific resource demands upon a hearer in
discourse processing and, through this, influences the perceived coherence of the discourse
(Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein 1995, 208). The most coherent, as in both easy to formulate and
easy to interpret by the audience, are the discourses that require the least amount of processing

time (Walker, Joshi and Prince 1998, 6). In decoding utterances, an important task is identifying
the referents of noun phrases in the discourse (Grosz, Joshi, and Weinstein 1995, 208)
meaning that the hearer/reader must understand which actor the utterance is referring to based on
the focus of previous utterances and of the current one. This is why the rules and constraints
provided by centering theory are useful: they can be used to create a coherent discourse as well
as predict what the hearer of the discourse will understand from it (Walker, Joshi and Prince
1998, 6).

5.3.2 Centering Resonance Analysis
Centering Resonance Analysis (CRA) is based on centering theory. It generates a network of
communicative elements (the noun-phrases) by indexing the structural importance of words
(Corman et al. 2002, 173) and does so without requiring previous texts to create a context for the
analysis or a dictionary of terms and rules. It needs no training data (ibid). As such, CRA can
create more objective outcomes than ethnographic studies, conversation analysis, questionnaires
and even computational analysis (161). These other methods generate a result that is not only
the objective reality of the analyzed topic, but also the outcome of its interaction with a
complex system of personal cognitive biases, serial transmission effects, political processes,
organizational structure, and the like (ibid).
CRA does not analyze the centering process, but assumes it as the explanation for the way the
discourse is built and focuses on the deployment of a stream of centers within utterances
(Corman et al. 2002, 173-4). As it does not seek to show how centering works, CRA also
assumes that the writers or speakers are competent and thus, produce a discourse that is coherent.
Consequently, CRA attempts to extract some of its associated structure (174). There are four
steps in creating a CRA interpretation of a text: selection, linking, indexing, and application
and each will be described in detail below.
1. Selection refers to the process through which CRA chooses the elements of the text that are
the most relevant for the analysis. As stated above, nouns are the most stable elements of a
discourse, while verbs are time-dependent, thus noun-phrases are the unit of analysis. A noun

phrase is defined as a noun plus zero or more additional nouns and/or adjectives, which serves
as the subject or object of a sentence (Corman et al. 2002, 174). Definite and indefinite articles
as well as pronouns are eliminated. The latter are removed because they are usually introduced in
the text immediately after the nouns they signify and so little textual information is lost by
dropping pronouns (as backward-looking centers) that appear later (175).Another change that
happens to the text in this phase is minimal affix stemming (ibid) such as transforming plural
into singular forms by dropping s or es. No other types of stemming are done because they
would be subjective changes and they could alter the meaning of the discourse (ibid).
2. Linking transforms word sequences into networks of relationships among words (Corman
et al. 2002, 175). When there are three or more words in a noun phrase, the sequential links do
not exhaust the connectedness possible in the set created by the author (176) and all the noun
pairs that come from those noun phrases are generated (ibid).
3. Indexing is the step in which the network of word associations is analyzed to determine the
relative influence of each node(Corman et al. 2002, 176). As the network generated by CRA is
structured, some words have more influence than others in that they channel flows of meaning
(ibid). The centrality of a node in such a network is understood as its betweenness centrality,
as in the resources flowing in the network (meaning, in the case of CRA networks) must flow
through it (177).
The influence (I) of a word (i) in the text (T) is given by the following formula where g
is the
number of shortest paths connecting the jth and kth words, gjk(i) is the number of those paths
containing word i, and N is the number of words in the network (Corman et al. 2002, 177):


Word resonance is based on word influence score across two texts. In order to calculate it two
texts are necessary ( A with N(A) elements, and B with N(B) elements) and for each there are the
word sets [

] with the influence scores [

] and

] with [

] (Corman et al. 2002, 178). An indicator

whether or not a word is repeated across texts (and thus is more salient) by being equal to 1,
should the word appear in both texts, and to 0 in the opposite situation (ibid). The words
resonance across texts A and B, WR

is calculated using:
Thus, the more often the same words are used across texts, the bigger their resonance will be and
the more those words were prominent in structuring the texts coherence (Corman et al. 2002,
178). However, the above formula is considered to be unstandardized, as WR will increase
proportionally to the texts length (ibid). In order to limit the influence of text length on the WR
a new formula is introduced:
( ibid)

Further indexing includes the estimation of pair resonance by using co-occurring word pairs, as
opposed to co-occurring words (Corman et al. 2002, 179). First, for words i and j in text T the
pair influence is calculated:

( ibid)

represents the number of times that words i and j co-occur (their corresponding nodes
are connected directly by an edge) (Corman et al. 2002, 179).
In order to calculate pair resonance a new indicator,

, is introduced. Thus, should the word

pairs (


co-occur in text A and in text B, the indicator will equal 1, if not,


is equal to 0 (Corman et al. 2002, 179). Pair resonance, PR

, is given by:
( ibid)
is a measure of how words are combined within the utterances that make up the text, so it
is much better at estimating the mutual relevance of two texts than word resonance (Corman et
al. 2002, 179). As was the case for word resonance, a standardized measure of pair resonance is
( ibid)

Thus, CRA shows how words are prominent in creating a structural pattern of coherence in a
text (Corman et al. 2002, 179).

4. Application is the final step of CRA, the one in which the indexed CRA network or set of
networks are used to analyze a certain topic (Corman et al. 2002, 180). As such, this step will be
used in order to present the definitions and typology that were applied for identifying the media
frames, as well as the technique employed once these two preliminary steps were completed.
Thus, in the following paragraphs the qualitative element of the analysis will be presented.
The qualitative analysis of the text meant that the monthly CRA maps and each respective list of
top centers and top center pairs were investigated. In order to identify the frames, Entmans
(2004) operational definition was used. This, instead of describing its attributes, presents how a
frame actually operates. As such, there are two types of frames: substantive (referring to at least
two of the following issues: problematic effects or situations, causes, moral judgments and
remedies or improvements) and procedural (more limited in scope and referring to legitimacy
stemming from techniques, success or representativeness) (4-5). This particular type of definition
was considered appropriate as it could provide precise operational guidelines (Matthes 2009,
350). The definition with its proposed typology was used onto the center pairs and CRA map.
Unlike the individual centers, these two provided additional information regarding the content
and context of the particular salient ideas.
The particular brand of discourse analysis employed in this paper is based on critical linguistics.
This sees the text as multifunctional, always simultaneously representing the world (ideational
function) and enacting social relations and identities (interpretational function) (Fairclough
1995, 25) or both socially constitutive [and] socially conditioned (Blommaert and Bulcaen
2000, 448). In fact, the idea that the media text is both a representation of society as it as and a
concomitant attempt at creating or re-creating society was one of the core assumptions of this
paper. If the or the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today
are not considered as representatives of their respective types of current or ideal reality, then it
makes no sense to try to understand how the frames that they employed are a result of different
types of network power and an attempt at strengthening the same power or counter-power.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) core intentions are to unveil opaque as well as transparent
structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in
language (Wodak 1995 in Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000, 448). As such, its choice

complemented Castells networked theory of power, which considers mass communication
networks a major source of power in society (Castells 2011, 786). Thus, looking at media frames
through the lens of CDA would allow the researcher to see how power and control are exercised
through the choice of language.
The analysis process is based on a variation of the CDA as it was described by Wodak (1995).
Thus, she begins by looking at the original documents, then gathers context information and
moves on to the final step of putting these two within the bigger picture provided by news
reporting, political discourse, lay beliefs, and discourse (Wodak 1995 in Blommaert and
Bulcaen 2000, 450). For the current paper this meant that the original content produced by was gathered and then went through several steps (that have already been
discussed) that allowed for it to produce a clean CRA map and center lists. Also, a context and a
timeline of the Occupy Wall Street social movement were described using various sources.
Afterwards, the content regarding OWS in the three major newspapers went through the same
process as that from, and a general description of them such as circulation,
demographic characteristics of their audience and ownership were used in order to create a
background for the analysis of their content. The result is a critical analysis of both facets of
OWS: on one hand, what the movement itself chose to put forward and on the other, what the
mainstream media selected as valuable content about the OWS.
Thus, the methodology was a complementary one. It was part quantitative, so as to produce
reliable, objective content for further analysis, and part qualitative, so as to put the numerical
results into context ( social, economical and political) and help explain how media frames and
counter frames worked within Castells (2009, 2011) network theory of power in this particular
However, because personal bias could influence the qualitative analysis, a final statistical test of
the relationship between the top centers was done. This was considered a valuable step in
creating a more reliable interpretation of the OWS phenomenon in the media. In order to do so, a
simple statistical test was done using STATA, in which OccupyWallSt.orgs cumulated monthly
top centers were compared with each of the three mainstream media sources. An OLS (ordinary
least squares) model (Knoke, Borhrnstedt and Mee 2002) was fitted on the cumulated monthly

top centers three times. Each time, the top centers calculated for OWSt's source material were
taken as the independent variable, with the dependent variable being the top centers of each of
the three major newspapers studied. Thus, the model is a simple, univariate OLS. This type of
regression model estimates the linear relation between the independent variable (or variables)
and the dependent variable, as well as the closeness of fit of the relationship (Knoke, Borhrnstedt
and Mee 2002). This translates into a model where an increase of one unit in the independent
variable(s) will lead to a constant change of the dependent variable, with a rate of change
indifferent of the level of the independent variable (Knoke, Borhrnstedt and Mee 2002). The
relationship is thus described by the following equation:

The type of data inputted determined the choice of OLS as a model. Both the dependent, and the
independent variables are highly processed, linearized indices (centers) representing the same
quantities (measures) and built using the same formulas. Thus, if there is a relationship between
the underlying phenomena (messages), it will be most accurately reflected in an OLS model.
Only individual centers were kept for this stage of the analysis. Center pairs were not included.
The main reason for this is the difficulty, programmatically, to detect identical center-pairs in
two different source materials. This occurs as each center pair name is artificially created by the
CRA software based on resonance scores of its individual components (i.e., a center pair
containing center1 and center2 may be described by Crawdad as center1|center2 in one corpus
and center2|center1 in the other). Further, some months (basically those before OWS was
mentioned in print media) were dropped for obvious reasons - it is nonsensical to assess that
there are linkages between OWSt's message and traditional media messages before there is any
print media mention of OWS. No additional control variables were taken into account as part of
the model. As the purpose of the paper is to analyze discourse, no quantifiable, objective controls
could be devised that were not taken into account by the complex CRA analysis. No temporal
lags were used either, as it is expected that news propagation is extremely fast (or at least far
faster than the one-month windows used within this study).
Overall, the combination of the quantitative and qualitative methods was believed to produce
both a reliable outcome and a nuanced one that could show how the chosen theories worked in

6. Analysis

Power and counterpower in the network society are a central theme of this paper, as the Occupy
Wall Street movement is aimed at shifting the balance of power through its online and offline
actions. Its main stated goal is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and
multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an
economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations (
2012). Therefore, their intentions are actually directed at what Castells (2009) called the
switchers, one of the two types of social actors holding true network making power and the basis
for all the other types of power within the network society. However, this paper is aimed at
seeing how the media content was used by the OWS in order to gain counter power, and to see
whether or not its mainstream media portrayal is similar to its own. As such, the various
differences and similarities between the two types of sources will be analyzed: first through the
monthly evolution of content and then by looking at the cumulated monthly content as a whole.

6.1 Brief description of the overall newspaper content on Occupy Wall Street
Before moving on to the monthly development of the OWS messages, a first look at the amount
of content produced by established media can give a better understanding of OWS popularity.
Thus, the OWS movement generated 668 news articles in The New York Times (1.83 articles
per day or approximately 1 article every 13 hours), 294 news articles in The Wall Street Journal
(0.805 articles per day or approximately 1 article every 1.2 days) and 107 news articles in USA
Today (0.2961 articles/day or approx. 1 article every 3.5 days) (see appendix. 1 for details). Note
that no articles were published about Occupy Wall Street in any of the three major newspapers
before street protest erupted in New York City in the middle of September 2011. Further, in the
'hottest' of months (October and November 2011), with the exception of USA Today in October,
all three newspapers had, on average, at least one daily article concerning or referring to Occupy
Wall Street. The New York Times reached an absolute peak, with 171 articles published in
October 2011, a rate of 5.51 articles per day or 1 article every 4.5 hours, making it one of their

most covered subjects. NYT's coverage of Occupy Wall Street in October 2011 was above that
of Iraq (138 articles), Afghanistan (123 articles) or even the killing of Gaddafi, a major event
taking place in October 2011 (86 articles using Qaddafi, the canonical The New York Times
spelling, 2 with other spellings) (Factiva 2011).

6.2 Monthly evolution
In the next pages, I will be going through the CRA maps and top center pairs lists produced by
Crawdad and using the previously discussed theories, will analyze the CRA results. This will be
organized by month and by source. I will start with OccupyWallSt.orgs content which is
considered the movements original documents (Wodak 1995 in Blommaert and Bulcaen
2000, 450) and move on to the three national newspapers. As previously stated, the only content
about the OWS in July and August 2011 can be found on (OWSt), thus no
comparative analysis of top center pairs can be done for these months. Also, occasionally the
center pairs movement Occupy and movement Occupy Wall Street appear instead of Occupy
movement and Occupy Wall Street movement in the CRA top centers lists. For the purpose of
making the present paper more readable, they have been presented as Occupy movement and
Occupy Wall Street movement in the following pages. However, the analysis results are not
changed, since the most resonant individual centers are also identified separately. All the
monthly CRA maps as well as the tops of centers and center pairs are available in Appendix 2.

July 2011 on
The first month for which data is available is July 2011. As stated above, data for it exists only
on the website. Most of the content is a call-to-arms and is focused on
building legitimacy. In fact, the first three months in the life of the, can be
considered as being heavily focused on network making focused on a combination of goals: both
power-making (or, more appropriately, counter-power) and culture-making (Castells 2009).
Additionally, the content of the website strives to create the legitimacy for wanting this type of
power. As such, their July communication is centered on terms that evoke legitimacy through

representativeness (Entman 1993) with center pairs that are mostly combinations of the center
people and the centers Wall Street, assembly, Bloombergville, time, bull, decades-old, new,
Yorker, nation, voice, deadline, available, and general. In fact, of the thirty one top center-pairs
found by Crawdad, thirteen (41.9%) are pairs built with people. These help create an
unambiguous image of the group that OWS wants to organize (a general and all-inclusive the
people) and the grounds for this to happen: Wall Street, the need to have a voice based on or for
the nation and with a basis that is decades-old. The malleable delimitation of, or the lack thereof,
their target supporters is a normal step in the beginning of the counter-power building process.
This starts more like a mutual self discovery and recognition and as such, it is different from the
situation where traditional, mainstream holders of power can impose ideas onto their decided and
well-studied target audience. Bloombergville, an encampment to intensify and strengthen the
struggle against austerity in New York City ( 2011), is part of the sixth
most resonant center pair and creates a bridge between what has already been started in the
direction of OWS goals and what the new movement intends to do in its future.
The second most resonant center is Wall Street, found in nine of the thirty one center pairs
(29.03%). This is combined with: people, August, assembly, occupation, bull, cutback, new,
Yorker, September. While the first most resonant center (people: both stand-alone with a
resonance of 0.3592 and in pairs with 0.123) defines who us is for the OWS, the second one
(Wall Street) defines them, not quite the enemy but not quite far from that either. Answering the
question of who are we? versus who are the ones whose values were fighting against? is a
basic element in the definition of counter-power on the backdrop of established power. The way
this second most resonant center is combined also refers to legitimacy through representativeness
(people), as well as the cause of their discontent (cutbacks) and the means or technique of
reacting to the status-quo: the August 2 general assembly, at the Wall Street bull, speaking to
New Yorkers as their primary audience and a reiterated promise of future actions in the form of
occupations in September. The message is simple enough, clear enough and straightforward
enough that its resonant elements become the central focus of the discourse. Additionally, the
focus on organizational issues also shows the complementing connective and collective core
(Bennett and Segerberg 2012) of the movement. Thus, on one hand OWSt is providing its
audience with personalized messages (the basis of connective action), while on the other it

provides them with the tools for loose coordination of action (a moderate form of collective
action) (756).
Overall, the ratio of the stand-alone resonance of the center Wall Street versus the people is 1:2.
So, while both of them are extremely important in organizing the message, it is fair to state that
the focus is on gaining the attention and support of the people for the OWS rather than vilifying
their opponent, at least for the time being.

August 2011 on
The second month of online presence for OWSt focuses on clarifying the reasons why their
actions are necessary (the center right was verified with the OWS articles so that it refers to the
noun and not the adjective). This center is present in 67.7% of the most resonant center pairs and
is combined with: economic, adequate, large, opportunity, nation, decent, new, home, protection,
job, old, family, political, good, human, nonviolence, tenacity, strategic, state, medical,
language. Thus, most references are to substantive frames of either moral judgments (decent,
adequate, good, and human) or remedies to problematic situations (economic, human or medical
rights and opportunities). These issues are in line with social discontent with the values of
capitalism that Castells (2007) noted as being a part of a general trend that has, in recent years,
generated social movements. There are also references to procedural frames of legitimacy
through representativeness or technique: nation, family, human, on the one hand, and
nonviolence and tenacity on the other. In fact, the top six center pairs (all combinations with
right) are followed by the pair general assembly, a direct reference to their techniques
(procedural frame).
The second center that colonizes the meaning of the text is economic which is present in 22.6%
of the most salient center pairs, and is resonant with: right, adequate, large, day, freedom,
opportunity, and nation. As was the case of the previous month, the second most salient term
refers to a problematic situation and its remedies, both substantive frames. Other references are
made as two combinations of people and percent (the rich and affluent one percent vs. the

oppressed ninety nine percent) or assembly, as well as a more superfluous combination of
assembly and meeting.
August is the first month when Occupy Wall Street becomes a resonant center in the articles on, but for now it appears only in the lower half of the top most resonant centers.
The overall primary focus on substantive frames, those which define the movement, rather than
justify its presence, demonstrates the evolution of the message from July to
August. Also, this type of frame is more appropriate for this particular stage when they are
defining the goals of the alternative network that it was building (Castells 2009, 420).

