Kate Rochat Dupcak English 28 October 2011 Revised In-Class Essay 1: Photographing Occupy Wall Street Social movements

rely on media coverage for their success. The typical rule of thumb is the more of a spectacle a group makes of themselves, the more likely they will be covered by the media and, subsequently, the wider the audience for their argument. In this sense, the phototaking of the Occupy Wall Street protestors is beneficial. However, not all press is good press. Tourists and other laypersons photographing the protesters reinforces the social divisions between the radical protesters and the general public; as the Occupy Wall Street movement focuses on the disparity between the wealthiest 1% and everyone else, this dichotomy is detrimental to the unifying potential of the movement. From the beginning, Occupy Wall Street has had difficulty conveying the validity of its argument often due to the protestors lack of discretion. For example, during the movements early days, a woman was arrested for public nudity (she was walking around topless as a metaphor for Wall Street stealing the shirt off her back). Though this succeeded in drawing press (especially sensationalist, entertainment-based press), it was potentially harmful towards the movements image. Another such example was the sign less drums, more sex. These provocative, yet atypical, forms of protest are far more likely to be photographed and, therefore, become the popular depiction of the movement at large, despite being unrepresentative.

Based on first-hand interviews, these spectacle-based sentiments are not shared by all the protestors. Many of those who are camping out in Zuccotti Park (especially those who have been there since the movements beginning) are highly intelligent, socially conscious individuals with a valid argument against the current practices of unregulated (or under-regulated) free-market capitalism. Their slogan We are the 99% is not only catchy, it speaks to the fact that the wealthiest 1% of Americans own about 70% of the nations wealth leaving the other 90% to share only 30%. Unfortunately, the partiers in Zuccotti Park who are living out their fantasies of being a revolutionary are louder and easier to cover in a 30 second sound bite or a picture posted to Facebook than the complex flaws in the current economic practices of the United States. A similar struggle for proper coverage was experienced by the anti-war movement of the 1960s. The movement had legitimate arguments that involvement in Vietnam was illegal in both domestic and international policy, that the status of conscientious objector should be more broadly obtainable and less religiously based, that the death toll was hardly justifiable, and so on but it was over-shadowed by die-hard Hippies. Though I do not necessarily disagree with the Hippies radical rejection of cultural norms, their long hair and notorious drug use did little to gain the sympathies of middle class America. In this way, the anti-war movement was misconstrued as a culture clash (which admittedly has its place in the dynamics of social structures) instead of a political issue. Occupy Wall Street is adopting this counter-culture identity through misrepresentation by onlookers. Camera-enabled smartphones and other forms of hyper-connectivity, though very useful tools in the dissemination of ideas, can also spread stereotypes. Occupy Wall Street has the potential to be a true populist movement and to enact real, lasting change within the

economic practices of this country. Unfortunately, an Us, Them mentality is stunting the spread of ideas. Perhaps those onlookers should put away their cameras and talk to the protesters instead.