17 October 2011 | Occupying the Media

At some point, an astute college instructor will use our Media Glitterati's confused reaction to the Occupy Wall Street movement as a textbook example of how absolutely ridiculous and slow-witted the fourth estate really is. 

You see, our hapless media fucks are very confused about the movement, because these turds operate in a universe where information has to be simple: it has a beginning, middle and an end. When facts get complicated, the media gets a little confused. Such is the case with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has defied an easy category for the Media Glitterati to comprehend. Nothing is funnier than seeing a parade of talking heads bobbling in the morning to the same question: what do these people want? The lack of a narrative is deeply harmful to the light minds reading from the teleprompter in a studio. 

This is part of the reason why these hapless fucks have been slow to take up the story at all, preferring to find the most idiotic and stoned participant to give the entire movement a bad name. When you're floundering for a lead, this approach is the path of least resistance. Well, this and finding some other movement to play compare and contrast with, hence the stupid idea that Occupy Wall Street is the thinking man's Tea Party movement. Except if you ever paid attention to those asswipes during all their temper tantrums masquerading as "protests," you wouldn't find some overarching program either. But of course, you also have to remember that major news outlets are owned by corporations that find the Occupy Wall Street movement not a movement but a freak show of smelly college sophomores and all-purpose protestors, hence the dismissive statements on Fox News or the bemused questions of ABC News' David Muir: what do they want?

Still, there are lessons to be learned here, and our Media Glitterati's befuddlement about how to approach covering the movement is probably more entertaining than the protests themselves.