I was driving to Wilmington, DE today and heard about Occupy Wall Street being shut down. So I was glued to NYC's news stations for coverage about it. Out of all of them, I think 1010 WINS had the best coverage of Occupy Wall Street's eviction. A disadvantage of FM News 101.9 is that its signal faded out first. When I could hear it, they did not have any coverage of Occupy Wall Street besides a brief mention. No reporters live from Zuccotti Park. WINS seemed to cover it more than they covered any other news story. WCBS also had decent coverage, but they mostly did live reports from Zuccotti at the top and bottom of the hour. WINS's signal faded out after Philly, but WCBS was booming in at Wilmington. KYW didn't cover it much either, but they're not based in NYC and Occupy Philly had no major news. On my way back, I was listening to 99.5 for WJBR's Christmas music, but when it faded out and WBAI started coming in, I heard "Democracy Now" with a relatively old (12 hours old) story about Occupy Wall Street's eviction. They covered it for a whole hour! And this was the first time in my life that I intentionally listened to WBAI.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Occupy Wall Street news coverage
- Thread starter nd2023
- Start date
The 'occupy' story is mostly old news due to the refusal or inability of the group to justify its existence. On a slow news day, it might be good for a few reports an hour in town on the news outlets, including any resultant traffic tie ups. The judge's decision is ripe for analysis on talk radio, where the story had also grown long in the tooth. There'd be no reason for Philly, southern NJ and Wilmington news outlets to cover it at all except as a fluff time-filler in a slow news cycle.
This isn't a political forum - the subject of the thread is not what you think about the people involved the OWS movement but how radio is covering this major story.
I was up late when the eviction happened and flipped around about an hour after it began, in the middle of the night. I agree wiith Nick, even at that time 1010 WINS had the most thorough, nearly continuous coverage. WCBS 880 had live reports but they seemed less frequent as the station stuck more to format. WEMP had someone on the scene doing reports by the time I tuned in. I even checked Radio Pacifica fully expecting to ridicule them for not being on it, but to my surprise they were 100% covering it live (as they should have been).
I was up late when the eviction happened and flipped around about an hour after it began, in the middle of the night. I agree wiith Nick, even at that time 1010 WINS had the most thorough, nearly continuous coverage. WCBS 880 had live reports but they seemed less frequent as the station stuck more to format. WEMP had someone on the scene doing reports by the time I tuned in. I even checked Radio Pacifica fully expecting to ridicule them for not being on it, but to my surprise they were 100% covering it live (as they should have been).
Has WINS, WCBS or even WEMP been able to interview anyone who can explain what this group is all about? Is there any audio (or video) depicting some brief glimpse of coherence by anyone attached to this confused conglomerate?
Talk radio, for its part, hasn't been shy about reporting the obvious, which is that no one in this group can express a purpose, a reason for existence, a plan, a hint of substance.
In this case, talk radio has absolutely usurped news radio, which seems satisfied in merely reporting the much-ado-about-nothing physical machinations of these hollow masses. This is a prime example of talk radio adding much needed context to a 'news' story that otherwise has nothing to offer on its surface.
Talk radio, for its part, hasn't been shy about reporting the obvious, which is that no one in this group can express a purpose, a reason for existence, a plan, a hint of substance.
In this case, talk radio has absolutely usurped news radio, which seems satisfied in merely reporting the much-ado-about-nothing physical machinations of these hollow masses. This is a prime example of talk radio adding much needed context to a 'news' story that otherwise has nothing to offer on its surface.
ansky212 said:
That says more about your sources for news than the actual reporting. The News/Talk board discussed embeded reporters among the demonstrators who talked a lot about their goals. The cable TV news channels have all included interviews with demonstrators presenting their goals. In fact, one NPR free-lance host was fired when it was found out that she was acting as a spokesperson for the demonstrators, presenting their goals to the media. Certainly, there are some reporters who choose to cover a story by standing across the street from it, rather than going into the crowd and asking serious questions. And there's only so much that areporter can cram into a :20-:30 standup. But there has been no shortage of this reporting for the public.
There was a time when we would judge a radio news person by the size of his/her Rolodex collection of contacts and phone numbers. A rally great news person could sometimes sit at a telephone and by calling the right, trusted people put together a story that was valid because the sources were valid. And the News Person knew who was trustworthy, and who was a spin-master.
I recently sat through a documentary on the origins, the early days of the Tea Party movement. Among those journalists with a healthy Speed-Dial list of contacts, I think they knew from the beginning that when everything sorted itself out the Tea Party activities would be aligned with the structured Republican Party and these "in the know" journalists also knew that the alignment would always have some rocky moments.
Today some people are convinced that the OWS folks are just a bunch of dis-organized anarchists. Other people are convinced that the OWS folks are puppets on a string being manipulated by the Democratic Party trying to replicate the Tea Party script from the opposite political spectrum.
Do you guys in the NYC market get the idea that any of your journalists see what is really going on? We can talk about what we would LIKE to see happen. We can talk about what we THINK should happen. I'm looking for the journalist who convinces you that they have a pipeline into the movement that can be trusted. And the winner is.......?
