Forum Post: Another poll shows support declining for the Occupy movement
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 24, 2011, 10:06 p.m. EST by TechJunkie
(3029)
from Miami Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
TREND: Is your opinion of the Occupy Wall Street Movement favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about it?
Nov 23 Nov 03
2011 2011
Favorable 29 30
Unfavorable 44 39
Hvn't hrd enough 25 30
REFUSED 2 1
We are still beating congress which comes in at a whopping 9% approval.
When I tell people in Australia about that "approval" rating, they can't believe it is true.
Focus on the 91% DIS-approval rating. That sounds much better, doesn't it?
This is a republican paid polls paid and funded by GOP Always they like to backup there B`S with polls funded by them
THat is a very solid point, an 'ah-ha' moment. I commented earlier on how the gov uses double speak to manipulate; they say 'health care reform' but enact 'health insurance reform'. This is a similar issue. Most of us have been subtly manipulated by mass media to look at it from the 'approval' perspective when the people that do approve are not the real story.....the massive number of people in flat disagreement is the REAL story.
True. This so called healthcare reform is like a fraud which in fact, not helping people much at all, is helping the insurance companies. Did anyone see healthcare premium going down. Nope! Healthcare insurance companies are SOOOOO happy about this reform. What is that telling us?
That it is just one more incident where the gov. Has worked for the one percent instead of the 99%. It is telling us it is time we bind together and break the vicious cycle that keeps the status quo in place.
A while ago, I was told that if you subtract the relatives and support staff of congress, the approval rating is actually 3 % of Americans, or less.
Woeful, to say the least. For every elected member, there are five lobbyists buying their way into positions of power.
There is absolutely nothing democratic about the process at all.
The premise of the foundational documents is democratic. All we have to do is take our power back. The 99% has the strength of being the majority. We just need to find an effective way of reminding the rest of the 99% that they are a part of the 99% and have power to change the status puo if we band together.
You actually believe that relatives and support staff for 535 people make up six percent of the American population? Really?
Think of all those in the lobby industry, and their supporters, staff, relatives, and we're getting closer all the time.
I'd still be calling it a complete farce at 90 % disapproval, regardless of your assumptions.
Congress is clearly not there for the people.
Narcissism is their motivation.
Yeah, and a kick in the ass is better than a stick UP THE ASS
It seems like that we are always dealing in issues of degree.
If you're looking for a comparison then here is one:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1677
It looks like TP took a hit this week too. I only worry that the drops are due to a small number of really noisy ones not really speaking on behalf of the 99%, but instead for their own ideologies. I wonder if we could put a moratoriam on topics beyond the goals of removing corruption from the government and making it so that the common man's vote has as much weight as that of a millionaire.
The inability of this movement to focus on specific goals probably has a lot to do with the sliding support from the general public. It's the most common criticism that I hear about Occupy. If the kind of discipline that you're suggesting were possible then it would have already happened.
I think we are beginning to see it happen....with things like the 99% Declaration. But I also think that those of us eloquent enough to express these things should be getting support from the movement, force our way in front of the cameras. I just haven't figured out how to make my voice loud enough to be really heard, nor how to ascertain or grow a support base. I signed up as a potential delagate to the 99% Declaration, but I could use some help in figuring out how to grow a support base from just a handful of people into something that is more representative of what we need..
The 99% Declaration group was basically banished fom the Occupy movement, from what I understand?
If we would do that, OWS would be unstoppable. Not many people are in favor of government corruption.
In fact, even Jack Abramoff - the devil of corruption himself - has now been released from jail and speaking out against the criminal system that he milked for so long.
And now the American Enterprise Institute - of all places - is sponsoring a book on insider trading by Congress.
A trip to the streets outside of Nancy Pelosi's field office is in order - as is a permanent encampment at K street.
If WE are the 99%, and we can get the rest of the 99% to have the chance to really hear us, I believe it is completely possible. So many people who are not near the big city groups want to help but in a way they don't lose the means to feed their families. We can make this happen....it is a matter of logistics and cooperative planning on getting it done. Even if the Declaration is not the way we choose to do it, even if we simply decide to do a massive grass roots write in to get people from the 99% into office we need to devise strategies to focus our energies and use the talent and intelligence and other tools that the 99% has to offer.
The tea party does not have to be your enemy. Quit letting them divide and conquer us. We have common ground.
I never said "enemy". The word that I used was "comparison".
I'm sorry, didn't mean to imply that.
My son, who is 25 and just graduated from college, only became aware of OWS today. I relayed to him my feelings of support for the movement and hopefully got him up to date on the happenings. It is growing in support with each passing day.
I thought it was great the OWS did something positive today in handing out meals to shelters.
Happy Thanksgiving and Thanks for Giving!
From the same page as the "opinion" poll above;
"University National Poll Finds; 50 Percent Say Bomb Iran If Sanctions Don't Work"
A knee-jerk reactionary bunch, willing to kick-start WW3.
And they are the people to ask about #ows?
Clearly victims of MSMedia fraud.