September 2011 on
September 2011 is when the actual OWS physical actions began. It is also the month when the
communication on the website explodes: from 455 nodes in the previous month to 1306 in the
current one. This also means that the content is no longer focused on one center that organizes
most of the text but that, instead, more varied centers are introduced. The center pair with the
highest salience score is general assembly, a procedural frame. However, the preferred center for
center pairs this month is the police, present in 29% of the center pairs in combinations with:
protester, assembly, September, public, plaza, square, member, event and demonstrator, thus
focusing on problematic interactions with the law and falling within the category of substantive
frames. This particular type of focus is aimed at showing to its public OWS ability to oppose
preexistent and taken for granted modes of interaction with established power, which in fact is
the defining quality of counter-power (Castells 2007, 239).
The second most present center within pairs, with 25% of the cases, is September, combined
with: occupation, wall-street, police, assembly, American, financial, group, general. The
resulting image of these co-occurrences is one of fixed techniques (occupations, assemblies) as
well as references to problematic situations or interactions (financial, police). With a slightly
higher resonance score than September, but somewhat less connected (19%) within the text is
people which appears in conjunction with occupation, assembly, power, group, Wall-Street, and
solidarity. These pairs help build the frame of legitimacy due to representativeness (assemblies

and occupations as well as wanting power become legitimate as they come through the actions of
the people).

September 2011 - The New York Times
September 2011 is the first month of media coverage of the movement which is now actually
present in the streets of New York. As expected from the literature (Rauch et al. 2007, Edgerly,
Toft and Veden 2011, Atton and Wickenden 2005) the focus is on the normative and legitimate
from the point of view of the authorities. Thus, the most resonant center pair is police
department, the second one is New York police, whereas the most resonant center is police
followed by New York. The most resonant center is also the most connected within the top center
pairs as it is present in 48.4% of them. It is linked to: department, New York, protester, people,
demonstration, city, page, inspector, street, Browne, Saturday, union, week, official, deputy.
This means that almost half of the content regarding the bourgeoning social movement looks at it
through the perspective of the actions of the police or OWS interaction with the police.
Furthermore, the New York police chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, is quoted repeatedly in the
text. However, at one point his failure to get the story straight regarding an incident during the
Brooklyn bridge march is described in detail. The focus on the interaction with the police is
similar to that of the OWSts itself. However, as the strongest voices being heard in the
newspaper are those of the authorities, this shows the newspapers reluctance to accept messages
from them movement. Thus, they are using their networking power to effectively reject those
messages coming from outside their network.
Another member of the New York police garners the attention of the newspaper: inspector
Bologna who was filmed pepper spraying protesters on two occasions. Though his actions are
presented, his name is not directly connected with the center police. So, though it may appear
that the story is presented from a strictly objective angle, this occasion of possible police
misconduct is not presented as such, or is presented in an evasive manner. As such, an instance
when they could have portrayed the authorities in a bad light, as well as give the OWS a form of
moral superiority is avoided due to networked power and its respective processes (Castells 2009,

2011). The pepper spray incident provides another valuable center: spray which is present in
16% of the top center pairs alongside pepper, page, use, protester, and video.
The second most connected center is New York, present in 19.4% of the most resonant center
pairs. Its strongest connections are with: police, officer, page, department, people and union. As
this is the place where the events are happening as well as where the newspaper has its
headquarters the focus was to be expected. However, its interesting to see that OWS focuses
much less on their physical birthplace and that already in September it has a more national scope
as it uses New York, San Francisco and American as lower resonance centers. However, as can
be seen for the connections built around the center New York, this is done in order to describe the
movement as a disruptive force. Additionally, this manages to portray OWS' attempts to create
counter-power that challenges institutionalized power relations (Castells 2007, 2009).

September 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
September 2011 is also the first month of OWS coverage in The Wall Street Journal. The most
resonant center pair is protester group followed by protester permit (one creates a substantive
frame while the other a procedural one of legitimacy). The most resonant center is police
followed by protester. The center police is found in 38.7% of the top center pairs and is
connected to demonstrator, New York, department, law, New York city, social, spray, street,
Browne, spokesman, low, and body. The focus is strongly on the authority perspective of the
situation (the NYPD spokesman Browne can be found in the list above) as was the situation of
the previous media source. This source does not focus its attention on inspector Bologna.
Although it mentions the incident, this is described as aiming a canister of pepper spray at a
small group of protesters (Gardiner 2011) and not actually pepper-spraying the protesters, even
though the video clearly demonstrates the action (USLAWdotcom 2011). This is another
instance of framing the issues in such a way that painting the authorities in a negative manner is
avoided, and it is likely a result of networked power. The second most connected center within
the top center pairs is protester which is present in 22.5% of the top center pairs. It forms
resonant pairs with: group, permit, Manhattan, people, Saturday, arrest, and spray. Thus, the

focus is on legitimacy (people, group, and permit) as well as problematic situations (arrest and

October 2011 on
October is the 2011 peak month in terms of number of communication nodes, with a total of
1631. It is also the only month when Occupy Wall Street is the most resonant center of
communication, which makes sense if you consider the movements need to create (something
similar to) brand awareness. The highest resonance center pair is Liberty Square followed by
people movement, the latter is a procedural frame referring to legitimacy through
The center with the highest resonance and frequency within the center pairs is OWS, which
appears in 38.7% of the top center pairs. It is connected with centers such as people, Wall Street,
square, occupation, October, world, protest, percent, solidarity, parent, Liberty, and movement.
Thus, it creates an image of representativeness based both on legitimacy (people, parent) and
techniques (movement, occupation, Liberty Square) as well as moral judgments with protest
and solidarity. The second most connected center within the center pairs is people which is
present in 29% of the top center pairs and is connected with centers such as movement, OWS,
world, action, percent, liberty, solidarity, and Wall Street. The presence of world in connections
with both the first and second strongest centers can also be accounted for by the fact that October
is the month when international protests following OWS model appear. October 15 marks the
beginning of international protests in Europe and Asia (MSN News 2011). These connections
provide a rather positive image of the OWS, one in which they are gaining counter-power and
are protesting with legitimate reasons This happens because the networked power is theirs and
thus they can (counter-) frame their messages in a way that is beneficial to them.
This is the first month when the term the ninety nine percent is salient enough to be part of the
top center pairs. The term refers to the OWS idea that the 1% of American society, such as
banks, the insurance and mortgage industry, hoard the biggest portion of the wealth while
allowing the 99% of the population to work for them without a decent and fair compensation

(Wearethe99percent 2012). The concept creates an image of legitimacy, as well as a moral
judgment as it refers to income inequality and wealth distribution.

October 2011 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is OWS protest, followed by OWS protester, whereas the most
resonant center is protester followed by protest. The strongest presence within the top center
pairs is that of protester in 45.1% of them. It is connected with: OWS, police, Wall Street,
people, group, Zuccotti Park, park, protest, movement, right, city, new, New York, and week. Its
strong connectivity is followed by that of protest which is present in 32.3% of the top center
pairs and is connected with: OWS, movement, people, New York, Wall Street, city, police, week,
protester, and page. This means that the two of them are present in the majority of the top center
pairs. What the OWS calls the movement which implies a longer lifespan for what was
happening, the newspaper refers to as the protest which creates an image of something that is
time sensitive and more likely to disappear just as quickly as it appeared, a more likely to be
ignored and irrelevant form of counter-power. This focus creates a strong representation of a
problematic situation (substantive frame). The newspaper seems to not direct its attention on
OWS causes or intentions, nor does it seek to explain it or understand it but only to present it
superficially in its physical presence in New York citys Zuccotti Park. It definitely catches the
eye that, even though NYT heavily focuses on protest it is not interested in answering one of the
basic questions in journalism: why? In fact, the two centers, tax and financial, that resemble an
explanation have lower rank connections only to other parts of the text: the first to New York,
American, financial and OWS and the second to New York, tax, city and new. This situation
provides an interesting instance of networked power in action which biases the text by not
completing it according to its own, basic rules of journalistic writing.
Also, although OWS had started becoming an international movement the fact does not become
a high resonance center in the New York Times articles. Also, the OWS center has high
resonance connections only to protest, protester and lower resonance ones to movement, and
people, further proving the focus on OWS as a protest rather than a movement.

October 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
October 2011 is the month with the largest number of articles, 90, and centers, 6435, regarding
OWS in the WSJ. This increased interest is explained by the fact that by October the OWS had
spread nationally and was on the media agenda of most major newspapers. The most resonant
center pair is OWS protester (second: OWS movement) whereas the most resonant center is
people followed by OWS. In fact, the top three center pairs are identical for WSJ and the NYT
and two of them also appear as the top center pairs in USA today, showing that dominant media
frames (Entman 2004, 7) exist not only within one source but are instead persistent across
The center with the most connections within the center pairs is people present in almost 42% of
the top center pairs and linked with American, OWS, year, park, movement, Wall Street,
protester, new, group, bank, protest, time, and young. These combinations refer to legitimacy
through representativeness (American people) as well as problematic situations (protest,
protester, movement). However through using the adjective young the representativeness aspect
is limited and as a result it marginalizes the group (Rauch et al. 2007, 132). Also, as the center
bank is present in the top center pairs this is the first reference to a possible cause of the OWS
movement. Furthermore, the feeling of discontent is explained in the newspaper as stemming
from the impression that when Wall Street was on its knees, the American taxpayers came to
their rescue with trillions of dollars in bailouts and promise from the big banks that they'd invest
in our recovery. Instead, the banks used hard-earned tax dollars to enrich themselves (Henry
2011). However, no centers referring to specific actions of the banks that led to the protests
appear in the top centers. Thus, though it may seem that the WSJ is explaining the movements
reasons it certainly does not focus on this, as their language usage avoids legitimizing the
movement (Rauch et al. 2007, 135-6). The next most connected center is protester present in
29% of the top center pairs and connected to OWS, police, park, city, New-York, Wall Street,
people, group, and week. These create a combination of substantive and procedural frames as
they refer both to problematic situations as the interaction between the police and the protesters
and to representativeness: OWS, people, group.

The WSJ is the only one to focus on the center business the fifth most resonant center. This is
connected with big, American, government, Wall Street, bank, good and company. The strongest
connection, big business, is discussed as being in danger due to the populist anger over [the]
economy (Seib 2011) as further pressure on them to bring jobs back into the US is said that it
can only have the opposite effect. Such pressure from the public (among which the OWS is
found) could influence the government to pressure the corporations into bringing jobs back into
the US where the economic (fiscal) environment would only create further unbalance within
those companies and would hinder their growth. This framing allows the newspaper to protect
the status quo (Rauch et al. 2007, 133) while simultaneously casting a negative light unto the
intentions of the OWS.

October 2011 USA Today
October is the first month that USA Today covers the OWS protests. The most resonant center
pair is Wall-street protester followed by Occupy Wall Street protest, and protester police
whereas the most resonant center is Wall Street followed by people. The center with the strongest
connections within the top center pairs is protester, present in 29% of them. It is connected with
Wall-street, police, OWS, city, occupy, protester, New-York, Chicago, job. The protester job pair
is particularly important as it seeks to explain why the protesters came to the streets: loss of jobs
or job insecurity (substantive frame).
The second most strongly connected center is people making up pairs together with police,
American, protester, street, movement, OWS, government, year, good. Government cutbacks, a
high level of dissatisfaction with government as well as demanding a more responsive
government (Wickham 2011) are also part of the OWS reasons for protesting that are presented
in the newspaper. Another center that is important is party which is predominantly used as a
reference to the 2009 Tea Party protests for which the OWS is seen as a counter-narrative
(ibid) as the former wanted less involvement from the government whereas the latter demanded a
more responsible and involved one.
Thus USA today creates the most balanced frame for the OWS movement by using the conflict
frame that the other two newspapers used as well, and supplementing it with the more in depth

presentation of the reasons why the movement appeared. The result is a combination of the
traditional confrontation frame (Hertog and McLeod 2001 in Rauch et al. 2007, 138) and a
legitimizing one that speaks for the movement.

November 2011 on
In November 2011, begins to slowly quiet down, a process that will last until
March 2012. The most resonant center is movement followed by Occupy Wall Street, whereas the
most resonant center pair is the Occupy movement. The focus on the ninety-nine percent concept
increases as it appears as the third most resonant center pair. The most connected center within
pairs is once again (though for the last time) OWS. It is present in 32.3% of the center pairs and
is linked with movement, square, people, liberty, park, ninety-nine, percent, occupy, and
community. Once again the OWS is concentrating on communicating legitimacy through
representativeness ( people, ninety-nine percent, community) as well as on techniques being used
( movement, occupy), thus continuing to build their counter frame (Castells 2009).
The second most visible center is movement which is paired with occupy, ninety-nine, percent,
OWS, right, action, and square, so most of these are identical to those connected with OWS. The
focus on rights refers both to causes for the movement (human right to housing education is a
right November) or problematic situations such as the violent repression of
their basic right to dissent ( November 2011) as well as to means of
improvement and techniques (right to occupy public space, right to express ourselves). The
overall effect is similar to that observed by Atton (2002) who noted that the protesters employed
the traditional conflict frame that is used against them, to instead present the establishment as
oppressive and unnecessarily violent. The center rights is also used in the context of the
November 15 eviction from Zuccotti Park, though the connection is not strong enough to appear
within the top center pairs but is visible on the CRA map. The center eviction is present in the
lower half of the top centers, but only has weak connections to Occupy, OWS, liberty and park
and is not connected with police, NYPD or protest. This may seem as unusual; however, the
eviction moment is presented on the website through videos (which show both an interaction
with the police and the protest) rather than text.

November 2011 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is Occupy Wall Street protester seconded by protester police
whereas the most resonant center is protester followed by people. These top elements resulting
from the CRA continue to not only use but actually focus on the traditional conflict frame for
social movements. Though almost three months have passed since the beginning of the protests,
the NYT continues to present the OWS in this light and continues to avoid presenting OWS
causes. This comes as a result of editorial decisions that stem from a combination of networking
power (not accepting messages coming from outside the network) and quite likely networked
power (not accepting messages coming from inside the network as they go against the accepted
narrative) (Castells 2009).
The strongest connections are created by protester present in 42% of the top center pairs and
connected with: OWS, police, park, city, group, people, country, tent, Occupy, New York,
Zuccotti Park, day, and university. Most centers in the enumeration seem to focus on localizing
the events: park (mostly refers to Zuccotti Park), city, New York, Zuccotti Park, and university.
The latter refers to the university student occupations happening across the country. The focus
on Zuccotti Park / park was to be expected as the middle of the month marked the eviction of the
OWS protesters from the Zuccotti encampment. Country is used both to present the spread of the
movement as well as to refer to the challenging economic situation across the country, though
once again no precise references to either usage make it unto the top centers or pairs. Occupy
refers to the various reinterpretations of the movement in cities across the US (Occupy Chicago,
Occupy Los Angeles, etc), whereas police refers to the often problematic interactions between
the protesters and the authorities.
Occupy Wall Street is linked to protester, movement, protest, people, providing a rather simple,
limited and even funny in an absurd way representation of the movement (just imagine the
resulting sentence: The Occupy Wall Street movement are the people protesters who protest).
The second most strongly connected center is people contributing to 38% of the top pairs
together with: park, protester, city, American, good, police, group, young, OWS, country, year,
and time. Most of the connections are identical to those of protester. Thus, while using the center
American gives the impression of real representativeness of the movement, limiting it with young

or, as did the WSJ in the previous month, university means that those involved are more likely to
be the representatives of at most a 23% minority made up of young people (18-34) with at least
a bachelors degree or working towards one (US Census bureau 2011). Not representative at all,
it seems.

November 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
The most resonant center pair is OWS protester (second: protester police) whereas the most
resonant center is protester followed by people. The top resonant center, protester, is also the
best connected center within the top pairs, present in 35.5% of them alongside: OWS, police, city,
people, group, Zuccotti Park, new, park, political, large, and week. The focus on Zuccotti Park
and the police given the protesters eviction was to be expected. However, no direct reference to
the event made it onto the top centers. Another strongly connected center is Occupy Wall Street
(16.1%) linked with protester, movement, protest, police, and New York, thus adding to the frame
of a problematic situation in a rather limited descriptive manner.
A new center that receives attention in November is tax linked to new, state, New-York, and
financial. This is mostly talked about in an article analyzing the possibility of a financial
speculation sales tax that could, in theory, limit the risky speculative trading that contributes
little real economic value (Nader 2011). On the one hand, this was strongly being opposed by
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Financial Services Forum and Business Roundtable the
representatives of the the most powerful corporations and financial-services companies in the
world (ibid). On the other hand, the OWS protesters are described as pushing elected officials
to break the corporate stranglehold on our economy (ibid). Thus the frame being used is that of
a problematic situation together with a moral judgment (risky speculation) as well as presenting a
possible remedy and linking these to the OWS thus establishing some legitimacy for the
movement which can only be seen by looking at the texts in their entirety and not at the CRA
map. Thus, once again, though a semblance of a positive nod in the direction of the protesters
appears in the newspaper, it is not relevant enough for WSJs frames to become a point of focus
for the OWS content. The preferred frames (Castells 2009) do not allow for this to happen.

