The Necessary Evolution of Occupy Wall Street

'Sleeping Dragon at Stirling Bridge' by pettifoggist

As Occupy encampments have been dismantled in a number of cities recently, an interesting discussion has ensued concerning how the Occupy Movement might morph into new forms in order to survive.

Not surprisingly, that Old Gray Lady, The New York Times, spent a column wringing her hands and wondering whether Occupy Wall Street could "make news" without a public encampment for the NYT to photograph and publicize.

Funny that as the NYT struggles to adapt their antiquated news model to the new world of online communication, they still cannot manage to see past their own nose for news.  NYT is, of course, covering Occupy because it IS news;  Occupy is not waiting to be blessed and publicized.

I've noticed many parallel stories lately in national politics.  Take, for instance, the traditional reporters scratching their heads over the rise of Newt Gingrich and the popularity struggles of Mitt Romney - the candidate who is performing perfectly according to the standards of traditional political media.  Gingrich was given up for dead by the mainstream press months ago when he fired his entire campaign staff.  Since then, his popularity has grown and his campaign re-emerged on his own terms as he ignored conventional wisdom and made his own news.

How could this happen?  In Gingrich's own words: "We were surrounded by a bunch of guys who had learned politics 25 years ago and they had no idea how the world had changed."

Occupy is no longer an encampment and traditional protest.  It is a movement that makes news by exposing news that traditional media is too compromised to recognize.  Those who are part of the 1% may not be willing to admit who they are, and the NYT is likely blind to their compromised position as a guardian of that 1%.

Perhaps its time to dramatically expand the concept of the flash mob.  After all, pitching a tent on the public square is not nearly as newsworthy as shutting down the Port of Oakland in order to make a statement to the world.

I'm reminded of the success that Michael Moore had with his one-person flash mob in documentaries like Roger and Me and TV Nation.  Back in 1989, Moore didn't have Twitter or YouTube.  It didn't matter.  He turned on his cameras, walked into the offices of the 1%, recorded the news, and made some news of his own.  The most entrepreneurial Occupy protestors are beginning to do the same.  The advantages the movement has are obvious - today we all own the means of spreading our news like wildfire.  

The NYT can go on thinking that Occupy isn't news unless its covered by NYT.  They can try to ignore the news that Occupy is making.  But these mainstream media types trying to get a grasp on how to report about Occupy may be missing an important part of the story: what qualifies as 'news' is not their call to make any longer; they are holding a dragon by the tail.
.