Next...........
You claim to speak for the 99%, but you also think that their opinions are stupid, and not worth worrying about?
I don't claim to speak for anybody. I'm from Australia.
You, on the other hand, claimed that this bunch of warmongers is able to comment on #ows in an unbiased fashion.
Clearly, if the same people are split 50/50 on starting WW3, what the f#@k would they know about #ows, or anything that the movement is for or against?
Puppets for the MSM. Let them sleep.
Don't wake them with too much information too soon.
This kind of elitism will definitely not win more public support.
Yes, so why are you supporting it?
I'm the one who pointed to the trend in the poll, you're the one who said that the people polled are too stupid to care about. I don't support your elitist attitude that you know what's best and the 99% are idiots.
You found a poll from a completely and obviously biased site, and I pointed out the flaw in your own bias when you failed to research your own material.
Ding............Next.
Quinnipiac does solid polling. That 29% is very similar to numbers seen in other polls.
I agree that Quinnipiac does pretty solid polling I also think that a 29% support rating is pretty astonishing given the radical implications of OWS. Its like when 40% of the voters in Ohio voted in favor of gay marriage. Some people took that as a loss and technically it was, but really that is a rather astonishing change given the number of people who would have supported gay marriage only a few years before.
Yes that was astonishing for a place like Ohio. What OWS should be most concerned with, in my opinion, is not so much the actual number but the trends. You aren't going to gain or loose a ton of people overnight, but you want to make sure you are gaining and not loosing.
Yes I agree about the trends being what matters, and that why I posted these poll results, which note a downward trend in public support. IMHO the polls show that the current strategy (of having no strategy) is not working.
When you put it that way, I guess it is a win.
Thanks. ;-)
You're referring to Quinnipiac University as "completely and obviously biased"?!? You think they're biased because their poll results weren't what you wanted to see?
That was funny! Another guy on this page blamed the media, not the movement, for the movement's failure to win public support. You instead blame the pollsters. Hilarious. This movement always seems to be looking for ways to blame somebody else.
If the same group of people polled fifty percent in favour of starting WW3, then clearly their grasp on reality is slipping.
Here's a little something to chew on for a while, people.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/pZxa0-IXl_U
Might be interesting to see what the outcome of that will be.
Any invasion/bombing of Iran will be just as illegal as the last two invasions.
There's a change in the air. Can you feel it?
[Removed]
Ding... neeeeeeeeeeeext.
No kdding, I remember, approx 56% of American people bought into Bush's lies about Hussein linked to 9/11 and WMD found in Iraq, etc, etc ... (lies, lies and more lies!) Not sure if they did nod their stupid airheads to okay Iraq war with Bush but that was bad enough. Talking about trust American people's intelligence in terms of believing whatever their government tell them, no offense, I am not so confident. However I believe through Bush black era, people might have learned to a certain level.
According to one (1) poll from one (1) source at one (1) Connecticut university.
Doesn't mean it's accurate, impartial, honest, unbiased, conclusive or worth mentioning.
I give NO credence at all to polls. They are just as influenced and corrupt as our government. They are not there to reveal public opinion; polls are there to FORM public opinion. Time to unplug !
That was a brilliant rationalization for ignoring that poll, but will ignoring public opinion further the Occupy movement?
It's not this polls ..... it's all polls. Their ability to skew unverifiable results from a small cross section of the populace is great; so I take them with a grain of salt. I didn't even look at the numbers before making the above post. The OWS movement has only been around for a few months; but the momentum has been building for the last 50 yrs. If I had to guess; the numbers favoring OWS are grossly underrated,i.e., there is a lot more support for OWS than reflected in this poll. That's my take; but I'll be the first to admit - I've been wrong before. Cheers:)
Oh this just scares the shit out of me...I guess we should just all go home and buy something...
interesting .. compared to the Republican party trend at 31% favorable and the Democratic party at 35% favorable. This movement has favorable support almost as big as either party. But if you look at the unfavorable trend the occupy movement is actually lower at 44% compared to the Republican party at 54% and the Democratic party at 51%. It seems the OWS movement is actually on par with the tea party.
[Removed]
I could sense this. Obviously banks/Fox News were going to hit back and some point which is out of the movement's control. What is frustrating is the bad behavior by some in the movement which kills the image of OWS. When 30k+ show up on the Brooklyn Bridge for a peaceful protest and all that gets shown on the news is that there were hundreds of arrests earlier in the day the image of OWS is bound to drop. There has to be smarter protesting that has a purpose other than pissing people off. This movement needs a regrouping.
Most of those 30K were SEIU and other union members. OWS just tagged along. They arranged it, got the permits, bussed people in, etc.
They'll be doing the same again under the guise of "Occupy" on 12/5 - 12/9 in DC.
Interesting to track. Important to connect the movement on the street with the people on their couches -however it must be done. Without support from the rest of the 99, the street is .01% bitching about 1% and that won't go far. Happy thanksgiving all!