November 2011 USA Today
The most resonant center pair is OWS movement, followed by OWS protester and good people,
while the most resonant center is people followed by protester. The most strongly connected
center within the top center pairs is people, present in 45.2% of them, and linked with good,
country, cause, business, American, time, Occupy Wall Street, tax, government, store, job,
movement, public, and way. Though people is a rather general, all inclusive term, the way it
connects with other parts of the text shows how the USA today attention is distributed. Take for
example business which is also connected to job, protester and new. One of the recurring themes
is the businesses create jobs one which is linked in the texts to the concepts of small businesses
and the American individual initiative rather than with the big business OWS criticizes. Thus, the
focus is shifted from what the OWS protests about (corporations) towards the innocent small
businesses that any American is said to be able to start. A problematic situation as OWS defined
it, the irresponsible corporations putting their profit before the wellbeing of the people, is
dismantled and reorganized into a completely different topic, therefore also shifting the moral
judgment from against (big) business to in support of (small) business. If one of the main goals
of any network is profit making (Castells 2009, 420) it certainly makes no sense to alienate
possible sources of advertising income by portraying them negatively.
Job is the second most connected center within the top pairs, but is only used in 16.1% of them.
It is linked with good, business, people, public, and economy. As was the case of business, the
jobs are also slightly redefined. On one hand, they are presented as creating an understandably
problematic situation for the American people and the OWS protesters. On the other hand, they
are connected to businesses, big and (mostly) small, and thus make it seem as though OWS
protest against the actions of big business are protests against job creation.
Another center pair referring to a problematic situation is student loan which, though it is
mentioned as a top grievance for the OWS community (Block 2011), is then removed from this
context and taken into a discussion about proposed changes of policy to ease its burden which
could actually be considered a positive outcome of the protests, although the connection is not
made overtly. The center OWS is slightly less connected than the previous ones (12.9%) and
generates top pairs together with: movement, protester, people, and protest thus resulting in a

limited substantive frame based on the vague description of a problematic situation.
Additionally, it can be said that the lack of definition of OWS goals, external support or direct
mentioning of its influence has a de-legitimizing effect (Rauch et al. 2007, 135-6).

December 2011 on
In December the number of centers continues to decline. The most resonant center pair is Occupy
movement, whereas the most resonant center is community. The latter is also the best connected
center within the top pairs, present in 25.8% of them, alongside OWS, right, local, action,
movement, occupy, home, and space. A related theme arises from the center home which is
present in 22.6% of the top pairs and is connected with movement, occupy, new, right, action,
community, and country. The shift in focus around the time of the winter holidays is rather
natural and is emphasized by other top centers such as local, community, food, solidarity, or New
Year. All of these give a more positive tone to the text, one that is more appropriate with the
holiday spirit, while instilling a sense of legitimacy based on representativeness as well as
slightly shifting and adapting the counter frame (Castells 2009).
Similarly, OWS strongest connections are to community, movement, December, and space, while
its slightly weaker ones are to home, local, New York, and occupier. Also, Occupy, the root of
the movements name, is used in connection with home, DC, Boston, new, and event. Some of
these refer to ongoing actions or necessities of the OWS. For example, December is mostly used
for organization purposes; space refers to OWS need for a physical space to express themselves,
Boston and DC refer to the spreading of the protests across the country; thus all referring to
procedural frames. The remaining centers, however, build the same positive emotions as the
centers mentioned in the previous paragraph.

December 2011 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is new tax (second: New Year) whereas the most resonant center is
new followed by year. The center OWS is only mentioned fleetingly in the articles and is most

strongly connected with protester, movement, and new (year and taxes). New, on the other hand,
has the strongest presence within the top center pairs (58%) and appears together with: tax, year,
art, show, bank, page, protester, work, way, music, New York, people, company, public, state,
day, OWS, and good.
The focus on new taxes comes from New Yorks Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, who declared
repeatedly that there are ongoing discussions about the possible change in the states tax code.
This could include an increased tax on the states wealthiest and a tax decrease for its middle
class. It may be an ironic coincidence, but their readers are being presented with another
mythical creature (apart from Santa Claus): the tax burdened rich man. Overall, these centers
create a substantive frame, and put some focus on the remedies proposed by the OWS (taxing the
rich similarly to how the rest of the population is taxed). This creates a slight shift from the
preferred frame that would most likely say that the status quo is ideal to a seeming adoption of a
counter frame (Castells 2009) which presents the rich as taxable. However, this is done at a time
when people are probably thinking of happier topics such as Christmas or the New Year and are
likely to disregard more serious topics. Art, music and show appear as top centers because of the
OWS support of or being supported by the art community, thus referring to legitimacy limited to
a very small group.

December 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
The most resonant center pair is income tax (second: new tax) whereas the most resonant center
is tax followed by U.S. Tax is the prevalent center within the top pairs, as it is used in 48.8% of
them. It appears alongside: income, new, state, federal, year, business, top, individual, U.S.,
bank, high, corporate, big, policy, and capital. Thus, this continues the previous months
discussion on taxes, as well as doubles the New York Times coverage of the issue. Occupy Wall
Street is connected with movement, group, protester, home, New York, and city. Thus the framing
seems similar to that that had for the OWS movement, though there is no
mention of community, for example. The center Oakland has a relatively strong presence in the
discourse and is connected with police, city, movement, occupy and business. This refers to
Occupy Oaklands negative effect on the local business as they were first evicted from their

encampment, only to later be allowed back which had a directly negative effect on the small
community businesses in its proximity (White 2011). This negative framing of the OWS is
similar to the one in Novembers USA Today. Thus, while the OWS may be saying that it wants
equality and it fights big business and corporate greed, its actions are actually hurting small
business. Thus, WSJ addresses a completely different problem than those that are on OWS
agenda, and shows that the networking power (Castells 2009, 2011) is working properly.

December 2011 USA Today
The most resonant center pair is president Obama (second: American Republican., third Obama
state) whereas the most resonant center is American followed by state. American and Republican
are the most connected centers within the top pairs, both being present in 22.6% of them. The
focus on the latter is due to the upcoming Republican presidential primaries that were to start in
January 2012. The center American appears in conjunction with Republican, OWS, time,
national, job, group, and association, while Republican is mostly used together with American,
president, Obama, time, national, political, and economic. This offers a glimpse into 2012s
heightened attention to the presidential election which will be often mentioned within the
references to Occupy Wall Street.
OWS appears with weaker connections to new, income, people and movement. The only new
center, income, is briefly mentioned in the context of income inequality which was provided
by one of Presidents Obama speeches (Jackson and Wolf 2011). Given that the readers of USA
Today have the lowest incomes of the three newspapers analyzed by this paper this is where it
would be expected to find such references. Additionally, as the quoted source is an official or
elite one (Rauch et al. 2007, 133) this decreases any potential risk that may derive from
mentioning such an opinion, thus the constraints imposed by the networked power (Castells
2009, 2011) are slightly diminished.


The end of 2011, the New Year celebrations, the problematic weather for outdoor protests all
meant a decreased interest and physical presence for the OWS movement. Thus, the period prior
to the May Day marches is best described as OWS getting rather marginal attention from the US
print media, as the street protests were no longer as visible and OWS lost the element of novelty.
Therefore, in the following paragraphs the months of January, February, March and April 2012
will be analyzed together.

January-April 2012 on
In January the most resonant center pair is Occupy movement, whereas the most resonant center
is people followed by Occupy. These two centers colonize the meaning of most of the text. Thus,
Occupy organizes 41.9% of the top center pairs, alongside: movement, Oakland, action, people,
January, home, police, Nigerian, DC, Boston, Portland, solidarity, occupier; while people has a
similar influence on 32.25% of them: Occupy, movement, home, Nigerian, corporation,
community, police, world, Boston, national. Most of the centers these two influence are identical,
thus their cumulated connections can be analyzed. Oakland, DC, Boston, Portland ( used as the
OWS was focusing on planning and organizing future events in these particular locations) as
well as home, community, national and world give a sense of a movement that is still alive and
growing, despite the temporary slowdown of their street protests. Their grouping thus builds a
procedural frame based on the success of their growth and on their representativeness (people,
community, and home). Also, as rather ambiguous frames are used (in the sense that they do not
refer to particular actions, goals or values) this counter-frame works well within Castells model
(2009). As such, while the preferred or mainstream frames are ingrained in the mind of the
public, it (the public) cannot be provided with information that goes completely against
everything it has learned from the media so far. Thus, only the more culturally ambiguous
(164) counter frames are likely to challenge the dominant frame and be adopted by the media
consumer. The interest in Nigerias situation refers to a January 11 demonstration in front of the
countrys embassy to protest the recent cut in the oil subsidies for their citizens and the violent
reaction of the government when faced with their discontent (OccupyWallSt.Org 2012).

In February 2012 the most resonant center pair is action day, whereas the most resonant center is
action followed by Occupy. Action colonizes 62.3% of the top center pairs, alongside Occupy,
Washington, today, community, world, corporate, global, food, support, corporation, city,
people, European, foreclosure, Oakland, national, direct, movement, and day. After a rather
long period of dormancy, the Occupy movement goes back to a call to action and offers the
reasons to do so. This is a substantive frame based mostly on a problematic situation and a moral
judgment. The other strongly resonant center within the pairs was Occupy, which was
responsible for 29% of the top pairs alongside: Oakland, Chicago, day, movement, community,
support, London, national, and protester. In this case, the frame is procedural and based on the
success of the movement in the US and internationally and is built by using legitimizing
language (Rauch et al. 2007).
In March, the most resonant center pair is Washington march, whereas the most resonant center
is march (a combination of the action and, in a smaller proportion, the month) followed by
action, both of which continue Februarys focus on getting people back into the streets in order
to act and to be seen. The center march is responsible for 38.7% of the top center pairs together
with: day, Occupy, square, OWS, people, liberty, May, occupier, Wall Street, public, union, and
Washington. Its connections are quite similar to those of last months action, thus moving from a
more general term to a better defined one. Washington and May are the first references to the
May protests that will be partly directed at the G8 Summit taking place near Washington.
April marks an increase in the content on the OccupyWallSt website, as it focuses on getting
people involved in the planned May 1 protests. As such, the most resonant center pair is May
Day, whereas the most resonant centers are its individual components. Day is the best connected
center within the top pairs (48.4%) alongside: action, Occupy, people, NYC, community, square,
strike, union, worker, march, general, student, event, April, and May. May is the second most
strongly connected center (present in 32.25%) in conjunction with: action, general, strike,
people, square, union, street, march, NYC, and day. Given the strong connection between these
two centers, their adjacent centers can be examined simultaneously. The continued focus on the
call-to-action is easily noticeable. However, this time it is complemented by a richer but focused
array of centers such as general strike, union, and worker, all of which come from the classic
rhetoric of the May 1 International Workers Day. Not only do these centers work well with the

May 1 rhetoric, but they also match their previous the 99% versus the 1% speech, which was a
great source of support in the beginning of OWS.
Overall, during these four months in the beginning of 2012 the websites public is slowly primed
for the May 1 marches. The idea is gradually introduced, by using the more general term action
in the first two months and then shifting to the more particular center march in the later two.
Thus, not only does the website provide information about the movement but it also works as an
aid to action and mobilization (Stein 2009, 752). This shows new medias role as the space
where power is decided (Castells 2007, 242) as social movement can gain true power by
mobilizing (geographically) disparate masses.

January-April 2012 - The New York Times
In January, the most resonant center pair is New Year (second: recent year) whereas the most
resonant center is year followed by new. In fact, year organizes most of the top centers pairs
(51.6%) alongside: new, recent, people, group, time, state, percent, business, financial, company,
city, world, Republican, way, school, member. New has the same function for 29% of them: year,
New York, political, American, world, financial, people, state, job. Once again, given the strong
connection between these two most influential centers, the enumerated centers can be analyzed
as a unified group. Interestingly enough, now that OWS is no longer protesting in the streets, the
discourse seems much more focused on the issues that are of interest for the movement:
business, schools (mostly about public schools and the quality of the education they provide), the
financial situation, jobs, or percent which is used in the context of the 1% and the 99%. This is
partly because the NYT cannot present instances of negative interactions with the authorities
since the OWS was not protesting at the time. However, OWS is only used as an adjacent to
these topics and not the other way around. In fact, OWS only top connection is to the center
movement, though it is used in the text (not in the top center pairs) in weaker connections to
income inequality and to some minor protests that took place in New York. Also, as the election
year had begun, the discourse started to include more references to it, such as political,
Republican as well as President Obama, which is one of the top center pairs. The overall context
in which the OWS is presented is more connected to the movements agenda, however, most of

the top centers are only secondarily linked to OWS, and the apparent counter frame the NYT
seems to put forward is rather weak.
In February, the most resonant center pair is police department (second: new museum) whereas
the most resonant center is new followed by year. New Year is connected, through its individual
components, to museum, work, city, school, year, bank, art, sculpture, officer, new, people,
police, good, city, and Kelly. The center police is present in 25.8% of the top pairs, alongside
department, Kelly, officer, year, protester, work, protest, New York. OWS is connected to time,
part, protest, protester, American and people, all of which appear on the CRA map, though none
in the top center pairs, thus showing the relative weakness of the resonance. This month, the
OWS crowd protested against the measures that commissioner Kelly was taking in order to keep
the protests under control. However, though there are bonds between the centers protester, police
and Kelly, no such connections exist between OWS and them. This is at least unusual since the
only reason the commissioner appeared in the news was because the OWS was protesting his
decisions. As such, the focus is on the authorities and their actions and, in a sense, the result is
that the movement is marginalized while the status quo is reinforced instead of questioned
(Rauch et al. 2007, 132) Also, the discourse is more focused on arts, a community where OWS
found supporters, and only to a lesser extent to the problematic situation described by using
police, department, protester, and protest. Thus, their legitimacy is limited as they are presented
as being primarily backed by the artistic community and as a source of civil disobedience.
In March, New York Times most resonant center pair is young people seconded by police
department, while the most resonant center are people and new. Occupy Wall Streets strongest
connection, and the only one present in the top pairs, is with movement. However, other
connections appear on the CRA map: group, year, police, department, and city. These additional,
less prominent, centers provide very little new information about the movement such as
problematic situations or discussions of the way they aggregate have been provided before.
Finally, Aprils most resonant center pair is city group (second: small group) whereas the most
resonant center is group followed by year. Protester is the most visible centre referring to the
Occupy movement and is connected with Occupy, time, police. The newspaper discusses OWS
need to regain momentum after a long period of not being present in the street or in the news but

sees no alternatives (Schmidt 2012), thus making it seem like the movement was bound to fade
out completely quite soon after.
The overall impression created by these four months is that of a diminished focus on the
movement as its street protests have become less prominent. Despite this, the newspaper
continues to provide the movement with space which is used not to present its goals but to
enforce previous frames of disobedience and limited legitimacy. This is a facile approach, but
one that was to be expected as journalists tend to fall back on the same patterns given that they
work under constant financial and time pressure (Atton and Wickenden 2005, Rauch et al. 2007).

January-April 2012 - The Wall Street Journal
Januarys most resonant center pair is year - company (second: U.S new, third: OWS protester)
whereas the most resonant center is U.S. followed by year. Occupy Wall Streets strongest
connections are with protester, group, movement, and new (year) whereas its somewhat weaker
ones are with American and New York. Thus the content of the speech is a condensed version of
that of last years, in a similar manner as NYTs, although the amount of text dedicated to the
movement decreased as the focus of the newspaper shifts towards the Republican primaries and
the presidential elections.
In February, the most resonant center pair is Anonymous group, at one point a supporter of the
OWS, which was now in the news due to the NSAs concerns with the negative impact it could
have should it continue its illegal actions (Gorman 2012). The second top center pair is the
Occupy Wall Street movement, while the third is protester group. OWS only visible connections
on the CRA map are with movement and fund, the latter in an article debating the value of and
economical viability of socially responsible investing (Gay 2012).
In March the most resonant center pair is OccupyWallStreet protester (second: protester police,
third New York police) whereas the most resonant center is protester followed by year. OWS
strongest connections are with protester, protest and police. Aprils most resonant center pair is
Devaney - people (second: OccupyWallStreet people. third OccupyWallStreet protester), whereas
the most resonant center is OccupyWallStreet followed by Devaney. John Devaney is featured in

an article describing how his hedge fund crashed in 2007, the following investigation that was
eventually dropped as well as the fact that he was declared by as one of the 25 People to Blame
for the Financial Crisis by Time magazine, which creates the connection with OWS whose
members are said to be sending him hate mail (Eaglesham 2012). However, for the first time in
months, OWS has many strong connections within the discourse, meaning that it is no longer a
marginal element, used at most as a reminder of a movement passed but instead alive and well.
Its connections include: people, protester, part, day, movement, group, member, time, march,
labor, company, organizer, eviction, space making OWS a part of 45.2% of the top center pairs.
Most of the new attention it receives is directed at its May 1 plans for a march in support of labor
unions, simultaneously creating a frame of legitimacy through representativeness as well as
limiting this representativeness as May 1 International Workers Day is not officially celebrated
in the US.
To sum up, the first months of 2012 in the Wall Street Journal show a decreased interest in the
movement that as the May 1 marches approach starts to intensify once again. This increased
attention, as well as the fact that WSJ is not only presenting past or current actions of the OWS
but also its future plans, shows that it is probably following the website and
using it as a source of information about the social movement, though the OWS website is never
mentioned in any WSJ article. While alternative media sources have been known to use
established mainstream media sources because they provide credibility (Haas 2006), WSJ shows
a temporary inversion of the trend similar to that observed by Harcup (2005).

