Al Guardian of Palestine and Wall Street

[Dreadnaught]

Is there any reason that Al Guardian of Palestine has a corner of the front-page of its Website designated to the nonsensical and quite small anti-capitalist sit-in at Ground Zero?*

This has been up all day. The leftists who occupy my Facebook feed have spent hours praising this and saying it proves a US media blackout of this sit-in.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/occupy-wall-street

Are they just having fun cheering this on?


*While the protest is billed as an "occupation" of Wall Street, it's actually at a privately-owned park overlooking Ground Zero often used for outdoor lunches and immigrant chess matches.

[Timbuk2]

*shrugs*

Because 80 arrests and accusations of heavy-handed police tactics at Ground Zero is news?

It was also on the front page of the Beeb yesterday.

[Flixy]

Aww, surf dogs

And 80 people arrested at a protest its a lot, therefore news.

[Dreadnaught]

And had you not been hearing about this for the week before there were any arrests? The media coverage has been intense since long before there were any arrests. And 80 arrests isn't that big of a deal. Yesterday people physically blocked guests from attending a Dick Cheney lecture. Protests and arrests happen all the time.

This is a small group of people with no real agenda seizing a lot of media attention because reporters (especially at Al Guardian of Palestine) finds it amusing.

[Ominous Gamer]

Its on the front page of CNN today too, and has been off and on for the last few days. Amusingly enough, I think I've seen Dread bitch, whine, and attempt to whitewash this more than I've seen news coverage on it. Go figure

[Flixy]

And had you not been hearing about this for the week before there were any arrests? The media coverage has been intense since long before there were any arrests. And 80 arrests isn't that big of a deal. Yesterday people physically blocked guests from attending a Dick Cheney lecture. Protests and arrests happen all the time.

This is a small group of people with no real agenda seizing a lot of media attention because reporters (especially at Al Guardian of Palestine) finds it amusing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...r-protest.html

Initial reports suggested one man was arrested, but police later said no arrests were made.

Yes, that is totally the same.

I am aware protests happen all the time, but 80 arrests is a lot. Hell, there have been some football hooligan incidents here lately, and even at those they generally only arrest 25 people or so. Combine a lot of arrests at an interesting location (wall street, or ground zero if you will), and tadaa: news.

Or are you really saying that the surfing dogs and the fashion show are more newsworthy? Honestly, considering the vast amount of non-news hurled into the news outlets every single day, I find it surprising that you consistently attack these kind of things. You can argue that they have quite a slant usually, but this is simply news. It's still smaller than a fashion show...



By the way, that CBC article about the protests against Dick Cheney IS their most read article on the website. Just sayin'.

[Ominous Gamer]

Front page of slashdot today

phx_zs writes
"Today marks the tenth consecutive day that thousands of protesters have flooded the streets of Manhattan, specifically the financial district. ... Sunday marked a change of events as high-ranking NYPD officers exhibited brutal, unprovoked aggression on the peaceful group, reportedly arresting at least 80 people. Many photos and videos have surfaced of NYPD officers slamming protesters on the ground or into parked cars, and in one well-covered incident a NYPD officer (with pending police brutality charges from 2004) maced innocent female protesters point blank for no apparent reason. Many eyewitnesses and several news articles report that the NYPD specifically targeted photographers and media teams streaming the event live on the internet."

Do any Slashdotters have eyewitness reports to share? There seems to be a lot of misinformation originating from all parties involved making it difficult to know how large the protest actually is at this point and whether or not the police are being quite as universally violent as the protestors imply.

[Dreadnaught]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...r-protest.html



Yes, that is totally the same.

I am aware protests happen all the time, but 80 arrests is a lot. Hell, there have been some football hooligan incidents here lately, and even at those they generally only arrest 25 people or so. Combine a lot of arrests at an interesting location (wall street, or ground zero if you will), and tadaa: news.

Or are you really saying that the surfing dogs and the fashion show are more newsworthy? Honestly, considering the vast amount of non-news hurled into the news outlets every single day, I find it surprising that you consistently attack these kind of things. You can argue that they have quite a slant usually, but this is simply news. It's still smaller than a fashion show...



By the way, that CBC article about the protests against Dick Cheney IS their most read article on the website. Just sayin'.

It's not that 80 people getting arrested isn't news. My point is certain media outlets have been egging-on this non-event with exceptional media coverage for days before there were any major arrests.