I recently sat through a documentary on the origins, the early days of the Tea Party movement. Among those journalists with a healthy Speed-Dial list of contacts, I think they knew from the beginning that when everything sorted itself out the Tea Party activities would be aligned with the structured Republican Party and these "in the know" journalists also knew that the alignment would always have some rocky moments.
Today some people are convinced that the OWS folks are just a bunch of dis-organized anarchists. Other people are convinced that the OWS folks are puppets on a string being manipulated by the Democratic Party trying to replicate the Tea Party script from the opposite political spectrum.
Do you guys in the NYC market get the idea that any of your journalists see what is really going on? We can talk about what we would LIKE to see happen. We can talk about what we THINK should happen. I'm looking for the journalist who convinces you that they have a pipeline into the movement that can be trusted. And the winner is.......?
The goals of OWS are actually pretty clear. According to Bloomberg Businessweek (ironically enough), protesters want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics.
The conservative media is doing a good job of diluting the message through a variety of tactics - focusing on negative minutia, going off on tangents, trivializing the goals, distorting the messages, ridiculing the participants, etc. That's not meant as a criticism but an observation - that's what political opponents do and it's to be expected. I'm sure if you looked back on the civil rights protests in the '60s, the Vietnam protests of the '70s or any other comparable protest movement you would find similar tactics being employed in the media by the opponents of the day.
The challenge for mainstream "straight news" outlets is to avoid getting dragged down by all the distractions and continue presenting an accurate picture of what is going on and why. That's not easy in a ratings-driven system where listeners don't want to hear the same thing every day. Protest movements take a long time to accomplish their goals and therefore don't fit very conveniently into the news cycle, so we end up with a lot of sideshows as the media tries to keep the story "new" and interesting.
The conservative media is doing a good job of diluting the message through a variety of tactics - focusing on negative minutia, going off on tangents, trivializing the goals, distorting the messages, ridiculing the participants, etc. That's not meant as a criticism but an observation - that's what political opponents do and it's to be expected. I'm sure if you looked back on the civil rights protests in the '60s, the Vietnam protests of the '70s or any other comparable protest movement you would find similar tactics being employed in the media by the opponents of the day.
The challenge for mainstream "straight news" outlets is to avoid getting dragged down by all the distractions and continue presenting an accurate picture of what is going on and why. That's not easy in a ratings-driven system where listeners don't want to hear the same thing every day. Protest movements take a long time to accomplish their goals and therefore don't fit very conveniently into the news cycle, so we end up with a lot of sideshows as the media tries to keep the story "new" and interesting.
Theater of My Mind said:
I don't have to LOOK BACK on those events... I just THINK BACK. I lived through both of those eras. I keep telling myself that in some ways we handled those two struggles a little bit more innocently than what we are doing today, but I am quick to recognize that can be argued either way. We didn't handle them all that well. There seemed to be a bit more innocence and a whole lot less arrogance within media. But you make a good point. We've been losing some really great journalists recently who were front-and-center during those two eras and in their books and their long-form interviews on C-SPAN and other venues have told us of their experiences, their emotions, and how their careers were shaped.
I hope that 30 years from now my children will experience similar books and interviews from people currently on the front lines of gathering and reporting the news in this ear of "gaudy politics". And in the tradition of the ages, some of them will have their views shaped by their experiences working in NYC.
musichead1029 said:
Then you missed it. I can tell you that these protesters aren't quiet. They are very vocal, they carry signs that state goals and demands, and they have been interviewed by print, internet, radio, and TV reporters.
musichead1029 said:
The person who was fired was not a reporter, nor was she posing as a reporter. She hosted an opera show. She was also a spokesperson for the group, who was being interviewed by a number of reporters at a press conference. One of numerous interviews that you obviously missed.
musichead1029 said:
In other words, put their conservative spin on a POV they disagree with?
They carry signs, but when asked about those signs they do not have an answer. Again, we need the kind of coverage that a C-Span camera can provide, in that they set up those cameras and leave. Whatever it is, it is.
On a different news matter, I do not agree that C-Span should be allowed into the Supreme Court, because it would be turned into a circus, and I think we know by whom.
On a different news matter, I do not agree that C-Span should be allowed into the Supreme Court, because it would be turned into a circus, and I think we know by whom.
B
board_manager
Guest
Some posts have been relocated to the Off the Air board
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=201542.msg1794726#msg1794726
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=201542.msg1794726#msg1794726
Unfortunately, old line media reporting is being left in the dust by what is happening on the internet today. I've been watching both the U-Stream and Live Stream coverage of the events today and while we're told by main stream news organizations that a few hundred demonstrators were participating today, by looking at the size of the crowds it was obvious that thousands participated. Lying to people to diminish a cause as some have done doesn't help give your audience faith in what you're reporting.
R.F. Burns said:
Exactly, that's the main takeaway from this media coverage of this movement, and the gap between online coverage and so-called mainstream media coverage is just remarkable. The city's exclusion of media from Zuccotti Park at the height of the conflict could account for this to a very limited extent, but it doesn't really get at the fact that there are people on the internet who are committed to telling the story of the movement while the media tend to follow their typical modes of coverage. The priority there being more, I think, about getting people to remain tuned in to their channel or station rather than telling the story in all its detail.
- Status