January-April 2012 - USA Today
The number of articles regarding OWS or even touching on the subject decreases dramatically in
January, to a total of 7. In them the most resonant center pair is good job (second: company
CEO, third: year American) whereas the most resonant center is new followed by good. The
shifting focus towards the upcoming 2012 elections, which was observed in the previous two
newspapers, can also be seen in USA Today. Thus, the center president is one of the strongest
connected ones within the top pairs (used in 16.2% of them), alongside: company, CEO,
American, house, and Obama. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, is more strongly connected

to the center corporate, as they appear together in articles regarding large corporate
compensations to their CEO as well as in an interview with JP Morgans CEO, Jamie Dimon
(Bartiromo 2012). OWS is also indirectly connected to income (in the context of income
inequality). OWS connections in USA Today continue to give proof to the newspapers
permeability to such messages most likely because the general content of the newspaper as well
as its target audience is already more accepting of such topics. As such, OWS proposed counter
frames (Castells 2009) are closer to the publications dominant frames.
February has a total of 13 articles on the OWS movement, and its most resonant center pair is
American people (second: Occupy movement, third rich poor) whereas the most resonant center
is people followed by American. Occupy and Occupy Wall Street are connected with movement,
course, economy and year. An important connection that makes it onto the CRA map for the first
time is the one between rich, poor and gap, one of the core issues raised by the OWS. This is a
leading substantive frame proposed by the OWS which refers to a problematic situation and a
moral judgment due to the reasons leading to that unbalanced economic situation. Furthermore,
there is a strong connection between American people and the above trio. This means that, at
least for the time being, the issue has made it onto the media agenda more as a description of a
situation than as a political slogan of the OWS movement.
Marchs two articles about the OWS have as most resonant center pair income wealth seconded
by wealth power, while the most resonant center income followed by wealth. Income is the best
connected center within the top pairs (32.25%) alongside: wealth, power, inequality, warning,
distribution, high, issue, institution, annual, and year. Wealth colonizes most of the top center
pairs, as it is present in 29% of them, alongside: income, power, group, distribution, unequal,
gap, poor, top, and people. These connections provide a similar, but more meaningful,
substantive frame to that of the previous month. Februarys trio reappears in March in the form
of wealth, poor and gap.
In April, the most resonant center pair is black church (second: white progressive third white
church) whereas the most resonant center is American followed by white. Occupy Wall Street
appears briefly in the text. Once it is in the context of student debt, and then in that of their faux
pas as they hijacked a protest following the shooting of an innocent young black man and turned

it into a disorganized discourse about everything (including their core grievances) (Krattenmaker
In conclusion, something extraordinary happens in USA Today in this period. As the actual
protests have calmed down and the OWS is no longer as present in the streets, the newspaper is
not falling back on previous OWS frames, but is instead presenting some of the movements core
grievances. This is becomes possible as the newspaper has, in previous months, presented some
ideas that complement these such as job security, student loans and student debt.
May 1, 2012 was planned by the Occupy Wall Street as something extraordinary: the first truly
nationwide General Strike in U.S. history (OccupyWallSt editorial team April 21, 2012). This
was intended as a historic coalition of OWS and the Alliance for Labor Rights, Immigrant
Rights, Jobs for All, the May 1
Coalition for Immigrant & Worker Rights, as well as other
immigrant community organizations, under the slogan A Day Without the 99% ( ibid). In the
paragraphs that follow the media coverage of OWS in May as well as their self representation
will be analyzed.

May 2012 on
May marks the peak in the number of centers (3474) used by the website for the entire period
analyzed by this paper. The months most resonant center pair was Chicago police followed by
Occupy Chicago, while May Day is only the seventh in this list. The most resonant centers were
people, police, Chicago and May which organized most of the discourse. People has the
strongest impact on the top center pairs, as it is present in 38.7% of them alongside May, world,
Chicago, police, Occupy, city, solidarity, group, summit, assembly, NATO, and action. Thus the
frames that are created are substantive (police, NATO summit) and procedural (assembly,
solidarity). May colonizes 22.6% of the top center pairs, thus appearing alongside people,
Chicago, day, solidarity, action, police, global. These combinations also create a blend of
substantive and procedural frames. It must also be noted that, despite declaring the historic
importance for the May Day event, the references to the Chicago NATO summit are somewhat

stronger than those to May 1. This is not a complete surprise, as they had already dedicated
almost two months to May 1 (since March 2012) and once the marches were done they needed to
focus on ongoing issues in order to stay relevant. Also, while the May 1 marches referred to a
national situation, the protests at the NATO summit were addressing American foreign policy.
As such, this works within other more international scope they had been building for quite some
time. For example, the first time that the center global appears as a top resonance center is
October 2011; it later appears on the CRA map in November 2011 and February and May 2012.
If an established political power is not only national but also international, counter-power can
aspire to have the same broader boundaries, which is in fact what OWS seems to be doing. The has built across months an image of representativeness and continuous
involvement in issues that are important for the American people. Thus, it becomes acceptable
and feasible within this network to stretch beyond local protests about national issues to local
protest about international ones.
Occupy Wall Street does not appear as a top center this month, something that only occurred in
July 2011 when the movement was only an online idea, and in January and February when the
more generic Occupy was used together with a discourse that tried to re-coagulate people around
the movement. The situation is quite similar now, as Occupy has a moderate presence ( in 16.1%
of the top pairs) alongside Chicago, movement, police, people, action, while movement creates
strong bonds to Occupy, global, and Chicago. The shift from OWS to the more general and
inclusive Occupy started in November 2011 as Occupy slowly became more prominent than
OWS. As the movement had for some time been adopted and adapted internationally and was not
just a local Wall Street protest, the change was to be expected.
Solidarity, a center that should have a rather strong presence given the connotation of the
International Workers Day, has strong bonds only to people, May, and student, a fact that can
be explained by the almost immediate shift of focus after May 1. These connection do create a
legitimacy frame based on representativeness, however limited (student) or general (people).


May 2012 - The New York Times
May 2012 marks a temporary increase in media attention regarding the Occupy Wall Street
movement, one that can be noted in The New York Times (26 articles in April, but 34 in May
followed by 24 in June). Its most resonant center pair is young people (second: police protester)
whereas the most resonant center is people followed by president. The top center pairs create a
frame of limited legitimacy doubled by a problematic clash of two opposing forces.
The top center, people, colonizes 32.25 % of the top pairs alongside: young, police, protester,
year, company, group, president, city, good, and movement. These continue use the same frames
or persistent patterns (Gitlin 2003, 7) that had been employed for the OWS since its beginning.
The only addition is the mention of the president, as the elections are getting closer and thus they
are on the media agenda. The center president forms top pairs with Obama, New-York, people,
financial, and leader, thus 16.1% of top pairs contain it, proving the interest in the national
political events.
OWS only strong connection is with movement, which in turn is connected to new, good,
member, party, and group. Of these, only group is strongly connected to other centers, as
follows: city, people, and political. Thus, the frame these offer is rather general and dispersed.
Also, while the has steadily shifted from Occupy Wall Street to Occupy, the
same has not happened in the NYT. As such, in the pages of the newspaper, the OWS is still
mostly a local event. Additionally, there are no salient centers referring to the NATO protests.
Thus, the OWS is trying to extend its counter voice onto international issues. However, the
networking and networked powers functioning within the NYT do not allow for references to it
to become visible enough as evidenced by the fact that the protests are covered, but only to a
limited extent within the already limited number of articles.

May 2012 - The Wall Street Journal
The bigger attention given to OWS can also be observed in the Wall Street Journal, which has 17
articles, an increase from the 9 in April. The most resonant center pair is protest group (second:
protest city, third protest day) whereas the most resonant centers are the individual components

of the top center pair. Protest has the months strongest presence as it appears in 51% of the top
center pairs alongside group, city, day, police, OWS (this is its only resonant connection), year,
board, new, event, protester, May, business, Occupy_movement, Morgan-Stanley, country, and
Moscow. Again, the frames used are extremely similar to those from past months (such as the
problematic interactions with the authorities). The more general Occupy_movement appears as a
top center when the Occupy Moscow protest is mentioned, thus showing part of its international
success. It would be interesting to see, however, why no other international reincarnations of the
Occupy movement ever made it into the top centers in WSJ but this one. The adoption of the
Occupy_movement instead of OWS is similar to what happened on However,
neither the May 1 marches nor the NATO protests that are central to OWSts content appear as
top centers. The overall effect is similar to that of NYTs content: mostly the same established
frames are used and no references are made to successfully gaining international supporters or
being considered a valid voice on international issues.

May 2012 USA Today
USA Today has a total of 4 articles on (or rather, around) OWS. In them, the most resonant
center pair is group economy (second: group member, third group Obama) whereas the most
resonant center is group followed by CEO. Mays top center is also its best connected within the
top center pairs (used in 48.38% of them) appearing in combinations with: economy, member,
Obama, Cleveland, job, American, Romney, large, movement, suspect, single, people, thriving,
high, and legal. Occupy, on the other hand, is far less connected as it is used in conjunction with
movement, Cleveland, campaign, and Chicago, demonstrating the spread of the protests ( a form
of success, and as such, a procedural frame). Once again, no top centers address the May 1
marches or the NATO protest, while more attention is given to presidential candidates where
Occupy is used as a metaphor for social justice.


June 2012 on
The most resonant center pair is occupy movement (second: student debt) whereas the most
resonant center is people. Occupy has the biggest resonance within the center pairs and is present
in 38.7% of them alongside: movement, June, national, student, home, debt, occupy, public,
member, action, community, and campaign. Thus, their message is kept under the same general
pattern in a manner similar to the way that mainstream media functions proving that sometimes
the two are not so different (Atton 2002). The only new additions are the references to the
presidential election and the ongoing campaign, thus finally catching up with the mainstream
medias attention that had been in that direction since the beginning of the year.

June 2012 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is political American seconded by Hayes Show, while the most
resonant center is political followed by year. The center with the strongest connections was
political which was present in 70.97% of the top center pairs alongside: American, year, Hayes,
show, city, campaign, country, group, art, policy, new, member, part, movement, work, left,
national, union, leader, Europe, Texas, and morning. The only top center pair containing OWS
is Occupy Wall Street protester, a simple descriptive frame referring to a problematic situation.
Overall, the interest in OWS is only adjacent, and the references to it are limited to simple
comparisons, or are used as a way to build the background for other topics.

June 2012 - The Wall Street Journal
The most resonant center pair is book reader (second: digital book, third protester group)
whereas the most resonant center is book followed by reader. As is easily visible from the above
listing of the most prominent centers and pairs, the OWS movement is mentioned within the
context of culture and arts, as an accessory to the main story. It no longer is the main subject.
This creates a sense of it already being part of an accepted but passed storyline, as something that
is no longer alive.

June 2012 USA Today
The most resonant center pair is progressive frustration (second: Obama protest, third: Obama
frustration) whereas the most resonant center is progressive followed by Obama. Progressive is
the best connected center within the top pairs used in 35.5% of them together with: frustration,
daily, political, liberal, good, union, president, White House, marriage, agenda, and home.
Obama is the second most connected center (32.25%) alongside: frustration, group, liberal,
White House, brother, endorsement, Bettinson, Jonna, marriage, and sure. As such, USA Today
displays a similar trend to those in the other two newspapers: OWS as a source of metaphors that
can be used for ongoing events, though the OWS itself is no longer presented as ongoing.

6.3 Overall top centers: how do they compare?

Though the first level analysis clearly displays the differences and similarities between the OWS
messages in the movements own source and those coming from mainstream media, I wanted to
see exactly just how different they were and what proportion of OccupyWallSt.orgs centers
were also top centers in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA today. In order to do
so, a simple regression analysis was done in which the OccupyWallSt.orgs messages were
compared with each of the three mainstream media sources. The results can be found below.
Lets start by looking at the connection between the top centers in and those
from NYT. As what I am trying to find out is whether NYTs top centers can be explained by
OWSts top centers, OWSts top centers are the explanatory variable (Res1na) while NYTs top
centers are the response (dependent) variable (Res2na). The resulting R_squared will explain
what proportion of the variation observed in the response variable is due to the explanatory

Res2 (NYT)= Res1(* (-0.1108)+ 0.0169
Fig. 1. Model 1: -> NYT, including the regression equation.
The model has a negative and relatively strong regression coefficient (-0.1108), indicating a
relatively strong attenuation effect - messages important (having a high centrality) to show up as less important in NYT. At the same time, messages weak in
centrality to OWSt show up as more important to NYT. This finding is in line with the monthly
qualitative analyses described above. The coefficient is statistically significant at p<0.01,
meaning the correlation holds at a 99% confidence level. In terms of goodness of fit, the R
square of the model is extremely low, at 0.0383. Thus only 3.83% of the variation of NYT
centers can be explained by the variation of OWSt centers. In effect this translates to only 3.83%
of NYT's main positions and messages on OWS were reflections of OWSts messages. The
remaining 96.17% of it has no connection with the content of, meaning that, although
there is a connection between the two sources, this is, nevertheless extremely weak.

Fig. 2. The line of best fit generated by the NYT-> regression equation. The grey interval is the 95%
confidence interval of the line of best fit. Green points are actual observations.

This weak link between and NYT can be further explored in figure 2 - a large number
of OWSt's centers are not present at all in NYT while a large number of NYT centers are not
present in's own messages. Thus, the line of best fit (and its 95% confidence interval
area), covers a relatively small amount of observations, leaving large residuals. Coupled with the
attenuation effect described above, it is rather clear that NYT's portrayal of OWS as a movement
differed substantially from OWSt's. Thus, once again, the statistical finds indicate the validity of
the qualitative analysis above.

OWSt and WSJ center similarities
The second model uses Wall Street Journal as the dependent variable, modeling the relationship
(correlation) between the messages (centers) of OWSt and WSJ. As in the first model, the
coefficient (-0.1887) is negative, indicating a similar attenuation effect as in the first model -
themes important for are weakly covered in WSJ and themes important for WSJ have
little importance for

Res3(WSJ)= Res1(* (-0.1887)+ 0.0235
Fig. 3. Model 2: -> WSJ, including the regression equation.


fig. 4. The line of best fit generated by the WSJ-> regression equation. The grey interval is the
95% confidence interval of the line of best fit. Green points are actual observations.

On the other hand, the relationship between the themes covered by WSJ and OWSt is somewhat
stronger than in the first model, with an R squared of 0.639, meaning that approximately 6.39%
in the variation of the response variable can be explained by the explanatory variable. The
remaining 93.61% of it have no connection with the content of Although the
correlation is slightly stronger (more content is covered in WSJ than in NYT, and in a
closer form to that intended by, it still is incredibly small - very little of
messages makes its way into WSJ (see fig. 4 for a graphical explanation). This relationship is
similarly significant at 99% confidence level. Thus, the results derived from the qualitative
analysis above hold.

OWSt and USA Today center similarities
While the first two regressions analyses showed a weak connection between the content of the
two types of media, the results of this third model are somewhat different. It still holds that the
coefficient is negative, but the goodness of fit increases, as the model has an R square of 11.88%.
Whilst still low, with only 11% of the OWSt messages being reflected in USA Today, this level

is higher than the combined R squares of the two previous models. Thus, USA Today covers
more of's ideas and messages than any of the other two major newspapers. This model
is similarly significant at 99% confidence level.

Res4(USAt)= Res1(* (-0.422)+ 0.0359
Fig. 5. Model 3: -> USAtoday, including the regression equation.

This is in line with the findings of the qualitative analysis, where the study identified major
issues on the OWSt agenda that were found in the top centers of the newspaper, such as the gap
between the rich and the poor (February 2012: rich-poor-gap, March 2012: income inequality,
wealth and income distribution and wealth-poor-gap) or the problem of student loans (appearing
in November 2011 and April 2012). However, an attenuation effect (a coefficient of -0.4228) is
present in this third model as well - the higher the resonance of a center will be in, the
lower it will be in USA Today's reporting. Further, this attenuation effect is stronger than in the
case of both WSJ and NYT - however it can most likely be explained by USA Today's more
schematic, less in-depth coverage of news (shorter article lengths), as well as by the smaller
number of articles in USA Today as opposed to WSJ and NYT.



The Occupy Wall Street movement has proven to be a popular source of media content,
generating a large amount of text even when the OWS demonstrators were not physically
protesting. As the months passed, has tried to build an identity for the
movement, a sense of legitimacy and of moral and practical urgency for social change. Its
content covered the entire frame typology provided by Entman (2004) as well as displayed the
attributes for the success of counter frames proposed by Castells (2009). We have seen how has strived to support OWS struggle to gain counter power and how it has
chosen to present important events in the life of the movement. Also, as time passed, not only held on to initial frames but, as the social movement evolved, it also
created new ones that could better suit OWS agenda.
The access to mainstream medias OWS frames has created the opportunity to understand the
other half of the story: how established means of creating power (Castells 2009) deal with
attempts to create counter power. We have seen how dominant frames are introduced at the
beginning of the movement to then never leave its side, and how events deemed important by the never make it onto the major OWS events as defined by the newspapers. On
a more optimistic note, we have also seen how occasionally, when the circumstances are
favorable, new defining elements for OWS are introduced in the pages of mainstream media.
These do not come as a major shift within their established framing, but instead are punctually
presented as complements to OWS image they had already created.