The number of people supporting OWS, while a minority, is a sub\stantial minority. Any Republican Presidential candidate would be very happy to have a 29% rating at this point. Beyond that, people are still joining OWS, setting up GAs and starting occupations every day though the rate of growth has undoubtedly slowed.
The downward trend is what I was specifically pointing out.
If support for OWS fell another 5% or so I'd say it would warrant looking towards a change of direction or a next step, but the other factor that needs attention is the actual number of OWS activists as opposed to passive supporters one finds in polls. Given the amorphous nature of OWS it is a lot harder to determine the actual number of activists as opposed to passive supporters, but according to anecdotal evidence the activist base appears to be still growing, albeit at a slower rate than previously.
Okay yes, I understand what you mean about the two different metrics. Total number of people involved is a much harder number to measure.
The last figure I saw for actual number of OWS activists that I would trust was about 200 K, but that was more than a month ago.
Notice the "Iran Sanctions Aren't Working" sentence.
Gives you a sense of who this poll-taker supports and stands for: Israel?
But Israel = Zionism = 99% - Remember Madoff, Sachs, Bank of America, and the others?
The sanctions don't work, therefore America's Army must do something to protect Israel. Yes, more American young men and women to die for the sake of protecting Israel. Tens of thousands who died or got terminally injured/handicapped in Iraq and Afganistan are not enough. Bomb Iran, America!
99%ers want your money, your life, and all your resources America!
At this point, in my opinion, I think the most important topic on which the OWS movement should concentrate is to reject austerity and point out that the liquidationists have been dead wrong about their fantasy of expansionary austerity.
They’ve been wrong about high inflation; They’ve been wrong about high interest rates; They’ve been wrong about a robust “U-shaped” economic recovery; And they’ve been wrong about how austerity would engender “confidence” to spur growth.
Austerity has always failed and it’s failing in the US and Europe as we speak. And, I should add, that most of the austerity is a burden on the poor, unemployed and those in ill health—not on the rich who can weather the violent economic storm that many of them engineered.
We’re entering an even more dangerous economic environment in which the breakup of the Euro and European austerity could negatively spill over to a very weak US economy. An OWS strategy of visibly rejecting austerity in the face of mass unemployment and pointing out their epic wrongness could put the ball in the court of the liquidationists whose macroeconomic forecasts and devastating policy prescriptions have created this mess as we hopelessly drift toward a lost decade or more.
They need to be on the defensive as to why they are consistently and disastrously wrong. They should be called out for inventing absurd theories on the fly and twisting and lying with data to justify an intellectually bankrupt ideology.
Right now it seems like we're very much on the defensive. Below is a very salient point made by Paul Krugman about how our enemies are trying to use "affinity fraud" as a way to paint the movement as a bunch of fringe characters:
"Right now, the campaign against OWS basically tries to get working Americans to turn on the movement, even though most people support the movement’s goals, by trying to make it seem as if the protestors are people not like you — whereas the plutocrats are. Hey, this has worked many times in the past; that’s the whole point of “What’s the matter with Kansas.” And it can operate in many directions: OWS should be shunned because they’re dirty hippies, Elizabeth Warren is not-like-you because, horrors, she’s a Harvard professor."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/madoff-explains-everything/
I thought it had 99% support?
A lot of people let "we are the 99%" go to their heads. Polls paint a different picture.
This complement to TechJunk REPUPLICAN Republican allways want to support there B`S with polls paid by them and funded by them............. from university to media
Maybe this movement is so popular because its members are so articulate and well-spoken?
You have so much hate., u old repuplican fart now you changeing gears for the sake of your platform?
I never heard of Q/U have you?
Yes, they're quite well known for their polls. But if you would like to join the ranks of the people accusing them of taking money from the Republican party to discredit the Occupy movement then you'll have a lot of friends on this site. Sadly misguided friends, but you won't be alone at least.
This is a pool from wall street. Thus, false and misleading data
I understand your knee-jerk reflex to attempt to discredit a poll that shows inconvenient results. But the poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University.
Which is funded by wall street corporations. It's the same
It's a university! Are universities the enemy now? Anybody who doesn't toe the party line gets tarred and feathered and branded a 1%er? Even a university?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinnipiac_University
There are no innocent players in this world. The fact the pool came from a university makes no difference because this is not a real university but one more of those pawns under wall steet control.
Before talking about impartial statistics, make sure to mention where the institution's funding comes from. LSE received milllions of Gadaffi and didn't say no, so why things would be different in elite schools on America... A business school who receives tuition and scholarships for wall mart etc. etc. We're talking about cash-money and not institutions of ideals.
Wall Street lobbyists are now waging a campaign to discredit OWS, they pay tv stations, newspapers, statistic agencies to mislead reality.
I assure you: no one from the 99% believes such sources. It's just a piece of paper with a nice stamp over it saying "university" but could be easily replaced by "one more of wall street's paws"
Apparently about 44% of the 99% do believe such sources.