Ludicrously, the Guardian is now using the section for a good chunk of their US political coverage, weaving this small group of people into a lot of their US coverage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/occupy-wall-street

Basically, by covering this obsessively, Al Guardian of Palestine is once again demonstrating that it is a worthless piece of agitprop.

[GGT]

What am I missing here? The title says Palestine, but the link is from the UK.

[Dreadnaught]

One of the Guardian's raison d'etre is the establishment of Palestine/dissolution of Israel (whichever is easiest). So I refer to them in the context of one of their main editorial positions/obsessions.

[GGT]

But the Wall Street protesters have been covered by all other news sources. Even in tiny corners of their web sites. So, if there's some underlying point you're making in your chosen title, I don't get it. Care to explain?

[Timbuk2]

The point is that Dread has a bee in his bonnet about the fact that the Guardian consistently reports with a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias.

He's being a bit silly in referring to that for their coverage of the ground zero protests.

The Guardian is also a liberal-leaning (that's UK liberal, not US liberal) paper, and so would tend toward giving more coverage to protests than other papers may.

However, I think in this case, many other news sites had an equivalent coverage as the Guardian example Dread posted/is banging on about. His calling it a 'non-event' when other posters here agree it's newsworthy points to more Dread silliness.

[CitizenCain]

I don't know if it's "news" per se, but a bunch of morons who think they'll get more free government money by destroying the modern financial system is an amusing tale to read about. And, as a bonus, it's now shedding more light on the similarities between police departments and the S.A. Brownshirts. Not that it'll change anything, but it's always nice to be reminded:

[Dreadnaught]

However, I think in this case, many other news sites had an equivalent coverage as the Guardian example Dread posted/is banging on about. His calling it a 'non-event' when other posters here agree it's newsworthy points to more Dread silliness.

Actually, the complaint is the Al Guardian of Palestine is putting this on their front page and infusing all of their US political coverage with these relatively insignificant protests for almost a week now. Guardian's front-page obsession with this pre-dates the arrests (which are really the only significant part of this sit-in).

[CitizenCain]

Well, what else of interest is actually going on in the US at the moment, Dread?

As far as domestic US news, I can't find anything as interesting as these fools, so what's wrong with them getting their 15 minutes?

[Ominous Gamer]

Here is a PBS employee recounting how he was arrested and detained for 9 hours after attempting to interview the people who were peppersprayed without reason.

One of the Guardian's raison d'etre is the establishment of Palestine/dissolution of Israel (whichever is easiest). So I refer to them in the context of one of their main editorial positions/obsessions.

I thought I was missing something, but holy shit, this puts you in a whole new level of being chlidish.

[Aimless]

So I guess we can add another entity to the long list of entities more childish/immature/sophomoric than Dread

[Dreadnaught]

So I guess we can add another entity to the long list of entities more childish/immature/sophomoric than Dread

The Guardian occupies that place with honor.

Seriously, it's a crap publication. They finally got this off their front page. And now it's actually become somewhat more newsworthy with all the celebrity appearances!

[Timbuk2]

I rather like the Guardian.

The literary pullouts are top notch, the music and film pieces are great, and it has a humour I've not found in any other paper.

Used to have a subscription.

And one thing it does NOT pander to is celebrity.

But each to their own, hey Dread.

[Aimless]

The Guardian occupies that place with honor.

Seriously, it's a crap publication. They finally got this off their front page. And now it's actually become somewhat more newsworthy with all the celebrity appearances!

At least they write articles that consist of paragraphs of text!! But there's just no pleasing you, is there. I thought it was bad enough that you couldn't handle other posters having interests and values and styles that differ from yours, but if you can't handle that in a foreign newspaper... Jesus Christ man

[Dreadnaught]

I thought it was bad enough that you couldn't handle other posters having interests and values and styles that differ from yours

Excuse me? I criticize something and now you suggest I'm some kind of xenophobic brute?

The Guardian (among other British papers) is built around an idea of advocacy-journalism that is often challenged and debated in the world of media. Highlighting my opinion that their brand of advocacy-journalism is crap isn't some kind of close-minded argument.

Methinks you're the one unable to handle someone else's interests and values. I'm criticizing a newspaper; you're attacking a person. The world isn't an intellectual monoculture, Minx.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm criticizing a newspaper

Is name calling really a valid form of criticism?