7. Conclusions

I went into this paper with the intention of looking at the way the Occupy Wall Street movement
utilized online media in order to gain support. The complementary focus was on how mainstream
media, as exemplified by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today,
portrayed the OWS, and the way in which the frames provided by these two types of sources
differed. I have went through each level of the research question and looked at OWSts main
messages and their evolution, how they were used, then at established medias content about the
OWS and its respective evolution. At the same time, I have compared the two sources portrayal
of OWS in an effort to explain the differences and similarities. All this was done by employing
Castells network theory of power and Entmans theory of media framing.
Overall, the content provided by had a few distinguishing characteristics. In a
manner similar to that of mainstream medias, it established counter frames early on in the
development of the social movement. This happened because when a frame is created early on in
the news coverage it has a bigger chance to become the issues dominant frame, the most widely
accepted frame for that topic (Entman 2004, 7). One such dominant counter frame was that of a
legitimate and representative movement that is struggling for a much needed social change. Also,
the movements communication displayed some of the characteristics identified by previous
research of social movements using alternative media. As such, OWSts content occasionally
utilized the conflict frame that is usually used against them in mainstream media, but did so in
order to present the authorities as oppressive and violent, a fact previously described by the
research of Atton (2002) and Atton and Wickenden (2005). The present research also observed
that OWS use of online media resulted in a combination of connective and collective action
(Bennett and Segerberg 2012), as it focused both on disseminating personalized content and on
organizing action.
Returning to the papers main theories, Castells (2009) network theory of power proved a
valuable framework for interpreting OWSts and mainstream medias content, as well as their
different approaches. OWS struggled to secure counter power. It started by defining itself and

what it stands for, it explained the sources of its legitimacy and representativeness and it sought
to present the social and economical context it was born in as problematic and in desperate need
of a change. Initially, the focus was more on gaining attention and support than on vilifying what
they opposed. OWSts content also offered moral judgment for the causes that led to the
economic crisis, occasionally described alternatives, but more so, it presented immediate actions
that its supporters could undertake in order to show their dissatisfaction with the current
situation. In the way it used media, OWSt showed its understanding of the fact that, to a certain
extent, this is a space of power making (194). As such, even in those months when OWS was
not creating large street protests, the communication on the website continued. When mainstream
media was using it as a metaphor and presenting it as deceased, kept on
talking about legitimacy, action and the need to transform society. Overall, it can be said that the
way it packaged its content provided its audience with a critical reading of contemporary events
as well as with a choice in interpretation (160), something that was different from the preferred
frames (158). Also, presents the movements international success (as several
reinterpretations of it appeared in many countries) and carefully organizes important OWS
events. One such case was the May 1 International Workers Day, that was marked by marches.
The May 1 event was presented specifically since March 2012, followed two months of
references to necessary actions that would breathe life back into the OWS.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, mainstream media sources had a generally limited
portrayal of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Most of the frames that were used were decided
in the beginning and then used throughout the entire period. A large proportion of the content
was directed at presenting the problematic interactions of the OWS with the authorities, which
was almost always done from the point of view of the latter. This focus on official sources has
been repeatedly observed by researchers including Rauch et al. (2007) and Hall et al.s (1978)
and was confirmed by the current paper. Additionally, little to no attention was given to the
movements core issues. The exception was USA Today which in two consecutive months
addressed the matter of income inequality (February and March 2012) and that of student loans
(November 2011 and April 2012). The inclusion of such messages could be explained by the
attributes of their target audience. On average, they are, less economically affluent and less
educated than the readers of the New York Times and considerably so than those of the Wall
Street Journal. The better correlation of OWSt and USA Todays top centers was also observed

in the statistical analysis of their relationship. On the other hand, New York Times content
proved to be the most dissimilar. The newspaper used a very limited frame for defining the
movement. In fact, in some months this is restricted to linking it to protester, protest or
movement, neither particularly rich sources of information. The NYT is also the only source that
does not shift or at least present in similar proportions, the terms Occupy Wall Street and the
more general Occupy movement which would have shown that the movement is growing. Last,
the Wall Street Journal addressed slightly more issues considered important by the OWSt,
though usually the result was not favorable to the overall image of the movement. For example,
WSJ did present the impact that businesses can have on communities. However, it did not focus
on the major corporations that could be blamed for the economic crisis (which was OWSts
perspective), but on the small locally-owned businesses that were affected by OWS street
While the way Castells different types of network power functioned within this particular
context could not be directly studied as there was no access to decision makers on either side,
their end results were definitely visible. OWS struggle for counter power was complemented by
its continuous alternative media presence where it created a counter frame for the ideas it was
fighting for. Within its media environment, many more ideas about social change and moral and
economical responsibility were used. However, mainstream media held onto traditional modes of
referencing social movements as a result of political and economical restraints and of the
interaction of different types of network power, the most relevant and obvious of which was the
networked power. As such, agenda setting, priming and framing (Castells 2009) resulted in the
type of content that this paper analyzed.
In fact, the limitations of this study could provide valuable ideas for further research. On one
hand, it would be extremely interesting to see the exact mechanisms through which Castells
different types of power affected the newspapers content. As such, interviews with decision
makers who would be willing to disclose such information would provide important insight into
the way this theory works in reality, and would help verify the validity of its assumptions.
Another facet of OWS media exposure that could be studied is the way in which media
consumers actually perceived the social movement. The research would help add more detail to
the conversation about mass medias actual impact on its audience. However, if the text frame

emphasizes in a variety of mutually reinforcing ways that the glass is half full, the evidence of
social science suggests that relatively few in the audience will conclude it is half empty
(Entman 1993, 56).



Abrahamian, Atossa Araxia and Emmett Berg. 2012. May Day protests draw police but most
are peaceful. Reuters, May 1. Accessed July 31, 2012.
Adbusters, 2011. #OCCUPYWALLSTREET. Adbusters blog, 13 July. Accessed July 31,
Adbusters Occupy Campaign. 2012. Accessed October 1.
Albertazzi, Daniele and Paul Cobley 2010. The Media: An Introduction. London: Pearson
Education Limited
Atton, Chris. 2002. News Cultures and New Social Movements: radical journalism and the
mainstream media. Journalism Studies 3(4): 491-505. Accessed October 1, 2012. doi:
Atton, Chris, and Emma Wickenden. 2005. Sourcing Routines and Representation in
Alternative Journalism: a case study approach. Journalism Studies 6(3): 347-359. Accessed
October 1, 2012. doi: 10.1080/1461670022000019209.
Audit Bureau of Circulation. 2012. US Newspaper search results. Accessed October 1.
Bartiromo, Maria. 2012. JPMorgan's Dimon sees housing at the bottom. USA Today, January
Bennett, W. Lance, and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. The Logic of Connective Action.
Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 739-768. Accessed October 1, 2012. doi:
Block, Sandra. 2011. Taking advantage of student loan help; Changes in policy may be modest,
but they can still make a difference. USA Today, November 1.
Blommaert, Jan and Chris Bulcaen. 2000. Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology 29: 447-466, .
Canary, Heather E. and Marianne M. Jennings. 2007. Principles and Influence in Codes of
Ethics: A Centering Resonance Analysis Comparing Pre- and Post-Sarbanes-Oxley Codes of

Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 80(2): 263-278. Accessed October 14, 2012.
Castells, Manuel. 2007. Communication, Power and Counter-Power In The Network Society.
International Journal Of Communication 1: 238-266
Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel. 2011. A Network Theory of Power. International Journal of
Communication [Online] 5: 773-787.
Crawdad Technologies LLC. 2012. Crawdad Text Analysis Software.
Corman, Steven, and Timothy Kuhn, Robert McPhee, Kevin Dooley. 2002. Studying Complex
Discursive Systems. Centering Resonance Analysis of Communication. Human
Communication Research 28(2):157-206. Accessed October 1, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
Corman, S. and Dooley, K. 2006. Crawdad Text Analysis System, Chandler, Arizona: Crawdad
Technologies, LLC.
Eaglesham, Jean. 2012. Once-Reviled Bond Trader Rebuilds. The Wall Street Journal, April
Edgerly, Louisa, Amoshaun Toft, and Mary Lynn Veden. 2011. Social Movements, Political
Goals and the May 1 Marches: Communicating Protest in Polysemous Media Environments
International Journal of Press/Politics 16: 314-334. Accessed March 15, 2012. doi:
Emery, Theo. 2012. Occupy D.C. Protesters Stay Put as Evacuation Deadline Passes,
The New York Times, January 30. Accessed July 31, 2012.
Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of
Communication 43(4): 51-58. Accessed March 15, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-
Entman, Robert. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign
Policy. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press
Gardiner, Sean. 2011. City News: Police Probe Pepper Spray Use. Wall Street Journal,
September 29.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

Francescani, Chris. 2012. Dozens arrested at Occupy's 6-month anniversary rally. Reuters,
March 18. Accessed July 31, 2012.
Gay, Chris. 2012. Fundamentals of Investing; Are Bank Stocks 'Responsible'? The Occupy
movement would shun the biggest financial institutions. Few funds do that.The Wall Street
Journal, February 6
Gardiner, Sean. 2011. Police Probe Pepper Spray Use. The Wall Street Journal, September 29.
Gitlin, Todd. 2003. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of
the New Left. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
GNU - Free Software Foundation. 2012. Wget.
Gorman, Siobhan. 2012. U.S. News: Alert on Hacker Power Play - U.S. Official Signals
Growing Concern Over Anonymous Group's Capabilities. The Wall Street Journal, February
Graeber, David. 2012. Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots. OccupyWallSt, April 30.
Accessed July 31, 2012.
Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A Framework for
Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2): 203- 225.
Haas, Tanni. 2006. From <<Public Journalism>> to the <<Publics Journalism>>? Rhetoric and
Reality in the Discourse on Weblogs. Journalism Studies 6(3), 387-396. Accessed March 15,
2012. doi: 10.1080/14616700500132073.
Hall, Stuart, Charles Critcher, Tony Jefferson, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts. 1978. Policing
the Crisis: mugging, the state, and law and order. London: Macmillan.
Harcup, Tony. 2005. <<I'm Doing This to Change the World>>: journalism in alternative and
mainstream media. Journalism Studies 6(3): 361-374. Accessed March 15, 2012. doi:
Henry, Mary Kay. 2011. Why Labor Backs 'Occupy Wall Street'. The Wall Street Journal.
October 8.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in
Universal Grammar. Language 60 (4): 703-752. Published by: Linguistic Society of America.
Stable URL:

Iskander, Elizabeth. 2011. Connecting the national and the virtual: can Facebook activism
remain relevant after Egypts January 25 uprising? International journal of communication 5:
Jackson, David and Richard Wolf. 2011. Obama: 'Make or break moment' for middle class ;
Puts focus on economic inequality. USA Today. December 7.
Juris, Jeffrey S. 2008. Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalization.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Juris, Jeffrey S. 2012. Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: social media, public space, and
emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist 39 (2): 259-279. Accessed October 14,
2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01362.x
Kaplan, Thomas. 2011. As Economy Lags, Cuomo Reconsiders Tax Position. The New York
Times, December 1.
Knoke, David, George W. Borhrnstedt and Alisa Potter Mee. 2002. Statistics for Social Data
Analysis. 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Krattenmaker, Tom. 2012. Church closes racial divide; Black congregation and new white
deacon learn about each other in N.J. USA Today, April 30
Kroll, Andy. 2011. Occupy Wall Street, Powered by Big Labor. Mother Jones, October 5.
Accessed July 31, 2012.
Matsu, Kono. 2011. A Million Man March on Wall Street.Adbusters, February 2. Accessed
July 31, 2012.
Matthes, Jrg. 2009. Whats in a Frame? A Content Analysis of Media Framing Studies in the
World's Leading Communication Journals, 1990-2005. Journalism& Mass communication
quarterly 86: 349-367. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi: 0.1177/107769900908600206.
McCombs, Maxwell E. and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176-187. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi:
Mcphee, Robert D., Steven R. Corman and Kevin Dooley. 2002. Organizational Knowledge
Expression and Management : Centering Resonance Analysis of Organizational Discourse.
Management Communication Quarterly 16: 274-281. Accessed October 14, 2012.

Mother Jones news team. 2011. Map: Occupy Wall Street, a global movement. Mother Jones,
October 4. Accessed July 31, 2012.
MSN News. 2011. The Occupy Wall Street Protests. Accessed 14 July 2012
Mudde, Cas. 2011. Occuppy Wall Street: lessons and opportunities, OpenDemocracy, October
12. Accessed July 31, 2012.
New York Times Media Kit. 2012. Accessed October 1
Nader, Ralph. 2011. Time for a Tax on Speculation. The Wall Street Journal, November 2.
Occupytogether Website. 2012. Accessed October 1.
OccupyWallSt Website. 2012. Accessed October 1.
Occupywallstreet Website. 2012. Accessed October 1.
Papacharissi, Zizi and Maria de Fatima Oliveira. 2008. News Frames Terrorism: A
Comparative Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S. and U.K.
Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 13(1): 52-74. Accessed October 14,
2012. doi: 10.1177/1940161207312676.
Rauch, Jennifer, Sunitha Chitrapu, Susan Tyler Eastman, John Christopher Evans, Christopher
Paine, and Peter Mwesige. 2007. "From Seattle 1999 to New York 2004: A Longitudinal
Analysis of Journalistic Framing of the Movement for Democratic Globalization Social
Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 6(2): 131-145. Accessed
October 14, 2012. doi: 10.1080/14742830701497244.
Sandoval, Marisol and Christian Fuchs. 2009. Towards a critical theory of alternative media.
Telematics and Informatics 27(2):141-150. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi:
Seib, Gerald F. 2011. Populist Anger Over Economy Carries Risks for Big Business. The Wall
Street Journal, October 11.
Semetko, Holli A., and Patti M. Valkenburg. 2000. Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication 50(2): 93109. Accessed
October 14, 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x.

Scheufele, Dietram A and David Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The
Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication 57:9-20. Accessed
October 14, 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x.
Schmidt, Michael S. 2012. For Occupy Movement, a Challenge to Recapture Momentum. The
New York Times, April 1.
Schwartz, Mattathias. 2011. Pre-Occupied: The Origins and Future Of Occupy Wall Street.
The New Yorker, November 28. Accessed July 31, 2012.
Simply Measured Inc. 2012. Rowfeeder.
Stein, Laura. 2009. Social movement web use in theory and practice: a content analysis of US
movement websites. New Media & Society 11: 749-771. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi:
US Census bureau. 2011. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2011. Accessed 14 July
USA Today Media Kit. 2012. Accessed October 1.
USLAWdotcom. 2011. NYPD Police Pepper Spray Occupy Wall Street Protesters (Anthony
Bologna) video. Accessed 14 July 2012.
Wall Street Journal Media Kit. 2012. Accessed October 1.
Wall Street Journal Media Kit Audience Profile. 2012. Accessed October 1.
Wall Street Journal Media Kit Fact Sheet. 2012. Accessed October 1.
Wearethe99percent. 2012. Accessed October 1.
Walker, Marilyn A, Aravind K. Joshi and Ellen F. Prince. 1998. Centering in Naturally-
Occurring Discourse: An Overview. In Centering theory in discourse, edited by Marilyn
Walker, Marilyn A, Aravind K. Joshi and Ellen F. Prince, 1-31. New York: Oxford University
White, Bobby. 2011. Bay Area: Occupy Flap Prompts Oakland Recall Drive. The Wall Street
Journal, December 1.

Weigel, David and Lauren Hepler. 2011. Everything You Need To Know About Occupy Wall
Street a timeline. Slate, November 18. Accessed July 31, 2012.
Wickham, DeWayne. 2011. Occupy Wall Street is a 2nd American revolution. USA Today,
October 11.
***, DOW Jones Factiva About Page. 2012.
***, OccupyWallSt editorial team. 2012. May Day Directory: Occupy General Strike In Over
135 Cities. April 21. Accessed October 14.


Appendix 1
Source Month
Number of
USAt Jul-11 0
USAt Aug-11 0
USAt Sep-11 0
USAt Oct-11 27
USAt Nov-11 36
USAt Dec-11 14
USAt Jan-12 7
USAt Feb-12 13
USAt Mar-12 2
USAt Apr-12 3
USAt May-12 4
USAt Jun-12 1
NYT Jul-11 0
NYT Aug-11 0
NYT Sep-11 5
NYT Oct-11 171
NYT Nov-11 149
NYT Dec-11 107
NYT Jan-12 90
NYT Feb-12 24
NYT Mar-12 38


NYT Apr-12 26
NYT May-12 34
NYT Jun-12 24

WSJ Jul-11 0
WSJ Aug-11 0
WSJ Sep-11 3
WSJ Oct-11 90
WSJ Nov-11 71
WSJ Dec-11 29
WSJ Jan-12 36
WSJ Feb-12 12
WSJ Mar-12 21
WSJ Apr-12 9
WSJ May-12 17
WSJ Jun-12 6




chars doc_name month year
25 636 3780 100.txt July 2011
87 1949 11998 101.txt August 2011
471 11176 67318 102.txt September 2011
658 12210 76333 103.txt October 2011
363 9453 59033 104.txt November 2011
304 7552 47286 105.txt December 2011
212 5806 36319 106.txt January 2012
180 6315 39757 107.txt February 2012
368 9768 62166 108.txt March 2012
889 24157 150660 109.txt April 2012
1295 31993 201875 110.txt May 2012
672 15319 96180 111.txt June 2012
5524 136334 852705 total July 2012

Wall Street Journal
75 2227 13919 102WSJ.txt Sept 2011
1970 71553 446008 103WSJ.txt Oct 2011
1603 52337 327557 104WSJ.txt Nov 2011
621 19235 121513 105WSJ.txt Dec 2011
1166 36096 225813 106WSJ.txt Jan 2012
255 8505 54240 107WSJ.txt Feb 2012
435 14458 91023 108WSJ.txt March 2012
224 6927 42815 109WSJ.txt April 2012
345 9117 58800 110WSJ.txt May 2012

154 6852 42568 111WSJ.txt June 2012
6848 227307 1424256 total

New York Times
135 4256 26345 102NYT.txt Sept 2011
4250 152623 940156 103NYT.txt Oct 2011
3980 158748 973033 104NYT.txt Nov 2011
2769 106653 658934 105NYT.txt Dec 2011
2458 97235 595962 106NYT.txt Jan 2012
570 25836 158085 107NYT.txt Feb 2012
959 40039 246419 108NYT.txt March 2012
691 26417 162050 109NYT.txt April 2012
758 32508 200005 110NYT.txt May 2012
482 20541 126680 111NYT.txt June 2012
17052 664856 4087669 total

591 17985 111872 103USA.txt Oct 2011
898 24661 151844 104USA.txt Nov 2011
383 9253 56945 105USA.txt Dec 2011
184 6112 36400 106USA.txt Jan 2012
246 8455 52091 107USA.txt Feb 2012
28 1322 7899 108USA.txt March 2012
65 2454 14885 109USA.txt April 2012
128 4320 26831 110USA.txt May 2012
22 587 3660 111USA.txt June 2012
2545 75149 462427 total


Appendix 2
Section 1: Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of ( content.
Each map graphs one individual month. Resonance scores of top centers are listed under each
individual map.