The responses to this poll in this thread have been pretty amazing, and yours is one of the most notable. People have attacked the pollsters, the media, and the messenger. The one thng that almost everybody in this thread rejects is the idea that these poll results might actually be true. But instead of focusing on ways to improve public support for Occupy, almost everybody in this thread is looking for a scapegoat to blame.
This is a republican paid polls paid and funded by GOP
I understand your knee-jerk reflex to attempt to discredit a poll that shows inconvenient results. But the poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University.
how much they paid $$$$$$$to the university poll., you republican idiot
Let me get this straight... You're alleging that the Republican party paid Quinnipiac University to misrepresent public support for Occupy Wall Street?
Like you d`not no
I just wanted to clarify that you were actually making a stretch to come up with an accusation like that, instead of responding by thinking about ways that the Occupy movement could win more public support. Isn't the whole point of a protest movement to raise awareness and sway opinions and gain public support for your ideas? Or is the goal of this movement simply to protest for the sake of protesting, and then to look for scapegoats to blame when public opinion doesn't change as hoped?
suddleny u becoming polite.,u idiot we know the tectic repuplican use YOU REPUPLICAN understand., the jenny is out of BOX
I couldn't even read that jumble of typos and insults, so IMHO it's funny that you're calling me an idiot.
This complement to TechJunk REPUPLICAN Republican allways want to support there B`S with polls paid by them and funded by them............. from university to media
The reason is NOBODY KNOWS why they are protesting nobody knows WHY this movement was even started,do you? I will let you in on a secret it is ALL ABOUT egtrra/jgtrra, do you even know what that means? Well almost all of the "voicers' ,"movers" the people on the street the ones "speaking" for the OWS movement and the "99%" does not know thats why approval ratings are down ,now its a bunch of who knows what...BEATING congress come on now its not about beating it its ABOUT CHANGING IT. ONLY a 9% approval rating lets see IF that 91% actually VOTE those out they are disapproving THAT IS REALLY VOICING YOUR OPINION
The people speaking for the movement are the people shutting down ports and bridges, vandalizing store fronts, and clashing with cops. When you're talking about public support, it doesn't matter what people within the movement think that the movement is about. What matters is what things the public learns to associate with the movement.
Right they are things they are learning is they are animals out there...freedom of speech is not violent unlawful ACTIONS.. And guess what if people knew what they are standing for and stuck to that point and EXPRESSED it thru voice,pen,votes than people might just get behind them....See a child who does not get his/her way throws tantrums and than they are just ranting about things that were not even thier issue ( like the protesters) terrorism s about people (right or wrong) who do not get thier way disrupt, unlawfully the ways of those want to get their point across to(hmmm again like the protesters) freedom of speech,voicing your opinion on an ISSUE is a far cry from unlawfull terrorism
I completely agree. Protesting about some specific issue is understandable, but protesting for the sake of protesting seems more like a child's tantrum. Many people are starting to say that Occupy Wall Street is more about the "occupy" than about the "Wall Street" for that reason.
see IF any of these so called involved,voicers want to voice for the "99%" they should know what the whole thing is about... Ill say it a thousand times,change is good,debate is good,know what you are talking about first wether you are for or against something.See I live in Brooklyn and I went down to this protest(more like a homeless camp) And I did my own "questioning"...A group of People about 5 or 6 when asked what 99% stand for their words were (ready for this one) thats because the federal government ONLY gave a 99 week extension on unemployment and should have given more(do I hear I want free money,GREED,LAZINESS?) A few people stated to me its becaue there are no jobs(well I got news for them I KNOW a few that are posted (whether they think its not good enough for them or they deserve better thats a different story,PRIDE,GREED,EGO,ENTITLEMENT),Students that think they should not have to pay their student loans(hey I do not want to pay my credit card bills maybe I should protest that I DID IT I BUILT IT UP I SHOULD PAY IT take responsibility for your actions)there are homless people there for the free food and free cigarettes,they feel like they fit in and nobody will judge the way they look,furthermore they have someone to talk to(yes sad but true) Now back to the ROOT CAUSE that is the main reason that is : egtrra/jgtrra(the known abbreviations). Yes it does address most almost all"underlying causes" that are popping up that I will say are from this one issue. We ,they,whoever should stick to the issues or atleast know what the issues are. But for them to go out disrupt the lives of hard working people,harras them,threaten them stop normal production in our country is down right illegal,unlawful and immoral.The first ammendment gave us a right to free SPEECH nothing else. And know what you are speaking of first before you/THEY decide to speak. Especially when it concerns us all,the 100%
The link nothink to do with poll are you ISRELI?
The link is to the poll results that I cited.
I'm dumbfounded by the number of people here who couldn't keep up with the conversation because the didn't immediately see the word "Occupy" after clicking he link to the poll results. Scroll down, buddy, and READ.
you should put scroll down next to link lol.,
I refuse to stoop that low, sorry. If somebody is confused because they can't figure that out without guidance then there is little hope for them anyway.
