Bad press what should we do?

[markm]

This is very upsetting. I got this from a post on the general board.

www.newyorkcitizenone.com/index.php/home/7139-tales-from-the-inside-occupyalbany

It really needs to be addressed, but how? Their was a place for comments at the end of the article. I really wanted to comment but held off. I know nothing about this group. PR needs to get out in front of this but, how should individual members of OA respond when they see bad, misleading or inaccurate reporting?

I would suggest that there be a place where inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise damaging articles can be posted, a thread started maybe so that PR can be made aware when these articles appear and respond appropriately in a timely manner.

I am not a member of the PR group, at least not yet, just a concerned member of OA, helping out when and where I can. I live in Clifton Park and most of my efforts are being spent working on getting Occupy Saratoga to a critical mass so that it is self-sustaining (we are not quite their yet). Once Occupy Saratoga is on better footing, and I have the proper time to devote, I intend to become a member of this and a few other working groups in Albany.

You can follow the link but here is the article.

Tales from the Inside: OccupyAlbany Print E-mail
Written by New York Citizen One
Sunday, October 30, 2011 13:08

Well, we had some snow last night…not much but some. I plan on spending some time prepping for the Albany County Murder, Kidnapping and Conspiracy trial but I wanted to share some insights on our Albany Occupation.

I was browsing the online presence of Occupy Albany this morning and came across a few items of interest. Of course, I posted the resolution penned by Anton Konev requesting that the curfews be lifted from Academy Park…yep, that’s legislating for the good of all the people. What a doofus. While we’re fairly accustomed to the local “activists,” Dylan, the Chicken Guy, Babs, Dom, Joe, the Mad Russian, Emma, Mishler, Conti, Ellis…you know ‘em…it seems that our welcome mat has attracted a few “activists” with whom we are not familiar.

Local, Dylan, is “in charge” of the website and the message board on which he has posted 285 times…that’s over 100 more times than the second highest poster, Emma (who is not a moderator but seems to just like to comment and be the OA mother hen.) Next up on the top four hit list is joshred…I’ve no idea who joshred is but he is a forum moderator. (Sorry all my luddites…I’ll explain forums and moderators over a beer sometime but stay with me.) The fourth highest poster is someone named Ben Brucato who seems to be a teaching assistant at RPI though he proclaims on his website to believe in “limited technology and” putting an “end to industrial civilization.”

This Brucato guy is new to the area but this OA thing isn’t his first rodeo. Seems that Brucato is aggressive enough in his harassment of those with ideas different than his that he got a minister to punch him in the nose…yeah, he wasn’t innocent, the College (seems he’s been going to college for at least 13 years!) brought charges against him for assault and harassment. Oh, and he calls the OA decision to be a “non-violent” occupation to be the first critical mistake of the occupation. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure he’s completely dedicated to Upstate New York and familiar with our APD while he is pushing anti-police brutality propaganda, even though he lists Arizona as his home and his next greatest accomplishment as being a legal resident of Italy.

Seems he’s been called out a few times but that doesn’t stop him. He has proposed something called the “radical caucus” and he says he has 15 to 20 members. These are folks who are more “radical” than the concensus-type of non-violent OAers. Kinda like a faction of the Occupiers. Here’s the proposal for his “radical caucus:”

We need to develop a unified voice that:1) Develops a revolutionary vision for the movement.
2) Draws explicit connections between the issues this movement is addressing and capitalism.
3) Organizes along consensus and direct democratic principles.
4) Respects the diversity of radical politics among a variety of socialists, anarchists and postleftist revolutionaries.
5) Affirms a diversity of tactics and encourages autonomy of action.
6) Challenges "left colorblindness" and "white democracy

7) Demands an end to police brutality, approaches the police with ambivalence, and opposes close relationships between them and the occupation.
8) Addresses criminalization, mass incarceration and calls for the abolition of prisons.
9) Builds relationships among radicals at other regional occupations.
10) Works toward material goals both as a caucus and to introduce to the entire occupation.
With these ten points, I propose the founding of a Radical Caucus at Occupy Albany.

Now, this guy doesn’t yet have approval from the GA to create this caucus but, I don’t think there’s much going to stop him including the General Assembly. As Dylan (the 285 poster and the steering wheel for the online presence of OA) points out to Ben, the term caucus is reserved for groups who feel they are under-repped as individuals....like the women being shouted down by the white men in the General Assembly. Dylan points out that Ben is being heard loud and clear. Here’s a bit of the exchange:

Dylan:

I do not understand the idea of a radical caucus. What happened to the direct action working group?
A caucus, from what I understand it, is formed by groups that are underrepresented somehow in the occupy albany movement. To say that radicals aren't heard, doesn't that somehow devalue the importance of other caucuses?
Also what is wrong with you all joining and strengthening the Direct Action working group? The fact that people in this group are ignoring or abandoning the DA group leads me to believe this is going to be more about theory. I'm not sure I really see the value of a theory working group or caucus.
Finally, if I do not join this 'caucus', or if I vote, does that mean I'm not 'radical'? By whose definition?

