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

How the Occupy movement has shifted the media debate

The sight of Adam Boulton comparing Occupy LSX protesters to Nazi occupiers in France during WW2 on Sky News this week was not just indicative of Boulton, but also demonstrates how progressively desperate and defensive those who wish to defend the status quo have become since the Occupy movement began (see also spying on protesters with thermal imaging equipment, the now debunked reporting of the number of overnight campers). Why are they so worried? Because we’re changing the terms of the debate right under their noses. 

Since the financial crisis of 2008 the national, and indeed global, discussion has been dominated by phrases such as ‘austerity’, ‘debt’, and ‘bond markets’. This suited those in the financial sector who wished for business as usual, and they were helped by friends in parliament, who spent all of their efforts deflecting blame from the banks onto government spending; and in the media, who stifled debate on the issue. The debate had thus been framed in these terms, and despite the fact that austerity during difficult financial periods has failed throughout history, politicians from all sides campaigned during the general election on how quickly they would get the debt down, how many jobs they would cut, how many services they would slash. Issues such as jobs, essential services and economic growth were sidelined, and with them went any opportunity to tackle the underlying causes of the financial crisis, which was not public spending but an unregulated, immoral, out of control financial sector which was symptomatic of a deeper, more systemic culture of corporate greed.

That changed on the 15^th October, when the Occupy LSX movement began. Since then the movement and its grievances have been the focus of discussion right across the media, and the debate that should have been had 3 years ago (and probably before) about the state of our economic and democratic system is being played out. The camp has found support in some unexpected quarters; The Daily Telegraph led with the headline ‘it doesn’t take a Marxist to see that the St Paul's protesters have a point’ and asked that ‘if bankers don’t pay a price for their folly, why should the poor?’, while Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail, normally slightly to the right of Hitler, said ‘most of us would probably agree that the anti-capitalist demonstrators in the City of London have a point. You don’t have to be Wolfie Smith to work out we’ve all been screwed by the banks'. Paul Mason, economics editor of BBC’s Newsnight points out that most of those at the camp are ‘ordinary people’ and ‘for every protester camped in the freezing dawn there may be many more quietly fuming in their living rooms who feel the same way’. A remarkable editorial in the Financial Times, the newspaper of choice for the discerning financier, came out in complete support of the movement, while the Guardian have been wonderfully supportive. The Independent, perhaps surprisingly, have been absolutely nowhere on the issue.  The very fact that they are talking about us and our issues justifies our existence.

The effects of the shift in the debate can be seen in the analysis published by Think Progress regarding the impact of the Occupy Wall Street movement on the media debate within the United States. They examined the use of keywords over three major US television networks in the weeks before, and the weeks after the establishment of the camp.  In the weeks before the camp the word ‘debt’ was used over 7500 times. In the weeks after the camp, the word debt was used just 398 times, and was replaced with phrases ‘jobs’, ‘occupy’ and ‘Wall Street’ at the top of the list. Piers Morgan Tonight recently held a one hour special with Oscar winning documentary maker and Occupy champion Michael Moore on the Occupy movement in front of a live studio audience made up of those hit hardest by the crisis. This reframing of the debate within the media has helped to sway public opinion towards the side of the protesters (54% of the US public back the camp), which has led to Democratic politicians (belatedly) championing the cause of the Occupy movement. 

Of course, in this country, not all the media have been supportive. Many are attempting to smear or belittle the camp and its aims, hence constant references to the ‘anti-capitalist movement’ designed to isolate us (the camp isn’t anti-capitalist, there are a broad range of views on capitalism within the movement), or news coverage that concentrates on the closure of the St Pauls, or on the lack of concrete demands, rather than focusing on the behaviour of the banks, or corporate greed. The same people in the media criticising us now are the same vested interests who helped cement the Thatcherite neo-liberal economic concensus that led to the crash by brow beating an increasingly feeble left. It is little wonder they are feeling threatened now, because they can feel the foundations of their world shaking

Others are confused by the message coming from the camp. This is a more understandable criticism. The system of decision making the camp uses - concensus decision making - can be cumbersome and certainly doesn’t lend itself to the demands of a media obsessed with news cycles and soundbites. But this system is designed to be this way. People at the camp feel the current model has let them and others down, and refuse to run the camp on the terms of others. The camp is a place for discussion, ideas and will eventually, as with the announcement of demands to reform the City of London Corporation, lead to some concrete demands. 