Have you heard first impression?people tired of seeing the word israel or iran
How is that relevant in any way? I linked to the poll results that I cited. If you have such a short attention span that you were confused when you saw the word "Iran" instead of the word "Occupy" when you followed the link then there seriously is nothing that I can do to help you.
Also you realy trust poll in America? it`s a jok Humm who paid the university to make the poll????
Men take it easy I founded long time ago
If you find a poll that show an increase in support for the OWS movement, will you post that as well TechJunkie?
Go ahead and shoot the messenger and pretend like that changes something. Yes, I'm watching the polls and I'll update this when Quinnipiac releases the next poll, regardless of the results.
The link is not about OWS.
The link is to poll results that discuss OWS, among other issues.
The poll numbers reflect the public's perception - stirred by the mainstream media - that Occupy does not hesitate to inconvenience while refusing to articulate. So what is the point? they are "thinking". If we don't think we have to speak to the other 71% of the 99%, we will not succeed.
How about designating people like Micah White to start speaking up for us in the media, since we seem unwilling - as gAs across America - to directly answer any questions or press our agenda.
What agenda? IMHO, one of the biggest reasons why people have been moving from the "haven't heard enough" to the "unfavorable" category is that when people who haven't heard enough come here to find out more -- they discover that there is nothing there. No consensus on what are the issues of the Occupy movement, no consensus on positions on those issues, no leadership, no goals, no agenda, nothing but causing disruptions for people with jobs and for cops.
This isn't the first time people have used two polls from two different dates on this site to create the impression of declining public support. The constant assertion that we would be "gone and forgotten in a week" because we have "no leaders or clear message" failed to stick (we have grow into a global mass movement, and the great majority of people understand our message despite the corporate media consistently pretending there is something unclear about it)
Now that they are forced to admit the OWS is a serious mass movement, the new line being parroted by the corporate media is: Occupy Wall Street is losing its popular support (support they claimed we could never gain to begin with.)
They first started this line shortly after the gigantic global occupy protest in Oct 15.
Now, after the massive national protest on Nov 17 (which wasn't supposed to happen considering we were "on the verge of collapse" and "99% dead") where tens of thousands of people took to the street in NYC alone--- they are rolling it out again.
This isn't actually a prediction or observation---it's more of a wish. They are hoping that by constantly repeating the same propaganda over and over it will become reality. The idea is to make people jaded against participation in the movement, and to hurt the morale and resolve of those who already are.
Fortunately, the internet and social media are pwning these corporate media noobs, just like it did in Egypt and Tunisia. The oligarchy can no longer control the social dialogue. We run this shit.
Let's consider this most recent piece of drivel,
If you look at the different polling data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Public_opinion
You will find that polls conducted even at approximately the same time differ widely in their results. The only thing this demonstrates is that different polling agencies, using different sample populations, asking differently phrased questions, employing different methodologies---have different results. Nothing profound about that at all.
I can, for instance, selectively cite one poll from November 3 showing 30% support among likely voters and juxtapose that against another poll from Oct 18 showing 22% support. This creates the false impression of 8% growth in support. In reality it shows absolutely nothing.
Moreover, many political polls are fundamentally flawed in that they traditionally target "likely voters".
This completely misses the point.
Most eligible voters don't vote, and eligible voters themselves are only a part of the 99%. You can count me among the majority who think (correctly) that voting is a waste of time and can't be bothered.
OWS is not a political party, does not support a political party, and is not encouraging anyone to vote for anyone. Many people at OWS are actually
againstvoting. One of the central goals of OWS is democracy, because the reality is corporations control the whole government and your vote really doesn't count.FYI: Using (consistent) polls from two different dates is how you do trend analysis.
Why do you think that the pollsters should be focused on "likely voters", when elections are not the goal of the movement?
<<<FYI: Using (consistent) polls from two different dates is how you do trend analysis.>>>
Attempting to generalize the perception of one miniscule sample group onto another and then pretending that these conclusions definitively demonstrate a "trend" is how you do pseudo-science.
Which is why opinion polls are notorious for being bullshit, along with the far reaching conclusions and layers of assumption and abstraction piled on top of them by commentators.
<<<Why do you think that the pollsters should be focused on "likely voters", when elections are not the goal of the movement?>>>
My statement was:
"many political polls are fundamentally flawed in that they traditionally target "likely voters"
Hope that clears up your confusion.
I misunderstood your second point. Late at night last night, sorry...
I understand that you would like to dismiss these poll results since they don't show the results that you were hoping. If the same poll showed a trend of increasing support then I know that you wouldn't be searching for ways to discredit the pollsters. People in this thread have blamed the media for the movement's failure to win support (instead of blaming the movement) and they have tried to blame the pollsters (instead of Occupy) and some have even tried to impeach the messenger. But if the movement were succeeding in winning support then nobody would have to struggle to rationalize a way to blame somebody else, or to discredit polls.