[CitizenCain]

When it's an accurate name, sure. Plus, it's kinda funny to hear you imply name calling isn't valid criticism after your years of criticizing those you disagree with by calling them homophobic names.

It's like, ironical or whatever, dude.

[Ominous Gamer]

your years of criticizing those you disagree with by calling them homophobic names.

w00t! more off tangent trolling, but this one sounds juicy. What homophobic names have I been using for years?
I remember calling something gay once, but that was in the chatroom. I used to call Lewk a dumbass all the time, but thats hardly homophobic, and it seems pretty accurate (not that i want to defend it as criticism, or imply he has provided something worthy of valid criticism). This persona has gone under a few tweaks over the years, so I may have done what you are accussing me of when younger, but I don't recall anything like that, and I'm pretty sure Atari held a pretty hardline for that type of stuff. If anyone else remembers, feel free to point it out.

[CitizenCain]

w00t! more off tangent trolling, but this one sounds juicy. What homophobic names have I been using for years?

There have even been a couple threads here about it, actually. My memory's a little hazy, so I might get the details a bit mixed up, but I think the gist of it was something about you hating black guys so much your rub your genitals all over their faces at parties.

That give you enough clues, or do you need it explicitly spelled out for you again? But, whether you feign ignorance, honestly don't remember, or choose to try to pretend it's off-topic trolling, you very much made it the topic when you, of all people, called Dread out for "name calling" instead of providing a critique of an organization that holds different political opinion. Damn, another clue. I gotta stop making it so easy.

[GGT]

Excuse me? I criticize something and now you suggest I'm some kind of xenophobic brute?

The Guardian (among other British papers) is built around an idea of advocacy-journalism that is often challenged and debated in the world of media. Highlighting my opinion that their brand of advocacy-journalism is crap isn't some kind of close-minded argument.

Methinks you're the one unable to handle someone else's interests and values. I'm criticizing a newspaper; you're attacking a person. The world isn't an intellectual monoculture, Minx.

Quoted for posterity.

Did anyone accuse you of using old, outdated stereotypes like certain religious groups control the media, or that you're over-generalizing and over-simplifying media and journalism, or that you're seeing some conspiracy against Israel that's in your own head? *cough*

[Ominous Gamer]

The unions are starting to fall behind these guys, everyone from The NY Transit Workers to the Verizon Union. Wonder what kind of numbers they are going to end up with tomorrow.

[Dreadnaught]

There have even been a couple threads here about it, actually. My memory's a little hazy, so I might get the details a bit mixed up, but I think the gist of it was something about you hating black guys so much your rub your genitals all over their faces at parties.

That give you enough clues, or do you need it explicitly spelled out for you again? But, whether you feign ignorance, honestly don't remember, or choose to try to pretend it's off-topic trolling, you very much made it the topic when you, of all people, called Dread out for "name calling" instead of providing a critique of an organization that holds different political opinion. Damn, another clue. I gotta stop making it so easy.

I've had OG blissfully on ignore for a few weeks, but based on the quote and your response...I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please clarify?

***

On a separate note, I had fun on thefacebook.com today with all the people posting about the United flight union joining the protest and how this was now taking off (pun intended). So I had fun responding about how it was actually the protest being co-opted by an arcane contractual dispute over former United pilots having to train to work under Continental's cockpit and pre-flight procedures.

They also lost their request for a court injection a few hours ago: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...al-merger.html

It seems the Wall Street protests have entered the fad phase. I look forward to more labor unions co-opting this "protest" and turning into a cacophony of petty grievances and demands for higher taxes.

[Ominous Gamer]

quoting the made up bullshit only helps to solidify what he is attempting to do

[GGT]

I've had OG blissfully on ignore for a few weeks, but based on the quote and your response...I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please clarify?

***

On a separate note, I had fun on thefacebook.com today with all the people posting about the United flight union joining the protest and how this was now taking off (pun intended). So I had fun responding about how it was actually the protest being co-opted by an arcane contractual dispute over former United pilots having to train to work under Continental's cockpit and pre-flight procedures.

They also lost their request for a court injection a few hours ago: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...al-merger.html

It seems the Wall Street protests have entered the fad phase. I look forward to more labor unions co-opting this "protest" and turning into a cacophony of petty grievances and demands for higher taxes.

Then you concede the differences between social media and journalism are slight. So, why start a thread like this, titled as it was?