July 2011 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 169
Density: 0.026
Focus: 0.343


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.35917

people | wall-street 0.123


wall-street 0.17066

people | assembly 0.065

event 0.16114

wall-street | august 0.045

august 0.13162

wall-street | assembly 0.031

call 0.13026

wall-street | occupation 0.030

assistance 0.09942

people | bloombergville 0.029

banker 0.09909

people | time 0.026

assembly 0.09113

people | bull 0.025

bloombergville 0.08164

event | august 0.021

time 0.07236

people | decades-old 0.018

sept. 0.07134

event | banker 0.016

bull 0.07055

people | new 0.015

organizing 0.0645

people | yorker 0.015

work 0.06323

people | nation 0.015

activist 0.06287

people | voice 0.014

north 0.06126

people | deadline 0.013

wall 0.05862

august | assistance 0.013

adbuster 0.0524

august | banker 0.013

student 0.05211

people | available 0.012


decades-old 0.05117

wall-street | bull 0.012

looting 0.04957

event | sept. 0.011

unemployed 0.04478

people | general 0.010

occupation 0.04399

wall-street | cutback 0.010

new 0.04284

event | organizing 0.010

yorker 0.04284

call | sept. 0.009

nation 0.04224

call | organizing 0.008

hq 0.0422

call | wall 0.008

security 0.04144

wall-street | new 0.007

voice 0.03766

wall-street | yorker 0.007

deadline 0.03752

wall-street | september 0.007

patient 0.03497

event | new 0.007

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 101


August 2011 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 455
Density: 0.013
Focus: 0.254


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
right 0.26256

right | economic 0.444

economic 0.18787

right | adequate 0.185

people 0.13886

right | large 0.128

assembly 0.11849

right | opportunity 0.092

new 0.09706

right | nation 0.083

living 0.06285

right | decent 0.070


general 0.06282

assembly | general 0.052

large 0.06109

right | new 0.051

day 0.05936

people | assembly 0.049

occupation 0.05373

right | home 0.042

percent 0.0534

right | protection 0.039

financial 0.05286

right | job 0.035

new york city 0.0493

right | old 0.030

freedom 0.04874

economic | adequate 0.017

dreamer 0.048

right | family 0.013

opportunity 0.04402

right | political 0.011

adequate 0.04396

economic | large 0.011

occupywallstreet 0.04281

economic | day 0.011

political 0.04267

right | good 0.009

demand 0.03999

economic | freedom 0.009

nation 0.03959

right | human 0.008

part 0.03868

right | nonviolence 0.008

world 0.03824

right | tenacity 0.008

august 0.03808

right | strategic 0.008


system 0.03777

right | state 0.008

decent 0.03314

economic | opportunity 0.008

human 0.03231

assembly | meeting 0.008

meeting 0.0319

right | medical 0.007

rare 0.03161

economic | nation 0.007

food 0.0315

people | percent 0.007

jammer 0.03082

right | language 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 102


September 2011 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1306
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.114


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
police 0.11628

assembly | general 0.048

people 0.10146

police | protester 0.038

september 0.08746

wall-street | day 0.024


occupation 0.06793

people | occupation 0.021

assembly 0.06526

police | assembly 0.015

group 0.062

people | assembly 0.013

wall-street 0.06016

september | occupation 0.012

world 0.05959

occupation | wall-street 0.012

solidarity 0.05052

september | wall-street 0.011

day 0.04398

police | september 0.010

public 0.03991

people | power 0.007

occupywallstreet 0.03967

world | country 0.007

percent 0.03684

people | group 0.006

city 0.03508

people | wall-street 0.006

new 0.03476

september | assembly 0.006

protester 0.03273

september | american 0.006

food 0.03221

september | financial 0.006

today 0.03138

group | solidarity 0.006

demand 0.02869

group | process 0.006

march 0.02758

wall-street | message 0.006

peaceful 0.0271

world | solidarity 0.006


sotheby 0.02688

police | public 0.005

general 0.02644

police | plaza 0.005

media 0.02382

police | square 0.005

american 0.02238

people | solidarity 0.005

political 0.02182

september | group 0.005

economic 0.02143

september | general 0.005

financial 0.02136

public | information 0.005

information 0.02095

police | member 0.004

right 0.02076

police | event 0.004

video 0.0196

police | demonstrator 0.004

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 103


October 2011 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1631
Density: 0.005
Focus: 0.107



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
occupywallstreet 0.1084

square | liberty 0.094

people 0.0801

people | movement 0.032

wall-street 0.07278

percent | 0.032

square 0.05136

occupywallstreet | movement 0.022

movement 0.05031

occupywallstreet | people 0.017

action 0.04763

occupywallstreet | wall-street 0.016

liberty 0.04592

people | world 0.016

police 0.0445

people | action 0.015

city 0.04234

people | percent 0.015

world 0.04041

occupywallstreet | square 0.011

occupation 0.03248

occupywallstreet | occupation 0.011

percent 0.03073

wall-street | square 0.011

new-york 0.03019

occupywallstreet | october 0.010

time 0.03013

action | city 0.010

solidarity 0.0299

percent | ninetynine 0.010

park 0.02905

occupywallstreet | world 0.009

economic 0.0273

people | 0.009


community 0.02658

wall-street | city 0.009

protest 0.02497

occupywallstreet | protest 0.008

party 0.0245

occupywallstreet | percent 0.007

occupy 0.02443

people | liberty 0.007

october 0.02358

people | solidarity 0.007

american 0.02348

wall-street | liberty 0.007

support 0.02322

square | occupation 0.007

group 0.02297

movement | liberty 0.007

global 0.0224

occupywallstreet | solidarity 0.006

local 0.02021

occupywallstreet | parent 0.006

today 0.01961

people | wall-street 0.006

system 0.01889

square | time 0.006


| ninetynine 0.006

home 0.01713

occupywallstreet | liberty 0.005

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104


November 2011 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1443
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.092



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
movement 0.09367

movement | occupy 0.087

occupywallstreet 0.09193

percent | 0.086

occupy 0.08465

percent | ninetynine 0.076

people 0.07684

square | liberty 0.064

square 0.06525

movement | percent 0.057

percent 0.0557

movement | occupywallstreet 0.043

ows 0.05029

ninetynine | 0.038

action 0.04676

occupywallstreet | square 0.036

community 0.04423

movement | ninetynine 0.031

city 0.04297

square | park 0.028

november 0.04168

movement | 0.026

park 0.03839

occupywallstreet | people 0.014

police 0.03798

square | november 0.014

right 0.03292

occupy | people 0.013

street 0.03088

movement | right 0.012

ninetynine 0.03049

occupywallstreet | liberty 0.012

nypd 0.02941

occupywallstreet | park 0.011


woman 0.02797

action | day 0.011


occupywallstreet | percent 0.010

occupier 0.02728

park | liberty 0.010

today 0.02567

movement | action 0.009

eviction 0.02459

occupywallstreet | ows 0.009

occupation 0.02448

occupy | ows 0.009

solidarity 0.02439

occupywallstreet | occupy 0.008

global 0.02318

occupywallstreet | community 0.008

group 0.02317

occupywallstreet | ninetynine 0.008

liberty 0.02141

percent | action 0.008

world 0.02118

action | november 0.008

day 0.02083

people | world 0.007

new 0.01991

percent | november 0.007

supporter 0.01879

movement | square 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 105


December 2011 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1271
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.065


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
community 0.06772

movement |

movement 0.06671

movement |

occupy 0.0662

movement |

home 0.0593

occupy |

right 0.05099

home |

people 0.05049

community |

action 0.04767

movement |

occupation 0.04371

new |

ows 0.04259

home |

new 0.0388

movement |

december 0.0384

home |

occupywallstreet 0.03825

action |


street 0.03764

community |


community |

occupier 0.03462

action |

country 0.03344

community |

local 0.03219

occupy |

space 0.03208

occupy |

city 0.03137

occupation |

year 0.03077

december |

dc 0.03057

community |

day 0.03003

occupy |

square 0.02915

community |

event 0.02873

community |

solidarity 0.02705

community |



movement |

food 0.02573

occupy |

police 0.02537

home |

eviction 0.02536

right |

system 0.02448

action |

boston 0.02418

occupywallstreet |

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 106


January 2012 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1081
Density: 0.007
Focus: 0.126


Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
people 0.1286

occupy | movement 0.069


occupy 0.11343

action | day 0.040

action 0.09122

occupy | oakland 0.023

movement 0.05569

occupy | action 0.021

january 0.04846

| percent 0.020

community 0.04405

people | occupy 0.015

day 0.04386

people | movement 0.014


people | home 0.011

home 0.04137

occupy | january 0.011

police 0.04085

people | nigerian 0.010

nigerian 0.03904

people | corporation 0.009

world 0.03768

occupy | home 0.009

city 0.03415

occupy | police 0.009

year 0.03246

occupy | nigerian 0.009

occupation 0.032

occupy | dc 0.009

country 0.03135

occupy | boston 0.009

right 0.03013

action | january 0.009

oakland 0.02842

january | nigerian 0.009

solidarity 0.02716

occupy | portland 0.008


march 0.02693

action | nigerian 0.007

dc 0.02579

action | solidarity 0.007

percent 0.02464

people | community 0.006

corporation 0.0246

occupy | solidarity 0.006

state 0.02384

action | city 0.006

support 0.02379

action | country 0.006

democracy 0.02363

people | police 0.005

economic 0.02295

people | world 0.005

park 0.02294

people | boston 0.005

earle 0.02012

people | national 0.005

boston 0.01998

occupy | occupier 0.005

national 0.01966

action | national 0.005

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107


February 2012 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1152
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.161


Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
action 0.16318

action | day 0.110

occupy 0.14152

occupy | oakland 0.070

police 0.09549

action | occupy 0.069


day 0.05193

action | washington 0.045

world 0.0494

occupy | chicago 0.034

today 0.04892

action | today 0.032

people 0.04672

occupy | day 0.029

oakland 0.04473

action | community 0.021

community 0.04335

action | world 0.016

chicago 0.03963

occupy | movement 0.016

movement 0.03829

action | corporate 0.015

home 0.03116

action | global 0.015

school 0.03079

action | food 0.014

group 0.03026

action | support 0.014

corporate 0.02964

occupy | community 0.012

event 0.02888

occupy | support 0.012

corporation 0.02775

occupy | london 0.011

city 0.02612

police | washington 0.011

bank 0.02385

action | corporation 0.009

ows 0.02375

action | city 0.009

protester 0.02369

occupy | national 0.009


european 0.02321

police | oakland 0.009

foreclosure 0.02316

action | people 0.008

global 0.02244

action | european 0.008

economic 0.02182

action | foreclosure 0.008

social 0.02174

police | chicago 0.008

solidarity 0.02115

action | oakland 0.007

austerity 0.02112

action | national 0.007

square 0.02109

action | direct 0.007

national 0.02093

occupy | protester 0.007

park 0.02051

action | movement 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108


March 2012 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1488
Density: 0.005
Focus: 0.108


Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
march 0.11014

march | washington 0.127


action 0.08229

march | day 0.056

people 0.07311

action | day 0.053

occupy 0.07054

square | union 0.041

day 0.06395

day | woman 0.033

public 0.05011

square | liberty 0.033

nypd 0.04939

march | occupy 0.031

square 0.04936

action | occupy 0.023

police 0.04308

march | square 0.022

woman 0.03934

occupy | square 0.021

world 0.03274

day | may 0.019

right 0.03222

occupy | day 0.018

government 0.03083

march | ows 0.017

park 0.03023

march | people 0.016

economic 0.02638

nypd | square 0.015

union 0.02596

people | woman 0.014

occupywallstreet 0.02586

occupy | woman 0.011

occupier 0.02493

occupy | movement 0.011

wall-street 0.02361

action | may 0.010


street 0.02349

| percent 0.010


march | liberty 0.009

city 0.02291

march | may 0.009

community 0.02173

march | occupier 0.008

ows 0.02158

march | wall-street 0.008

education 0.02105

public | park 0.008

liberty 0.02023

people | nypd 0.007

movement 0.01999

people | square 0.007

event 0.01989

people | park 0.007

may 0.01964

square | occupier 0.007

front 0.01949

march | public 0.006

worker 0.01946

march | union 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109


April 2012 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2896
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.086


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
day 0.08677

day | may 0.610

may 0.06504

day | action 0.101

people 0.06088

union | square 0.036

occupy 0.05153

may | action 0.033

action 0.05055

occupy | movement 0.028

community 0.03996

day | occupy 0.018

movement 0.03884

day | people 0.016

student 0.03747

may | general 0.016

union 0.02909

may | strike 0.016

public 0.02884

day | nyc 0.015

group 0.0276

day | community 0.014

square 0.02718

day | square 0.014

police 0.02604

day | strike 0.014

worker 0.02483

day | union 0.013

new-york 0.02446

occupy | action 0.013

street 0.02375

may | people 0.012

city 0.02237

occupy | student 0.012


right 0.02169

general | strike 0.012

bank 0.02154

day | worker 0.011

march 0.0206

day | march 0.011

food 0.02048

day | general 0.011

protest 0.01892

may | square 0.011

new 0.01838

day | student 0.010

park 0.01742

day | event 0.010

free 0.01685

may | union 0.009

april 0.01684

action | direct 0.009

general 0.01612

percent | 0.009

strike 0.01608

may | street 0.008

occupywallstreet 0.01599

may | march 0.008

occupier 0.0158

may | nyc 0.008

percent 0.01531

day | april 0.007

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110


May 2012 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3474
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.083


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.08345

police | chicago 0.068

police 0.07978

chicago | occupy 0.049

chicago 0.05708

people | may 0.037

may 0.05555

people | world 0.036

movement 0.04134

chicago | may 0.035

city 0.03965

people | chicago 0.033

occupy 0.03746

may | day 0.029

solidarity 0.03111

movement | occupy 0.022

assembly 0.03048

people | police 0.020

street 0.02975

police | occupy 0.018

action 0.0289

people | occupy 0.016

park 0.02868

chicago | action 0.015

world 0.02699

chicago | nato 0.014

student 0.02529

people | city 0.013

nato 0.02377

people | solidarity 0.013

war 0.02326

police | action 0.012

protest 0.02326

people | group 0.011


global 0.02312

police | protester 0.011

community 0.0218

movement | global 0.011

group 0.02125

occupy | action 0.011

march 0.01955

may | solidarity 0.010

right 0.01904

may | action 0.010

protester 0.01897

people | summit 0.009

public 0.01799

police | may 0.009

square 0.01792

chicago | movement 0.009

state 0.01787

solidarity | student 0.009

day 0.01743

people | assembly 0.008

anarchist 0.01521

people | nato 0.008

government 0.0149

may | global 0.008

activist 0.01379

action | day 0.008

nyc 0.01364

people | action 0.007

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111


June 2012 on
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2214
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.086



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.08717

occupy | movement 0.058

occupy 0.08631

student | debt 0.045

movement 0.06751

occupy | june 0.025

june 0.05819

movement | student 0.023

student 0.05607

occupy | national 0.021

action 0.04591

occupy | student 0.019

community 0.04587

student | solidarity 0.019

public 0.04364

people | movement 0.018

bank 0.03824

people | community 0.016

solidarity 0.03676

occupy | home 0.011

debt 0.03614

movement | social 0.011

education 0.03364

movement | solidarity 0.010

right 0.02662

occupy | debt 0.009

new 0.02523

people | occupy 0.008

home 0.02436

people | action 0.008

ows 0.02404

occupy | public 0.008

national 0.02391

student | strike 0.008


event 0.02372

public | debt 0.008

percent 0.02266

people | world 0.007

state 0.02254

june | ows 0.007

protest 0.0216

public | education 0.007

activist 0.02151

people | home 0.006

street 0.02127

june | debt 0.006

time 0.02039

june | event 0.006

union 0.02038

people | june 0.005

new-york 0.0196

occupy | member 0.005

day 0.01958

student | public 0.005

social 0.01946

debt | education 0.005

world 0.01933

occupy | action 0.004

march 0.01886

occupy | community 0.004

member 0.01816

occupy | campaign 0.004

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0


Section 2: The New York Times Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of NYT content (articles) containing mentions of Occupy
Wall Street. Each map graphs one individual month. Note that months with no content are not included
(July 2011 and August 2011). Resonance scores of top centers are listed under each individual map.

September 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 822
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.192



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
police 0.19621

police | department 0.080

new-york 0.11234

police | new-york 0.066

protester 0.0968

police | protester 0.057

city 0.09332

spray | pepper 0.033

officer 0.08736

police | people 0.027

page 0.08532

police | demonstration 0.026

spray 0.06881

protester | officer 0.025

people 0.06767

police | city 0.018

demonstration 0.06679

page | spray 0.018

group 0.05614

police | page 0.017

video 0.05331

police | inspector 0.016

street 0.05294

spray | use 0.013

inspector 0.04171

inspector | bologna 0.012

number 0.03762

officer | inspector 0.011

occupywallstreet 0.03624

police | street 0.010

legal 0.03606

police | browne 0.010

president 0.03565

new-york | officer 0.010


zuccottipark 0.03427

new-york | page 0.010

arrest 0.03409

new-york | department 0.010

union 0.034

officer | street 0.009

week 0.03207

police | saturday 0.008

activist 0.03075

new-york | people 0.008

department 0.0292

new-york | union 0.008

personhood 0.02529

city | officer 0.008

use 0.02364

police | union 0.007

action 0.02359

protester | spray 0.007

corporation 0.02302

protester | people 0.007

pepper 0.02285

spray | video 0.007

member 0.02121

police | week 0.006

woman 0.02113

police | official 0.006

bologna 0.02097

police | deputy 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 103NYT


October 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 10499
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.059



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.05973

protest | occupywallstreet 0.095

protest 0.04997

protester | occupywallstreet 0.074

people 0.04406

occupywallstreet | movement 0.033

city 0.03225

protest | movement 0.030

new 0.0319

protester | police 0.024

occupywallstreet 0.02704

protester | wall-street 0.020

year 0.02662

protest | people 0.020

movement 0.0225

protest | new-york 0.014

american 0.02201

protest | wall-street 0.014

new-york 0.0202

protester | people 0.013

group 0.02011

protester | group 0.012

page 0.01934

protester | zuccottipark 0.012

wall-street 0.01801

protester | park 0.011

company 0.01645

protest | city 0.011

president 0.01633

protest | police 0.010

police 0.01621

protest | week 0.010

time 0.01613

people | occupywallstreet 0.010


tax 0.01533

protester | protest 0.009

park 0.01522

protester | movement 0.009

financial 0.01506

people | group 0.009

public 0.01387

people | movement 0.008

week 0.0131

protester | right 0.007

day 0.01297

protest | page 0.007

country 0.01273

people | city 0.007

bank 0.01225

city | new-york 0.007

good 0.01209

president | obama 0.007

former 0.01201

protester | city 0.006

mayor 0.01185

protester | new 0.006

man 0.01182

protester | new-york 0.006

part 0.01177

protester | week 0.006

state 0.01158

people | american 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104NYT


November 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 10665
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.059