I have not cited opinion polls, positively or negatively, as evidence of anything, ever (other than perhaps the fact that such polls have horrendous sampling error among other issues). Your conjecture that I have or would is itself (ironically) an attempt to attack the arguer and not the argument. I am not responsible for giving opinion polls their negative reputation, they earned that on their own. The fact that other polls than the one you've cited have shown significantly lower or higher levels of support should be the first clue to their unreliability.
Call me crazy but I tend to gauge our support by the growing number of people joining our GAs and protests in cities all across the world.
You also still haven't addressed the second point.
<<<People in this thread have blamed the media for the movement's failure to win support (instead of blaming the movement)>>>
You aren't even making good faith arguments now. Let's suppose we have proven that public opinion of OWS is dropping, just for the sake of argument.
As you have noted, some people offered the following hypothesis to account for this (supposed) change:
There is a concerted propaganda campaign in the corporate media to attack and discredit OWS.
Do you:
1) Doubt that this is true?
or
2) Doubt that such a campaign would result in a drop in public opinion?
Number 1 is pretty solidly documented. Using only a few examples from Fox News (not even going into the smears in various radio, print media, CNN or other corporate channels): http://mediamatters.org/research/201111160003
Number 2 Is simply unreasonable, for self-evident reasons.
No, no. You're doing nothing but parroting the same lines we have been hearing from the media echo chamber. There is no substance to your propaganda--- and it isn't going to scare anyone off.
What is the movement doing to improve its media image, other than babbling about conspiracy theories? The media is treating the Occupy movement just like they treat every other news item. But you want to talk about an "attack" from a "media echo chamber" to "discredit OWS"? Should the movement possibly think about what it could do to improve its image and win more support, instead of looking for scapegoats?
I'm starting to realize that the tendency of Occupy protesters to blame other people for everything is directly related to the movement's inability to focus on goals. Actually improving Occupy's image would require all kinds of things that are not realistic, like leadership, discipline, and a clear agenda. Without those things, OWS can't effectively accomplish anything, and so that leaves OWS supporters with only one option: blame-shifting. Instead of talking about ways to win popular support, you're forced to blame the media, or blame to pollsters, or blame me, the messenger. Anything other than taking concrete steps to improve public opinion, since that's not something that the movement is capable of doing. I'm starting to realize that this is a common thread that explains a lot of Occupy phenomena.
You haven't addressed any of the points raised in the previous post. You can't support your position.
Now you have taken to repeating the meme that there is something "unclear" about our agenda.
You have nothing to say. You lose. Good day Sir!
I responded to your attempt to change the subject from support for OWS to a conspiracy theory about media bias. And then I added commentary about what I think attempts like yours mean, and where they come from in a broader sense. If you read that and you see "nothing", then maybe that's because of bias of your own?
That's right. You have:
1) Ignored the first half of my post entirely
2) Changed the subject (as you have no rebuttal)
3) Created a straw-man and dismissed it
4) Spouted worn-out empty rhetoric
The trouble isn't with my perception---it's just that their is nothing of any substantive content to see.
Try harder.
It's kind of difficult for me to have a serious conversation with somebody who responds to these poll results by accusing the media of a conspiracy to discredit OWS. If you're going to refuse to discuss anything else then that says a lot about you. If your premise were correct, then wouldn't that mean that OWS has simply lost the battle against the media conspiracy? If corporations are successfully discrediting the movement and lowering public support for the movement, and the movement is powerless to oppose that?
<<<It's kind of difficult for me to have a serious conversation with somebody who responds to these poll results by accusing the media of a conspiracy to discredit OWS.>>>
That wasn't my response to the polls results. Once again, you are ignoring the entire first half of the above post.
Even entertaining the idea that this poll is something that should concern us (this was never my position) you simply cannot address the other posters hypothesis, so you choose to ignore it.
Please at least answer the questions above, or I have no reason to continue responding to your empty baiting.
What hypothesis from what other poster are you talking about? You're pretending that it's really meaningful that I'm not responding to something but I don't even know what you're talking about.
http://ethemes.missouri.edu/themes/1777
Thanks... but No thanks FAUX NEWS!
Did you just dismiss my post and the poll that I cited by trying to associate it with Fox News?
That's cool. We have 1/4+ "have not heard enough" to educate the issues. Well, only 2 months old OWS can get the current number favorable, hey this is much higer than approval rate for Congress right? :-))
Over the last 20 days, about 17% of the "haven't heard enough" people became "unfavorable". Not a good trend. That seems to indicate that the more that the Occupy movement continues to do what it has been doing, the more the movement will lose support from potential supporters who haven't made up their minds yet.
Also, the Tea Party numbers indicate that the "haven't heard enough" numbers are already about as low as they can be expected to go. A certain percentage will just never care one way or another.
Well, dealing with the misinformed or the ignorant or can care less mindset is always challenging. We understand and we will make effort. The good faith is important.
The ignorant are your target market. About 17% of people who were ignorant 20 days ago have shifted into the "unfavorable" category.
Seeing protesters walking around aimlessly with signs can lead to a hohum reaction.
