Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
November 6, 2011

As Agitators Occupy Occupy, Will Media Call It Out?

Shame on the Sacramento Bee for attributing the violence late Thursday night to Occupy protesters when the chaos was clearly and identifiably the responsibility of an outside contingent of black bloc agitators sporting black shirts, bandannas and backpacks for their spray paint, sticks, clubs, fire retardant and other equipment.

What’s strange is that The Bee makes the distinction itself with its headline, “Occupy protesters disavow Oakland violence.” From there, though, they undo the difference by repeatedly referring to these hooligans in their photo captions as “Occupy protesters.” (See most of the first ten photos of the slide show.) This is most evident in the photos of the black shirts that took over a building late that night. In the photo above, by the way, notice the phrasing of the caption (describing how they “occupied” — rather than “took over” or “commandeered” — the building) linguistically connecting the actions of this militant element to the name of the non-violent movement.

What’s very dangerous, at this point, is the media neglecting to educate the public about the nature and source of the violence — as CBS clearly does here. It’s a development we warned about weeks ago. It doesn’t take too many errors of omission to convince a large swath of the American people that Occupy, itself, is a powderkeg.

It wasn’t just The Bee, though, which fed the misrepresentation. Consider this photo from a Getty package at Zimbio. In the photo, we see an Occupy security member (the same one who was overrun in this video we highlighted last week, and seen again here) being manhandled by the black shirts. Thing is, when you read the caption:

Demonstrators clash during an Occupy demonstration November 2, 2011 in Oakland, California. The group called for a general strike Wednesday, and planned to march on the city’s port later in the day.

what you get — far from the sense of a struggle between Occupy and these violent outside agitators — is that it’s all one family, and it’s looking for trouble.

  • bks

    Collateral damage. 


  • Anonymous

    Will the media clarify call it out? In a word: no. They’re happier with a narrative which denigrates the protestors.

  • C Lorenz

    For further background, here’s one insider’s account of the complicated relationship between the “Black Bloc” and Occupy Oakland:

    While the author is careful not to identify herself as among the Black Bloc per se, she uses a different kind of language to explain some of their actions, and paints the General Assembly as illegitimately assuming authority in rejecting their tactics.

    To see them as agitators is one thing, but as infiltrators is something else. Occupy groups in many places are going to have to find ways of working out amicable arrangements with their anarchist wings, which are doing a lot of damage (intentionally) and undermining the progress of the Occupy movement (obviously), but who see themselves as the ones who started the whole thing (ask them).

  • Pingback: Occupy…Safety |

  • Pingback: The Unmasked Face of Violent Anarchists in Occupy Oakland | Colonel Despard's Radical Comment

  • The Screaming Head

    The opposition is definitely giving OWS enough rope to hang itself with by withdrawing the troops. People are going to have to police themselves because there will be little to no “authoritarian traction” with which to create a visible dynamic.

    Also note that those bringing violence may be a group organized by the opposition to OWS to infiltrate. Central governmental agencies used to infiltrate the Black Panthers by calling their leaders’ wives pretending to be another girl. Don’t let anyone incite you into violence if you care about the message here.

    Good luck to everybody out there.

    The Political Blog of Win

  • Suzann

    wow, amazing photo

Refresh Archives

Random Notes