Neil Macdonald, a CBC correspondent located in the United States, has written a comprehensive analysis, which points out how the Occupy Wall Street Movement threw it all away. Even though Neil, in my opinion, is a left of center writer and reporter, and probably saw and still sees “Occupy Wall Street” as a worthwhile cause, the first part of his analysis probably reflects the feelings of many of us. The movement’s problem from the outset was the lack of direction and leadership. Of course, appointing or electing a leader is not in the vocabulary of anarchists.
In my blog “Questions for the Occupy Wall Street Movement” these questions are asked of the movement. The process of cleaning up and taking back cities will probably not kill the movement altogether, but without leadership and a clear goal it will not survive. Politicians that were eager to get on the movement’s bandwagon have toned down their classwarfare rhetoric. The writing is on the wall, now that most Americans are growing impatient with the occupations.
Only a first-year journalism student or my most thick-headed colleagues would deny that we reporters are a largely bourgeois bunch who have trouble dealing with the unconventional.
Collectively, we appreciate the order of things, which after all has been pretty good to us. We respect institutions and we like a nice, simple narrative, a natural beginning and a natural end to the stories we cover.
This attitude probably explains the subtext of relief in the coverage of those municipalities across America that are sending in their police to eject the anarchistic, smelly, sometimes weird Occupy Wall Street encampments that took over public spaces here this autumn.
For much of the media, the OWS movement was becoming a repetitive bore, a story that just went on and on and on without ever seeming to get to the point.