Stir things up and get people involved. Here is something which has real objectivity and substance. The 99% Declaration https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Actually, more people supported Occupy when it was mostly ho-hum people carrying signs. Note the dates on the polls. The Oakland protest riot and port shutdown, with its news photography that included "STRIKEwrap ray-painted on the side of a Whole Foods, and you'd people smashing store windows, happened right after the first poll at the beginning of this month.
Tweeting may tend to change these numbers over time.
.
-- Direct Action - Proposal before the committee: A Demonstration of Tongues . . . . Nov. 13, 2011
http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/direct-action-proposal-before-the-committee-a-demo/
.
-- Trending on Twitter - Corporations Have No Tongues . . . . Nov. 13, 2011
http://occupywallst.org/forum/-_-trending-on-twitter-corporations-have-no-tongue/
.
z
The numbers will indeed continue to change over time. Many different polls indicate that the 99% doesn't like what it sees when it looks at the Occupy movement. Note how over the last 20 days, five percent of people polled shifted from the "haven't heard enough" category to the "unfavorable" category, while the "favorable" category remained about the same. In other words, those people HAVE heard enough, now.
When the 99% see Occupiers clashing with cops on the news, vandalizing businesses, shutting down ports, and wreaking mayhem for kicks, they are not inclined to support those things. Most people want stability. The more instability people associate with Occupy, the more support will continue to decline.
thats the media manipulating them. we have 2 reach out and show them what we're really about. the entire government is unstable. how can you expect people to support anything in such an unstable climate.
How can you expect continuing to do the same thing to have a different effect? The effect of doing what you've been doing has been sliding support from the 99%. Even if it's true that the media is putting a sensationalist spin on their reporting, the fact remains: the current course of action is causing support to go down, not up.
Yep, the more the MSM spins what is shown of OWS , the more the People think they're seeing the whole, broad picture, and the more support OWS loses.
I can point, factually, to news releases that were intentionally misleading, but were apparently accepted as 'fact,' by much of the public.
Someone is intent on shutting this thing down, even if they have to blame OWS for behaviors that are perpetrated by third parties.
If Occupy protests tend to be associated with acts of vandalism, then why would it matter whether the Occupy movement stands for those acts, or whether they are simply unable to prevent them from occurring at the fringes? In the mind of the 99%, what's the difference? If any ideology becomes associated with vandalism, instability, and violence, then they're going to lose public support, whether that ideology is terrorism or Marxism or whether it's whatever Occupy believes in. If the end result is instability, then people won't support it, because people don't want instability.
I would say that the 'trend' you're referring to represents a minority of outcomes in re. to the many actions of OWS and other Occupation sites to date.
The fact that the news Media fails to point this out in an objective manner is indicative of the bias as well.
Yes, it's hurtful to the movement as a whole.
Now, how to stop the tilted media's agenda, and force a more balanced perspective?
Why do you immediately blame the media? Maybe people are just making up their minds on their own? Not possible, you think? People are sheep?
Because I'm both aware of the quality of the portrayal the media has provided re. OWS lately, as well as the reality of the actions involving many of the US Occupation sites. The disparity is glaringly clear.
And yes, many persons accept the fluff they're handed on the televised news, rather than doing their own research.
So you think that absent media bias, there would not be a downward trend in support?
That's just a fascinating response, since this movement seems to always be focused on blaming somebody else.
I think that it's nearly impossible at this point to know what the trends would be; only that the downward trend -now- is definitely affected by what appears to be a concerted effort to spin the reality of this Movement.
I think that much of the public is aware of their 401ks, and other retirement and savings plans having taken a major 'hit' over the last several years.
I also think that way fewer persons are aware of the numerous factual reasons their retirements and savings declined in the ways that they did. Too few of them are aware that numerous major players in the banking and brokerage businesses have been busted committing what were technicallly criminal acts of fraud that literally stole billions/trillions of dollars from those very accounts.
I think that if the Public, on the whole, were more aware of that, and the SEC were to cease cutting huge favors for those same criminally oriented corporations, that Ma and Pa America would've been in the streets at Oakland, right alongside the Black Bloc Anarchists.
At this point, I'd add that your bias is fairly clear.
The public is aware of the destabilizing actions of the movement because that part isn't hard to understand. When you see news about protesters intentionally shutting down bridges and ports and threatening to disrupt the NYC subway system, that establishes an impression. You just typed a lot of stuff about issues. Issues are not what that poll was about. The poll was about what people think of the Occupy movement, not about what they think about your unique, individual version of what the issues are. People can see what the issues really are.
Nobody can figure out what Occupy stands for, exactly, and so people are concluding, naturally, that Occupy stands for the things that Occupy has been doing. They're paying attention to what Occupy is DOING, not what Occupy is SAYING. And what Occupy is DOING is destabilization. People are figuring that out. People are figuring out that the movement has no clear purpose or goals or leadership or discipline, but that people involved are going out and trying to destabilize, anyway.
A popular phrase that I hear a lot is that the Occupy Wall Street movement is a lot more about occupying and not about Wall Street. That statement says a lot about the movement of opinions from the "haven't heard enough" category to the "unfavorable" category.