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.05891

protester | occupywallstreet 0.042

people 0.05696

protester | police 0.041

year 0.02931

protester | park 0.032

city 0.0284

protester | city 0.028

new 0.02423

movement | occupywallstreet 0.020

police 0.02323

protester | group 0.018

group 0.02215

people | park 0.014

movement 0.01973

protester | people 0.013

protest 0.01971

people | city 0.013

state 0.01934

people | american 0.013

american 0.01821

protester | country 0.011

president 0.01787

protester | tent 0.010

student 0.01782

protester | occupy 0.009

occupywallstreet 0.01773

people | good 0.009

time 0.0171

people | police 0.008

park 0.01647

people | group 0.008


new-york 0.01617

protest | occupywallstreet 0.008

day 0.01575

protester | new-york 0.007

university 0.01523

protester | zuccottipark 0.007

country 0.01507

people | young 0.007

member 0.01468

city | park 0.007

company 0.01428

protester | day 0.006

way 0.01369

people | occupywallstreet 0.006

man 0.01359

people | country 0.006

government 0.01354

city | new-york 0.006

job 0.01277

protester | university 0.005

good 0.01214

people | year 0.005

big 0.01191

people | time 0.005

former 0.01181

year | time 0.005

republican 0.01179

city | police 0.005

large 0.01138

police | park 0.005

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 105NYT


December 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 10079
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.067


Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
new 0.06703

new | tax 0.022

year 0.04701

new | year 0.009


art 0.02663

new | art 0.009

new-york 0.0259

new | show 0.007

people 0.02484

year | time 0.007

bank 0.02166

new-york | state 0.006

president 0.02102

year | bank 0.005

time 0.02096

year | art 0.004

american 0.02086

tax | state 0.004

show 0.01861

protester | occupywallstreet 0.004

street 0.01762

occupywallstreet | movement 0.004

city 0.01749

new | bank 0.003

company 0.01722

new | page 0.003

public 0.01685

new | protester 0.003

tax 0.01678

new | work 0.003

page 0.0161

new | way 0.003

state 0.01585

new | music 0.003

day 0.01576

year | show 0.003

protester 0.01481

year | state 0.003

police 0.01449

new-york | tax 0.003


work 0.01444

people | tax 0.003

occupywallstreet 0.01401

bank | president 0.003

world 0.01382

president | obama 0.003

good 0.01378

new | new-york 0.002

david 0.01275

new | people 0.002

group 0.01262

new | company 0.002

member 0.01229

new | public 0.002

former 0.01216

new | state 0.002

business 0.0119

new | day 0.002

man 0.01134

new | occupywallstreet 0.002

own 0.01054

new | good 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 106NYT


January 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 8181
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.050



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
year 0.0504

year | new 0.005

new 0.04537

year | recent 0.005

people 0.03654

people | group 0.005

new-york 0.02914

new-york | state 0.005

group 0.0284

year | people 0.004

time 0.02468

year | group 0.004

political 0.02395

year | time 0.004

state 0.02323

year | state 0.004

company 0.02246

year | percent 0.004

american 0.02151

new-york | city 0.004

public 0.02026

year | business 0.003

city 0.01922

year | financial 0.003

world 0.01893

new | new-york 0.003

day 0.01887

new | political 0.003

economic 0.01818

new | american 0.003

good 0.01771

new | world 0.003

business 0.01725

new | financial 0.003


country 0.01707

state | university 0.003

page 0.01633

president | obama 0.003

president 0.01544

occupywallstreet | movement 0.003

financial 0.01535

year | company 0.002

center 0.01493

year | city 0.002

republican 0.01489

year | world 0.002

romney 0.01296

year | republican 0.002

manhattan 0.01278

year | way 0.002

former 0.01264

year | school 0.002

protester 0.01245

year | member 0.002

part 0.01218

new | people 0.002

bank 0.01166

new | state 0.002

government 0.01138

new | job 0.002

work 0.01138

people | company 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107NYT


February 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3404
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.075



Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
new 0.07604

police | department 0.031

year 0.06815

new | museum 0.016

people 0.05611

new | work 0.011

police 0.05546

new | city 0.007

work 0.04661

new | school 0.007

city 0.04448

year | officer 0.007

kelly 0.03785

city | school 0.007

group 0.03657

police | kelly 0.006

officer 0.03527

police | officer 0.006

american 0.03519

new | year 0.005

school 0.03082

work | smith 0.005

department 0.03076

kelly | officer 0.005

time 0.03065

new | bank 0.004

artist 0.02792

year | people 0.004

titanic 0.02587

year | police 0.004

world 0.02567

year | good 0.004


bank 0.0232

people | money 0.004

protester 0.02203

police | protester 0.004

public 0.02049

work | kelly 0.004

financial 0.02036

new | art 0.003

art 0.02035

new | sculpture 0.003

protest 0.02022

year | city 0.003

part 0.01945

year | kelly 0.003

day 0.01932

police | work 0.003

early 0.01863

police | protest 0.003

photograph 0.01837

police | new-york 0.003

good 0.01804

work | time 0.003

way 0.01741

work | artist 0.003

occupywallstreet 0.01633

city | group 0.003

large 0.01629

city | department 0.003

teacher 0.0161

city | day 0.003

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108NYT


March 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 5102
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.068



Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
people 0.06814

people | young 0.020

new 0.0566

police | department 0.019

year 0.04231

people | year 0.009

group 0.04013

people | police 0.008

police 0.03974

year | group 0.007

city 0.03329

people | city 0.005

political 0.0311

occupywallstreet | movement 0.005

school 0.02782

people | new 0.004

family 0.02172

people | right 0.004

part 0.02126

people | time 0.004

occupywallstreet 0.02111

new | city 0.004

good 0.02011

new | political 0.004

department 0.01959

people | group 0.003

street 0.01914

people | street 0.003

man 0.01904

new | co-op 0.003

right 0.01851

police | new-york 0.003


time 0.01822

city | department 0.003

work 0.01801

people | co-op 0.002

young 0.01752

people | money 0.002

movement 0.01751

people | park 0.002

own 0.01745

new | year 0.002

american 0.01701

new | school 0.002

public 0.01677

new | new-york 0.002

way 0.01564

new | social 0.002

student 0.0156

new | magazine 0.002

woman 0.01554

year | police 0.002

officer 0.01479

year | school 0.002

place 0.01457

year | time 0.002

bank 0.01436

year | recent 0.002

new-york 0.01417

group | part 0.002

social 0.01393

police | officer 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109NYT


April 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3570
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.079


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
group 0.08009

group | city 0.006


year 0.0552

group | small 0.005

people 0.04851

year | student 0.005

city 0.0371

protester | occupywallstreet 0.005

american 0.03592

group | year 0.004

police 0.03587

group | people 0.004

protester 0.03393

year | police 0.004

student 0.03277

american | student 0.004

day 0.03014

group | police 0.003

new 0.02972

group | student 0.003

page 0.02849

group | protest 0.003

time 0.02837

group | member 0.003

breitbart 0.02811

group | own 0.003

america 0.02593

group | official 0.003

college 0.02237

city | police 0.003

financial 0.02233

city | tent 0.003

new-york 0.02179

protester | time 0.003

good 0.02141

student | college 0.003

part 0.0214

group | new 0.002


life 0.0213

group | america 0.002

protest 0.02105

group | movement 0.002

right 0.02101

group | bank 0.002

movement 0.01966

group | labor 0.002

street 0.0186

year | city 0.002

member 0.01816

year | page 0.002

occupywallstreet 0.01724

people | american 0.002

week 0.01709

people | student 0.002

own 0.01709

people | high 0.002

place 0.01694

city | official 0.002

official 0.01653

american | day 0.002

park 0.01647

police | protester 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110NYT


May 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3876
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.059



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.05947

people | young 0.017

president 0.05101

police | protester 0.012

police 0.04608

people | police 0.008

year 0.04397

president | obama 0.008

city 0.04295

people | protester 0.007

company 0.04067

people | skadden 0.007

group 0.03695

city | bank 0.007

new-york 0.03587

police | department 0.006

financial 0.03332

people | year 0.005

young 0.03148

people | company 0.005

bank 0.03131

police | new-york 0.005

protester 0.02841

city | group 0.005

page 0.02809

young | america 0.005

obama 0.02558

people | group 0.004

conard 0.02502

president | new-york 0.004

new 0.02494

police | city 0.004

member 0.02426

police | page 0.004


time 0.02163

year | company 0.004

good 0.02115

financial | bank 0.004

movement 0.01905

movement | occupywallstreet 0.004

executive 0.01858

people | president 0.003

political 0.01798

people | city 0.003

leader 0.01777

people | good 0.003

party 0.01757

people | movement 0.003

public 0.01651

president | financial 0.003

money 0.01607

president | leader 0.003

american 0.0156

year | financial 0.003

long 0.01483

city | new-york 0.003

world 0.01478

city | official 0.003

guest 0.01315

group | new 0.003

campaign 0.01299

group | political 0.003

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111NYT


June 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3189
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.061



Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
political 0.06198

political | american 0.005

year 0.04647

hayes | show 0.005

hayes 0.03813

political | year 0.003

people 0.03801

people | group 0.003

day 0.0368

occupywallstreet | protester 0.003

time 0.03166

political | hayes 0.002

manhattan 0.02979

political | show 0.002

american 0.02932

political | city 0.002

power 0.02892

political | campaign 0.002

show 0.02726

political | country 0.002

public 0.02639

year | people 0.002

artist 0.02532

hayes | artist 0.002

city 0.02526

public | art 0.002

campaign 0.02492

common | ground 0.002

country 0.0249

news | fox 0.002

republican 0.0243

political | group 0.001


group 0.02276

political | art 0.001

party 0.02254

political | policy 0.001

police 0.02048

political | new 0.001

state 0.02024

political | member 0.001

president 0.02019

political | part 0.001

right 0.02007

political | movement 0.001

program 0.01969

political | work 0.001

occupywallstreet 0.01967

political | left 0.001

park 0.01945

political | national 0.001

recent 0.01938

political | union 0.001

common 0.01925

political | leader 0.001

protester 0.01886

political | europe 0.001

design 0.01806

political | texas 0.001

art 0.01804

political | morning 0.001


Section 3: The Wall Street Journal Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of WSJ content (articles) containing mentions
of Occupy Wall Street. Each map graphs one individual month. Note that months with no
content are not included (July 2011 and August 2011). Resonance scores of top centers are
listed under each individual map.

September 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 470
Density: 0.009
Focus: 0.186


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
police 0.19345

protester | group 0.073

protester 0.18399

protester | permit 0.017


group 0.13276

protester | manhattan 0.017

protest 0.09519

police | demonstrator 0.015

park 0.07874

police | new-york 0.014

demonstrator 0.07796

police | department 0.014

u.s. 0.07724

group | protest 0.013

new-york 0.07287

protest | manhattan 0.013

law 0.06319

police | law 0.012

people 0.05489

park | manhattan 0.011

short 0.05072

protester | people 0.010

saturday 0.0504

police | new york city 0.009

arrest 0.04804

protester | saturday 0.009

permit 0.04738

protester | arrest 0.009

manhattan 0.04487

manhattan | low 0.009

social 0.04273

police | social 0.008

spray 0.03998

police | spray 0.008

street 0.03726

protest | social 0.008

part 0.03616

park | low 0.008

browne 0.03582

police | street 0.007


spokesman 0.03541

police | browne 0.007

march 0.03481

police | spokesman 0.007

day 0.03427

police | low 0.007

low 0.03413

protester | spray 0.007

student 0.03143

group | people 0.007

monday 0.03085

group | short 0.007

body 0.02927

protest | u.s. 0.007

lawmaker 0.02838

police | body 0.006

financial 0.02768

group | permit 0.006

price 0.02735

group | social 0.006

tent 0.02721

park | demonstrator 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 103WSJ


October 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 6435
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.062



Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
people 0.06289

occupywallstreet | protester 0.079

occupywallstreet 0.05298

occupywallstreet | movement 0.049

protester 0.05125

occupywallstreet | protest 0.031

year 0.03694

people | american 0.021

business 0.03536

protester | police 0.011

new-york 0.03459

people | occupywallstreet 0.010

american 0.03318

protester | park 0.010

new 0.03296

people | year 0.009

protest 0.02953

people | park 0.009

president 0.02894

protester | city 0.009

group 0.02721

president | obama 0.008

movement 0.02695

people | movement 0.007

city 0.02579

people | wall-street 0.007

time 0.02269

protester | new-york 0.007

government 0.02151

protester | wall-street 0.007

wall-street 0.02136

people | protester 0.006


bank 0.02128

people | new 0.006

good 0.02092

protester | group 0.006

u.s. 0.02006

business | big 0.006

park 0.01961

protest | movement 0.006

week 0.01901

people | group 0.005

company 0.01781

people | bank 0.005

job 0.01716

occupywallstreet | new-york 0.005

financial 0.01647

protester | week 0.005

former 0.01512

people | protest 0.004

police 0.01392

people | time 0.004

country 0.01383

people | young 0.004

day 0.01361

occupywallstreet | group 0.004

member 0.01317

occupywallstreet | member 0.004

political 0.01267

year | american 0.004

large 0.01238

business | american 0.004

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104WSJ


November 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 5147
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.070



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.07066

protester | occupywallstreet 0.060

people 0.05952

protester | police 0.047

city 0.0469

occupywallstreet | movement 0.030

new 0.041

protester | city 0.020

tax 0.03992

protester | people 0.017

police 0.03934

people | police 0.014

occupywallstreet 0.03832

protester | group 0.013

new-york 0.0339

occupywallstreet | protest 0.013

president 0.02889

new | school 0.012

year 0.02888

city | police 0.011

business 0.02883

people | city 0.008

state 0.02642

police | new-york 0.008

movement 0.02561

protester | zuccottipark 0.007

protest 0.02438

protester | new 0.006

public 0.02274

president | obama 0.006

u.s. 0.02095

protester | park 0.005

group 0.02024

people | new 0.005


government 0.01976

city | protest 0.005

political 0.01862

city | public 0.005

park 0.01811

new | tax 0.005

american 0.01688

tax | state 0.005

time 0.01654

police | occupywallstreet 0.005

former 0.01605

occupywallstreet | new-york 0.005

day 0.01566

protester | political 0.004

mayor 0.01518

protester | large 0.004

financial 0.01501

protester | week 0.004

service 0.01467

new | protest 0.004

big 0.01462

new | government 0.004

wall-street 0.01317

tax | new-york 0.004

obama 0.01283

tax | financial 0.004


December 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2858
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.078



Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
tax 0.07884

tax | income 0.031

u.s. 0.05953

tax | new 0.014

year 0.05216

tax | state 0.013

oakland 0.04735

oakland | police 0.012

bank 0.04604

tax | federal 0.009

business 0.04551

tax | year 0.008

new 0.04321

u.s. | bank 0.008

city 0.04009

bank | big 0.008

group 0.03637

income | top 0.008

new-york 0.0341

tax | business 0.007

president 0.03371

tax | top 0.007

film 0.03141

business | city 0.007

police 0.02854

business | income 0.007

people 0.0275

tax | individual 0.006

state 0.02415

oakland | city 0.006

income 0.02298

city | group 0.006


occupywallstreet 0.02218

tax | u.s. 0.005

federal 0.02216

oakland | movement 0.005

union 0.02047

oakland | occupy 0.005

wall-street 0.02045

city | police 0.005

museum 0.02037

tax | bank 0.004

movement 0.02029

tax | high 0.004

big 0.01975

tax | corporate 0.004

protester 0.01945

u.s. | service 0.004

top 0.01879

bank | federal 0.004

high 0.01811

new | home 0.004

home 0.01706

police | department 0.004

day 0.0166

occupywallstreet | movement 0.004

occupy 0.01637

tax | big 0.003

economic 0.01628

tax | policy 0.003

v1.0 106WSJ


January 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 4423
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.075



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
u.s. 0.07549

year | company 0.015

year 0.07359

u.s. | new 0.011

new 0.05036

protester | occupywallstreet 0.011

group 0.04433

year | time 0.009

protester 0.04378

u.s. | firm 0.008

people 0.04068

firm | financial 0.008

company 0.03968

u.s. | city 0.007

firm 0.0342

new | class 0.007

city 0.03247

u.s. | year 0.006

time 0.03146

u.s. | company 0.006

new-york 0.02875

new | bank 0.006

occupywallstreet 0.02538

group | protester 0.006

bank 0.02516

u.s. | service 0.005

american 0.02321

group | occupywallstreet 0.005

romney 0.02125

occupywallstreet | movement 0.005

financial 0.02118

u.s. | new-york 0.004

large 0.02056

u.s. | news 0.004


director 0.02005

year | bank 0.004

day 0.01953

new | company 0.004

service 0.01775

new | tax 0.004

country 0.01692

protester | people 0.004

state 0.01595

company | media 0.004

law 0.01587

u.s. | group 0.003

former 0.01575

u.s. | world 0.003

movement 0.0157

year | people 0.003

tax 0.01543

year | firm 0.003

industry 0.01514

year | romney 0.003

protest 0.01492

new | time 0.003

security 0.01438

new | occupywallstreet 0.003

home 0.01411

group | city 0.003

president 0.01391

group | romney 0.003

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107WSJ


February 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1612
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.089


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
group 0.09092

group | anonymous 0.011

movement 0.06801

movement | occupywallstreet 0.009

company 0.05859

group | protester 0.007

u.s. 0.05576

group | movement 0.006

social 0.05132

group | u.s. 0.005


year 0.04886

group | people 0.004

people 0.04121

group | recent 0.004

rand 0.04093

movement | power 0.004

protester 0.04043

movement | occupy 0.004

attack 0.0364

social | issue 0.004

city 0.03234

group | attack 0.003

power 0.03225

group | city 0.003

tax 0.03103

group | power 0.003

fund 0.03011

group | business 0.003

business 0.03

group | occupy 0.003

bank 0.02883

movement | social 0.003

former 0.02878

movement | french 0.003

industry 0.02789

movement | new 0.003

american 0.02688

company | social 0.003

candidate 0.02654

company | high 0.003

federal 0.02636

u.s. | government 0.003

occupywallstreet 0.02565

group | issue 0.002

economic 0.02533

group | public 0.002


republican 0.02489

group | official 0.002

issue 0.02443

group | member 0.002

policy 0.02377

movement | american 0.002

high 0.02357

movement | economic 0.002

recent 0.02345

company | attack 0.002

money 0.02291

company | industry 0.002

government 0.02273

company | american 0.002

service 0.0227

company | federal 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108WSJ


March 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2169
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.058


