Seven Media Myths about Occupy LSX

That it is anti-capitalist.

The fact is that there are a variety of views within the camp on capitalism. Many dislike the system and wish to see an alternative; many more wish to see the current model reformed. The initial statement released by the camp, which was agreed upon by consensus, makes no mention of overthrowing capitalism, yet many media outlets have taken to describing the camp as anti-capitalist. This is either lazy journalism, or it is by design. Much of the press has an agenda to discredit or marginalise us, and (incorrectly) believe that assigning such labels to us will achieve this

That it chose St Pauls to occupy.

It was never our intention to target St Pauls. The initial target of the protest was the London Stock Exchange in Paternoster Square. The police got wind of this and blocked all entrances, and kettled the protesters into the courtyard at St Pauls cathedral. The Canon of the cathedral, Giles Fraser, then gave us permission to stay and for the first week we were guests of the church. The level of welcome from the cathedral may have changed since, but at no point did we choose to occupy the grounds of the cathedral. The fact is though that there are practical reasons for our being there. It is a high profile, visible space, and is just a stone’s throw from the Stock Exchange (not that we’ve tried; we are, of course, entirely peaceful!

That it forced St Pauls to shut

The decision taken by St Pauls to shut its doors for the first time since the Luftwaffe flew over London was a baffling one, and has ultimately led to the resignation of the Dean, Graeme Knowles. The claim that health & safety and fire regulations were to blame proved unfounded, as neither the London Health & Safety Executive nor the London Fire Brigade had any pressing concerns after the camp was re-organised. The entrances to the cathedral were unimpeded, and the camp had accommodated the cathedral’s request to clear space from the fire exits. The other factor in the decision to close; that takings in the cathedrals shop and cafe were affected, run contrary to church teachings regarding serving both mammon and God, particularly when you take into account that the Church of England has a £5bn stock portfolio. A more likely explanation lies in the influence exerted over the cathedral by the police, the Mayor, the City of London Corporation and the extensive list of corporate and financial donors. Either way, it was the cathedrals decision to close, and it has been much derided since.

That most tents are unoccupied

There has been much debate over the science of the thermal imaging of the occupier’s tents, which appeared to show many empty. Occupiers hit back with claims that the thermal imaging camera doesn’t detect heat inside all tents, which led to the counter claim that occupiers had not allowed enough time for heat to build up, followed by tent makers claiming that many tents are designed to retain heat therefore rendering thermal imaging useless. Regardless, there are a few points to be made here. First, did the reporters who took the initial photographs allow enough time for heat to build up in the tents? Secondly, why did they take pictures around midnight? The majority of the occupiers would have still been up and about at that time of night. If I was to film a random selection of bedrooms at not long after midnight I would imagine a large percentage of them would be empty. Why not film at 5 or 6am? Thirdly, does it even matter? Are the aims of the protestors rendered less important just because they go home at night? It takes a high level of dedication to visit the camp day after day, let alone to sleep on the cold, hard concrete courtyard of St Pauls in the middle of October.

That the protesters are middle class left wing students, or that they are lazy benefit scroungers

The media can’t seem to make their minds up which of the two we all are down here at the camp! The fact is that we are a diverse grouping of classes, races, nationalities, employment status and political persuasions. This movement is not party political, nor is it class focused. It is against corporate greed and against the recklessness of the financial sector, and it recognises that the current political and economic model is only working for those at the top.  These are issues that transcend political loyalties and class. We have many protestors here that have jobs, some that don’t, and some that have recently lost jobs. We have teachers, soldiers, civil servants, youth workers, former bankers, musicians. According to the BBC around a third are on some type of benefit, and a third are students. The labelling of us may serve the agenda of certain sections of the media, but as someone who has spent a lot of time at the camp, it doesn’t make it true.

That they don’t know what they want

The camp is not necessarily here to provide concrete alternatives to the current failing system. It is here to facilitate debate and as a forum to create ideas. We are well aware that as a diverse group our message may appear muddled, and that our decision making process may from the outside appear cumbersome. But it is inclusive and entirely democratic, and we are intentionally operating outside the established culture of media cycles and soundbites. This may be frustrating for the media but it is vital that our message does not become diluted or bastardised in the media scrum. The mere existence of the camp is enough to create a space, both physically and virtually, for debate, and it is for the country to decide what changes they would demand to this unsustainable system.

That it doesn’t have public support

Opinion polls suggest that the public largely support our occupation and its goals. Polls by ICM and Yougov show clear and unquestionable support for the camp (51-38% and 39-26% respectively), whilst a poll in the Guardian showed 82% support for our movement. Even 42% of Daily Telegraph readers also backed us, no mean feat considering some of the coverage they’ve given us! We’ve had emphatic support from the Guardian, the Independent, the Daily Mirror, the Observer, the Financial Times, the economic editor of BBC’s Newsnight, and from a large number of influential political commentators and economists. We’ve even had sympathetic articles in the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Economist. What defenders of the status quo fail to realise, or completely ignore, is that there is a palpable sense of public anger over the situation we find ourselves in, and it is this anger that is propelling us toward a tipping point towards achieving change