To me, the criticism is irrelevant anyway as the role of the camp isn’t necessarily to come up with specific demands that we wish to be enacted. The mere fact that the camp exists is enough to keep the debate going. In the US public support is behind the Occupy movement, and politicians are engaging with it. In the UK, a Guardian poll showed 82% support, whilst a poll taken after a BBC Radio 4 debate in Devon showed support for the camp. Even a poll in the Daily Telegraph shows 42% support for us. You don’t have to agree with every decision the camp takes in order to support it, you just need to have the desire to see the debate take place. The existence of the camp has created space for this debate to take place, and the continued publicity will help to fuel it

Why I'm Marching for the Alternative today

Today’s protests against coalition cuts are likely to see up to 300,000 people on the streets of London. People are angry, and justifiably so. Labour supporters are angry that they are seeing the progress of the past 12 years undone. Lib Dem’s are angry that they were conned into voting for a progressive party, not a Tory one. Even 19% of Tories back today’s protests

During the 2010 election both Labour and the Lib Dems campaigned against the Tory plans for deep and immediate cuts. 55% of people voted for these parties. Added together with the Greens and the SNP nearly 60% o the electorate voted against these cuts. Nobody at all voted for the completely unnecessary NHS reforms, which come at a time when the NHS has received all time high satisfaction reports from the public. It is also one of the most efficient in the Western world, and the list of people who oppose these reforms is incredible; doctors, nurses, unions, midwives, patients, and the public in general. Any reforms by the coalition are purely ideological and to let the private sector in, not stealthily through the back door but brazenly gatecrashing through the front door. The private sector has a role in the NHS, but a free market economy does not fit in with the values and principles of our health system.

The coalition has buttered up the electorate with scare stories so that they are more likely to fall into line and accept these cuts. The fact is we’re not, and we never were, in danger of doing a ‘Greece or an Ireland’. The UK’s credit rating is AAA, meaning our interest rate for buying bonds is 3.5%, one of the lowest in the world, whereas Greece and Ireland are at 12.5% and % respectively. It is this ability, or in the case of Greece and Ireland inability, to afford the repayments on bonds with such high interest rates that forced these countries to take EU bailouts.

The economics of the coalition cuts doesn’t add up. Half a million public sector workers have or are about to be made redundant. Not only do these workers provide vital services and support for the country, particularly the most needy and vulnerable, but once they’ve lost their jobs they will join the 2.5 million people already out of work as there simply aren’t the jobs in the private sector to mop them up (in fact most private sector workers have already said they won’t employ ex-public sector workers, proof that the Tory demonisation of public servants has worked). With no jobs to turn to, they will be forced into benefits which will prove to be hugely costly for the government. These workers will also be paying no tax revenue, and will not be spending any money on the high street. This is exactly what bought the economy to its knees in the 80’s, the last time any government attempted severe cuts.

There are many in the private sector who rely on the public sector as well. For instance, the cancellation of the schools building programme has had a huge knock on effect on the construction industry. There is also statistical evidence that the coalitions economic policy is failing. The coalition have taken an economy that was in growth and recovering back onto the verge of recession, and three times since taking power George Osborne has had to revise his growth figures downwards, whilst in the US, where they are implementing a more growth based cuts programme similar to that that Labour and the Lib Dems advocated in 2010, growth forecasts have risen dramatically

Tax avoidance by corporations and the super rich is estimated to cost the country around £15-20 billion per year. UK Uncut has led a high profile campaign against businesses such as Vodafone, Top Shop and Barclays, who are all likely to see further protests today. This has been an issue under Labour and Tory governments, so this is not party political, but in the face of such severe cuts these tax loopholes need to be cut off now more than ever. I understand the argument that tax concessions are necessary to keep successful businesses in the UK economy but when it goes as far as Barclays paying less than 1% in corporation tax ( a figure that is supposed to be closer to 20%) in 2009, the balance has swing dramatically in the wrong direction. The likelihood is that even if tax liability is fully paid up the majority of companies would not leave the country. Britain is a highly attractive place for businesses and their employees, and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon

Osborne has recently announced further cuts in corporation tax and has also cut taxes to be paid on profits made by British companies abroad, meaning much less for the British treasury. The banks that caused this global economic crisis, and whose bailout cost the Treasury over £1 trillion, have been given a tax cut by Osborne, and the bank bonuses culture has not been curtailed; in fact quite the opposite. It seems Osborne and the coalition are in favour of making the UK as attractive a place as possible for their friends in business, no matter what the cost for the ordinary person on the street

All this has to be seen in the context of the savage cuts to our public sector services. For example in Hackney, one of the poorest boroughs in the country, many child services are being cut by up to 75%. This means more vulnerable children will be forced onto the streets, where they will be more likely to fall into crime. The scrapping of the EMA will bring about the same results. Cuts to the police will make it more difficult for them to fight crime, which is likely to rise in the face of a recession. Sure Start is facing severe cuts, and the coalitions promise that frontline services won’t be cut has turned out to be nonsensical, and even if it weren’t so frontline staff need the backroom staff that are facing the heaviest cuts in order for them to d their jobs. There are always efficiency savings that could be made, and they should be made, and I’m certainly not advocating no cuts whatsoever, but any cuts need to be fair, pro-growth, and not damage the vital services any people in the country rely on

The Robin Hood tax proposal that many protestors will be advocating today looks like a fair, reasonable. It is estimated that a 0.05% tax on all financial transactions will bring in £200 billion globally, and £20 billion in the UK alone. Those who dismiss it as pie in the sky are, quite frankly, talking out of their arse. The French and the German governments are already budgeting for it, and it would be extremely simple to implement as it could all be done electronically. At least it would target the people who caused the financial crisis rather than the poor and vulnerable in society

So here’s to a peaceful, successful march, and regardless of whether they change their course, they will hear our voice.