And I'd repeat that if that's all that you or others are able to discern here, then it speaks volumes about your biases.
If the People were so aware of WHY their retirements and savings took a plunge (issues that have been largely and provably ignored in much of the mainstream media, btw), they would be more apt to react differently.
The MSM message has been, predominantly, that no criminal actions were committed by these brokerage and mortgage firms; a blatant untruth. Why?
Let alone the questions re. why so few of the criminal actions have resulted in prison sentences for the wrong-doers?
MSM repeating the mantra over and over that OWS stands for nothing other than destabilization is both a resuilt of the MSM issues, as well as the pre-existing biases, at the same time. Destabilization? Perhaps they're projecting.. The crimes of those referenced earlier in ths post have most certainly been far more destabilizing to this country (and world) than all of the port closures, subway fillings, and more.
Nearly EVERY social movement of any significance in the history of human kind has involved destabilization of one sort or another. Bringing attention to an issue is the FIRST step in any serious social movement; that's the phase this movement is in. 2 months is nothing in the life-line of any change efforts.. period.
For those whose comforts are so imporant to/for them that they are only mildly irritated by their continually being ruipped off, but significantly irritated by the minor inconveniences of over-fillled subways, crowded sidewalks, or a one-day delay to freight, or a day off fro work, that also speaks volumes.
It falls under into the same category as that of the slaves who, at the end of the abolition movement, chose to remain on the plantations. More comfortable with the major screwing they were receiving, than the lesser known screwing they MIGHT receive. Ah, human nature; a thing to behold, no?
Furthering that issue, your certainty that the people -are- aware of the core issues and specific related facts defies polls, the mainstream newscasts, and more; again, revealing some of your obvious bias.
We have to get the news out that instability is the investment made by the one percent. We must do that with message and protest discipline.
What I'm saying is you are correct, in the streets we need to present a polished face. If we articulate anger in the public square, it must be precisely articulated, and disciplined - AND it must quickly convey to the public a message that both gets their attention and that they will rise to.
No property damage.
No assaultive behavior.
If "discipline" is your strategy then all hope is definitely lost.
I hate to think that way. Ultimately what are the GAs for if not getting everyone on the same page?
The real trick is in getting everyone to put aside their ego.
Bingo
It was the GA in Oakland who decided to call a general strike and shut down the port. (Costing 11,000 workers to lose wages.). But it was individuals who vandalized a Whole Foods, and broke store windows. A vague, amorphous group with no leadership and an anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian message is inherently a haven for people who will use protests for cover to commit acts of vandalism.
While I support the statements that you are making, I would like to note that the lost wages are only a miniscule portion of what they lose on an anual basis, thanks to the way our economy and gov. are situated.
Many of the union workers in the Port of Oakland (ILU and AFL-CIO) were in agreement with the shutting down of the Port of Oakland; not just Occupy Oakland.
Even the Oakland P.D. acknowledged that much of the violence that occurred during that strike was committed by individuals other than those formally associated with Occupy Oakland; especially the Black Bloc Anarchists, and others.
Then there was the fellow reported to be 'taking a dump' while leaning on an NYPD patrol vehicle; the news stated he was 'defecating on the cruiser." No, he was leaning against it, there was no protest sign in his possession, and, that we know of, the photographer never replied to the inquiry as to how he was certain that the fellow was even affiliated with OWS.
I can't type fast enough to properly account for the number of false postings by various MSM sources, where they've played fast and loose with their spinning of facts.
Even the UC Davis 'news story,' typically relying on quotes given by the Chancellor and the UC Davis PD, was outrageously untruthful. The stories typically claimed that their police officers were cut off from each other, which was a blatant lie. There were cameras rolling all aroud there, recording exactly what happened.
If the mainstream populace is so kow-towed and programmed by the (illogical) message requiring submissiveness toward out-of-control LEOs as to blame protesters for the abuses perpetrated by criminally-minded cops, then that's a whole 'nother issue than mere media presence or content.
If you for this trend to reverse, then you must become branded with a single issue:
Get Big Money and Concentrated Out of Our Political Process. Here's how:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-only-issue-the-only-issue-get-money-out-of-pol/
And in other news, Bieber and Gaga are still kicking OWS butt:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Occupy+Wall+Street%2C+Bieber%2C+Gaga&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2011-11&sort=0
I would connect the Google Trends date with these poll results by pointing out that the increased attention in mid-December was apparently harmful, not helpful. Simply drawing attention to yourself doesn't necessarily have a positive benefit. There IS such a thing as bad publicity.
Unfortunately, Google Trends doesn't give an option for 60 and 90 days; otherwise, you could see better that the "bump" on the 15th - 17th when the eviction happened is quite a bit below the peak back on 10/15. Other than that it's been a long slow slide which applies to news interest as well. Once it updates in another day or so you'll see it right back down again.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=occupy+wall+street&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2011&sort=0
Alexa for this site shows the same basic trend:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/occupywallst.org#