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.059

protester | occupywallstreet 0.012

year 0.05619

protester | police 0.006

police 0.04955

police | new-york 0.006

university 0.0461

social | justice 0.005


new 0.04515

protester | people 0.004

man 0.03822

year | protest 0.004

protest 0.03685

police | department 0.004

public 0.0362

university | professor 0.004

amberson 0.03618

protester | occupy 0.003

time 0.03503

university | public 0.003

people 0.03379

university | policy 0.003

welles 0.03362

new | time 0.003

social 0.0335

protest | occupy 0.003

business 0.03192

bank | big 0.003

bank 0.03162

protester | new-york 0.002

new-york 0.03054

year | time 0.002

policy 0.02877

year | new-york 0.002

way 0.02838

year | income 0.002

ccrb 0.0241

police | new 0.002

political 0.02326

police | public 0.002

george 0.02271

police | occupywallstreet 0.002

country 0.02262

police | case 0.002


city 0.02219

university | new 0.002

occupywallstreet 0.02185

university | political 0.002

federal 0.02036

university | institution 0.002

film 0.02011

university | california 0.002

beck 0.01984

new | system 0.002

case 0.01943

public | policy 0.002

professor 0.01879

people | american 0.002

low 0.01851

new-york | department 0.002

news 0.01822

city | member 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109WSJ


April 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1218
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.082


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
occupywallstreet 0.08493

devaney | people 0.017

devaney 0.0775

occupywallstreet | people 0.012

people 0.07341

occupywallstreet | protester 0.012

occupy 0.06026

ms. | martinez 0.008


part 0.05468

occupywallstreet | part 0.005

day 0.05435

occupywallstreet | day 0.005

property 0.05196

occupywallstreet | movement 0.005

police 0.04935

property | new 0.005

protester 0.04636

occupywallstreet | group 0.004

new 0.04431

occupywallstreet | member 0.004

year 0.04422

people | day 0.004

building 0.04316

people | police 0.004

group 0.04262

day | march 0.004

union 0.04095

day | may 0.004

protest 0.03575

police | group 0.004

time 0.03415

occupywallstreet | time 0.003

ms. 0.03374

occupywallstreet | march 0.003

march 0.0324

people | protest 0.003

month 0.03101

occupy | service 0.003

martinez 0.03091

occupy | site 0.003

city 0.02973

occupy | organizer 0.003

cleaning 0.02939

new | protest 0.003


movement 0.02899

year | march 0.003

service 0.02829

union | labor 0.003

home 0.02819

union | worker 0.003

site 0.02712

square | finsbury 0.003

labor 0.02693

occupywallstreet | labor 0.002

report 0.02675

occupywallstreet | company 0.002

crew 0.02557

occupywallstreet | organizer 0.002

company 0.02527

occupywallstreet | eviction 0.002

organizer 0.02401

occupywallstreet | space 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110WSJ


May 2012 in WSJ

CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1798
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.134


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protest 0.13566

protest | group 0.068

group 0.12596

protest | city 0.027


year 0.06813

protest | day 0.014

board 0.06752

protest | police 0.013

city 0.06565

protest | occupywallstreet 0.012

new 0.06257

protest | year 0.009

company 0.05216

protest | board 0.009

police 0.04952

group | year 0.009

israel 0.03726

group | board 0.009

people 0.03665

protest | new 0.008

pride 0.03663

group | business 0.008

protester 0.03561

city | new 0.008

fund 0.03496

protest | event 0.007

business 0.03358

group | company 0.007

film 0.03294

group | occupywallstreet 0.007

firm 0.03204

year | pride 0.007

tuesday 0.03202

police | protester 0.007

morgan-stanley 0.03129

protest | may 0.006

facebook 0.03058

protest | business 0.005

public 0.02985

protest | occupymovement 0.005


occupywallstreet 0.02867

group | israel 0.005

country 0.02714

group | pride 0.005

u.s. 0.02659

board | pride 0.005

meeting 0.02637

board | president 0.005

day 0.02528

protest | morgan-stanley 0.004

event 0.02507

protest | country 0.004

stock 0.02414

protest | moscow 0.004

new-york 0.0213

group | official 0.004

movement 0.02107

year | new 0.004

activist 0.02089

board | company 0.004

member 0.01989

city | member 0.004

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111WSJ


June 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1319
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.161


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
book 0.1637

book | reader 0.150

reader 0.13092

book | digital 0.034

company 0.09944

reader | data 0.018

publisher 0.05124

book | publisher 0.017

president 0.04973

book | series 0.015


conard 0.04845

reader | publisher 0.013

good 0.0475

book | conard 0.008

ms. 0.04715

book | good 0.008

new 0.04631

book | time 0.008

data 0.0462

book | amazon 0.007

editor 0.03659

book | line 0.007

white-house 0.0359

book | people 0.007

museum 0.03092

book | nonfiction 0.007

obamacare 0.0308

reader | author 0.006

economy 0.03033

reader | hour 0.006

director 0.03028

book | economy 0.005

series 0.03025

reader | way 0.005

former 0.02642

company | publisher 0.005

digital 0.02608

book | service 0.004

group 0.02574

book | particular 0.004

time 0.02514

reader | series 0.004

industry 0.02374

company | editor 0.004

party 0.02367

company | drug 0.004


author 0.02328

book | chanel 0.003

lopez 0.02317

book | kind 0.003

big 0.02314

book | clear 0.003

service 0.02307

reader | group 0.003

year 0.02277

reader | time 0.003

drug 0.02154

reader | service 0.003

hour 0.02123

reader | line 0.003

amazon 0.02108

reader | nook 0.003

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0


Section 4: USA Today Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of USA Today content (articles) containing mentions of
Occupy Wall Street. Each map graphs one individual month. Note that months with no content are not
included (July 2011, August 2011 and September 2011). Resonance scores of top centers are listed under
each individual map.

October 2011 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2421
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.090



Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
wall-street 0.09074

wall-street | protester 0.058

people 0.08977

protest | occupywallstreet 0.035

protester 0.07981

protester | police 0.028

protest 0.06792

movement | occupywallstreet 0.028

movement 0.05491

wall-street | protest 0.025

new 0.05201

protest | movement 0.022

occupywallstreet 0.05153

people | police 0.018

police 0.05012

protester | occupywallstreet 0.016

american 0.04985

protester | city 0.015

government 0.04983

people | american 0.013

college 0.03808

protester | occupy 0.010

big 0.03588

wall-street | american 0.009

bank 0.03421

wall-street | big 0.007

political 0.03316

people | protester 0.007

job 0.03046

people | street 0.007

city 0.03037

government | big 0.007

year 0.02422

wall-street | bank 0.006


economic 0.02314

protester | new-york 0.006

new-york 0.02312

protester | chicago 0.006

director 0.0215

movement | party 0.006

week 0.02087

people | movement 0.005

good 0.02054

people | occupywallstreet 0.005

group 0.01975

protester | job 0.005

time 0.01905

protest | war 0.005

problem 0.01902

movement | political 0.005

party 0.01769

occupywallstreet | american 0.005

leader 0.01707

police | city 0.005

media 0.01673

wall-street | new-york 0.004

war 0.01664

people | government 0.004

student 0.0162

people | year 0.004

corporate 0.01543

people | good 0.004

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104USA

November 2011 in USA Today

CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2961
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.076


Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
people 0.07716

movement | occupywallstreet 0.023

protester 0.04613

protester | occupywallstreet 0.009

job 0.04361

people | good 0.008

movement 0.03811

people | country 0.006

good 0.03533

people | cause 0.006

gingrich 0.03462

job | good 0.006

public 0.03263

people | business 0.005

business 0.03229

people | american 0.005

year 0.03114

protester | occupy 0.005

former 0.03041

president | obama 0.005

time 0.02806

student | loan 0.005

occupywallstreet 0.02693

people | time 0.004

protest 0.02659

people | occupywallstreet 0.004

tax 0.02526

people | tax 0.004

country 0.02461

people | government 0.004

government 0.02442

people | store 0.004

new 0.02437

job | business 0.004


way 0.02407

occupywallstreet | protest 0.004

american 0.02339

protest | occupy 0.004

president 0.02267

people | job 0.003

obama 0.02233

people | movement 0.003

u.s. 0.02232

people | public 0.003

economy 0.02101

protester | public 0.003

member 0.02004

protester | business 0.003

policy 0.01987

job | public 0.003

state 0.01919

job | economy 0.003

occupy 0.01894

movement | way 0.003

store 0.01883

movement | party 0.003

student 0.01857

gingrich | former 0.003

loan 0.01842

year | election 0.003

political 0.01776

people | way 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 105USA


December 2011 in USA Today


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
american 0.1113

obama | president 0.019

state 0.08649

american | republican 0.013

obama 0.06745

state | obama 0.012

year 0.06679

obama | economic 0.009

people 0.06076

republican | president 0.007

republican 0.0605

state | year 0.006

president 0.05736

state | president 0.005

bank 0.04654

state | nation 0.005

political 0.04433

state | campaign 0.005

economic 0.04259

obama | campaign 0.005

occupywallstreet 0.04027

president | economic 0.005

band 0.03862

school | high 0.005

time 0.03319

american | occupywallstreet 0.004

home 0.03152

american | time 0.004

national 0.03057

state | bank 0.004

nation 0.03025

obama | republican 0.004

school 0.02907

year | people 0.004


campaign 0.02695

year | president 0.004

job 0.02645

year | campaign 0.004

group 0.02609

republican | time 0.004

good 0.02459

republican | national 0.004

education 0.02302

economic | nation 0.004

high 0.02253

american | national 0.003

conservative 0.02121

american | job 0.003

wage 0.02082

american | group 0.003

movement 0.02066

american | association 0.003

public 0.01978

obama | political 0.003

wristband 0.01965

year | wage 0.003

new 0.01926

republican | political 0.003

federal 0.01924

republican | economic 0.003

fund 0.01888

president | political 0.003

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 106USA


January 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1152
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.104


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
new 0.10685

good | job 0.021

good 0.08983

company | ceo 0.013

company 0.08829

year | american 0.013

people 0.07685

new | job 0.012

president 0.07252

good | thing 0.011


year 0.07195

new | company 0.009

ceo 0.07105

good | people 0.007

american 0.06178

good | american 0.006

great 0.06171

good | great 0.006

business 0.06077

good | evil 0.006

time 0.05804

company | president 0.006

job 0.05795

company | year 0.006

romney 0.04754

new | professor 0.005

bank 0.04402

good | business 0.005

house 0.03841

company | job 0.005

kaan 0.03463

president | ceo 0.005

star 0.03215

year | ceo 0.005

thing 0.03128

new | house 0.004

income 0.03025

new | kaan 0.004

hard 0.02941

new | comedy 0.004

crazy 0.02837

new | testament 0.004

firm 0.02732

president | american 0.004

money 0.02645

ceo | time 0.004


big 0.02571

ceo | firm 0.004

market 0.02476

great | business 0.004

capital 0.02386

great | job 0.004

show 0.02326

company | crazy 0.003

evil 0.02324

president | house 0.003

cheadle 0.0226

president | obama 0.003

occupywallstreet 0.02197

american | bank 0.003

obama 0.02189

business | romney 0.003

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107USA

February 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics

Number of nodes: 1425
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.109


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.11121

people | american 0.018

american 0.07962

movement | occupy 0.017

michigan 0.05709

rich | poor 0.016

movement 0.05375

people | poor 0.014

new 0.04918

obama | president 0.010

rich 0.04779

people | job 0.007


year 0.0472

movement | social 0.007

tax 0.04527

people | michigan 0.006

obama 0.0433

people | movement 0.006

poor 0.04098

people | obama 0.005

great 0.03903

michigan | obama 0.005

government 0.03791

movement | course 0.005

president 0.03726

new | course 0.005

campaign 0.03411

people | government 0.004

course 0.03341

people | course 0.004

money 0.03208

people | young 0.004

occupy 0.03164

american | tax 0.004

state 0.03093

michigan | state 0.004

social 0.03065

movement | great 0.004

job 0.03014

people | public 0.003

bank 0.03006

people | economy 0.003

romney 0.02939

people | small 0.003

wealth 0.02926

american | obama 0.003

big 0.02881

michigan | economy 0.003


public 0.02695

movement | year 0.003

economy 0.02494

movement | occupywallstreet 0.003

thing 0.02452

rich | gap 0.003

budget 0.02363

obama | budget 0.003

wall-street 0.0216

course | occupy 0.003

congress 0.02132

bank | big 0.003

business 0.0192

people | congress 0.002

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108USA

March 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics

Number of nodes: 318
Density: 0.012
Focus: 0.325


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
income 0.33915

income | wealth 0.271

wealth 0.26629

wealth | power 0.103

power 0.19398

media | social 0.077

group 0.16536

income | power 0.066

kony 0.15464

income | inequality 0.052

media 0.14842

wealth | group 0.044

warning 0.11776

income | warning 0.040

university 0.11299

income | distribution 0.033

public 0.10485

power | kony 0.030


distribution 0.09691

power | media 0.029

g. 0.09414

wealth | distribution 0.026

harvard 0.09274

wealth | unequal 0.021

social 0.08695

wealth | gap 0.020

unequal 0.07939

wealth | poor 0.019

film 0.07898

wealth | top 0.017

gap 0.07692

wealth | people 0.017

worker 0.07416

power | social 0.017

poor 0.072

income | high 0.016

awareness 0.07128

public | awareness 0.015

north-carolina 0.06589

group | social 0.014

top 0.06382

income | issue 0.013

chapel-hill 0.0601

income | institution 0.013

politics 0.05303

group | film 0.013

tuft 0.04855

kony | social 0.013

high 0.04638

income | annual 0.012

place 0.04521

kony | film 0.012

dictator 0.04458

warning | harvard 0.011


recent 0.04315

university | g. 0.011

policy 0.04297

gap | poor 0.011

movement 0.0426

income | year 0.010

issue 0.0391

public | distribution 0.010

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109USA

April 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 538
Density: 0.009
Focus: 0.136


Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
american 0.14227

church | black 0.060

white 0.12907

white | progressive 0.050

church 0.12744

white | church 0.033

major 0.10192

american | today 0.027

progressive 0.09623

american | dream 0.020

today 0.09599

church | member 0.019

future 0.09498

american | white 0.018

student 0.08189

american | progressive 0.014

black 0.07855

major | dream 0.014

economic 0.07846

student | college 0.014

member 0.07428

student | debt 0.014

dream 0.0702

church | progressive 0.012

salesman 0.06336

black | member 0.012

month 0.06108

american | black 0.011

college 0.05788

white | black 0.010

christian 0.05036

white | member 0.010

shiloh 0.05026

church | moriah 0.010


reality 0.04989

student | loan 0.010

different 0.04629

progressive | today 0.009

nichols 0.04554

white | month 0.008

job 0.04453

major | student 0.008

current 0.04298

progressive | economic 0.008

brother 0.04231

future | student 0.008

debt 0.04227

american | nichols 0.006

wife 0.04011

american | current 0.006

moriah 0.0382

white | christian 0.006

people 0.0345

white | new 0.006

shot 0.03277

church | christian 0.006

loman 0.03144

church | shiloh 0.006

right 0.03112

church | reality 0.006

liberal 0.03045

major | college 0.006

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110USA


May 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 841
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.197


Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
group 0.20095

group | economy 0.024

ceo 0.12072

group | member 0.019

board 0.11665

group | obama 0.015

obama 0.07508

ceo | board 0.014

corporate 0.07389

group | cleveland 0.013

economy 0.05899

ceo | company 0.012


issue 0.05785

group | job 0.011

poor 0.05636

group | american 0.010

job 0.05378

obama | romney 0.010

american 0.05116

group | romney 0.009

company 0.05083

board | corporate 0.009

romney 0.04471

group | large 0.008

economic 0.04063

board | director 0.008

chicago 0.04021

board | member 0.008

personal 0.03659

group | movement 0.007

director 0.0358

ceo | poor 0.007

movement 0.03528

board | poor 0.007

year 0.03328

group | suspect 0.006

member 0.03215

ceo | job 0.006

suspect 0.03163

group | single 0.005

cleveland 0.03159

obama | year 0.005

bridge 0.03114

obama | president 0.005

u.s. 0.03082

group | people 0.004

shareholder 0.02855

group | thriving 0.004


business 0.02799

ceo | personal 0.004

alleged 0.02745

ceo | year 0.004

single 0.02271

board | year 0.004

president 0.02117

obama | poor 0.004

occupy 0.02101

economy | year 0.004

people 0.02092

group | high 0.003

university 0.02032

group | legal 0.003

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111USA


June 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 173
Density: 0.024
Focus: 0.283


Influence Analysis

Words Pairs
progressive 0.30149

progressive | frustration 0.072

obama 0.26987

obama | frustration 0.064

frustration 0.23729

frustration | enthusiasm 0.041

election 0.17973

progressive | daily 0.032


enthusiasm 0.1747

election | enthusiasm 0.031

republican 0.12461

frustration | republican 0.030

daily 0.10547

progressive | political 0.026

gov. 0.09452

progressive | liberal 0.024

roll 0.08568

obama | group 0.023

group 0.08497

progressive | good 0.022

liberal 0.07848

obama | liberal 0.021

questioner 0.0767

obama | white-house 0.021

good 0.07417

progressive | union 0.019

brother 0.07175

obama | brother 0.019

cookie 0.06759

obama | endorsement 0.017

purge 0.06759

obama | bettinson 0.015

union 0.06311

progressive | president 0.014

endorsement 0.06205

election | questioner 0.014

tampa 0.05834

enthusiasm | good 0.013

bettinson 0.05665

progressive | white-house 0.012

event 0.04896

republican | gov. 0.012

non-federal 0.04896

progressive | marriage 0.010


president 0.04718

obama | jonna 0.009

political 0.04301

obama | marriage 0.009

white-house 0.0397

progressive | agenda 0.008

pundit 0.03944

gov. | roll 0.008

programmer 0.03944

republican | president 0.006

race 0.03944

roll | purge 0.006

dream 0.03833

progressive | home 0.005

koch 0.03627

obama | sure 0.005

conservative 0.03498

group | endorsement 0.005

CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0