Ben, OA hijacker:

I am interpreting in these questions a degree of hostility and passive-aggressiveness. I'm sure that's not your intention. Would you care to rephrase them?Thanks for asking these clarifying questions. I'm sure it's helpful for more people than just you.

Dylan:

I'm not making any statements, I'm asking questions. What is a caucus? Are 'radical' voices underrepresented? What is 'radical'?It is my understanding that working groups are made by free association, but that caucuses, due to their voices being unheard, deserve special attention. Therefore I wonder, should anybody be able to come up with a caucus? Does that potentially devalue the power of caucuses in general? I'm not saying that I should have the power to decide who creates caucuses, but I do think it's something we should all be thinking about. How is 'radical'-ness outside of the scope of Direct Action? Is this difference related to the discussion of theory? What exactly is a 'revolutionary vision'?I also wonder what it is about my questions that leads you to accuse me of making decisions for you. I am suggesting that claiming to be underrepresented is a very powerful statement, since it grants those people a special voice. I would think that people claiming to be radical would be wary of taking advantage of this special voice to the potential detriment of the other caucuses, which, yes, in my humble opinion (do I need to say this before everything I ever say?) I do believe are more deserving. I care less what 'radical' people think, in general, than what, for example, women of color think and I do not want their voices to be drowned out by 'radical' white men's. I also do not think the presence of 'reformist' views necessarily means the 'radical' viewpoint is diminished, which is what was suggested tonight.

Ben, OA hijacker, then uses the fallback trap…quoting from the Wikipedia (no wonder he’s been in college for 13 years…he cites Wikipedia!):

Political radicalism (from Wikipedia): The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. Derived from the Latin radix (root), the denotation of radical has changed since its eighteenth-century coinage to comprehend the entire political spectrum — yet retains the “change at the root” connotation fundamental to revolutionary societal change.

Caucus (from Wikipedia):A caucus is a meeting of supporters or members of a political party or movement, especially in the United States and Canada.

Dylan, wanna be leader of the pack….seems he’s never dealt with a seasoned extremist…our poor little local activists….they are so outgunned by these interlopers.

I am not sure this definition of caucus meets the definition of how we are using caucuses in occupy albany, which is to allow underrepresented voices in the movement be heard. A large group of white men claiming this under-representation makes me nervous and suspicious. That is my opinion, take it or leave it.

As a former Maoist I will be perfectly frank. This caucus reeks of vanguardism and sectarianism to me. That is also my opinion. I would rather see us take part in actions that all types of political views can get behind, like the bank withdrawal day, rather than discuss political ideologies so that we may all see where we disagree and fight over who is more 'down for the revolution'. I thought the whole point of this was to find where we can agree, which I would suggest is a great number of issues, and work together on those and push our collective agenda using direct action.

Ben the interloping radical responds…I know he’s real, real smart cause he uses the term “not cool” and “hugely”…hey, at least he thinks he is:

THIS is how caucuses are being used at Occupy Albany

Caucus: a faction within a legislative body that pursues its interests through the legislative process.


Back up to the main board list and you can see it there. I don't know where this wording came from, but again it points to the reformist nature of how things get framed.As for the rest of your divisive post, I'll kindly leave it. Also, I find your posts HUGELY disrespecting of the many women in the caucus, and of Dan who is Black. This is the typical behavior of the white liberal who make invisible the many non-white, non-males taking part in the movement, and especially employing it as a rhetorical tactic to dismiss an entire group that you disagree with. When you refer to "a bunch of 'radical' white men," you are writing out of existence the women and people of color who will be participating. Not cool.

Then poor ole Denmarkvesey stumbles between the two wannabee leaders and just has a big old agreement with Dylan using all the words these folks toss about…anarchist collective, socialist, communists…well, you get the picture, Denmark is a little harder to read, go to the forum if you want to read his stuff…just took up more space than I wanted to give illiteracy.

Ha, I just love this…next Dylan apologizes to Dan and the women…but not Ben! Oh, Dylan (Oh, and a few had an issue with JackMac speaking to the crowd…go figger!):

I apologize to Dan and to the women who were at the radical caucus meeting, but I stand by my statement that I think the radical caucus's existence is problematic as it proposes that there is a 'right' way to do what we are doing, and everyone else is a 'reform'-ey 'liberal'.

Personally I do not think that radical voices are unheard and for them to take on the mantle of a caucus the way we're using it, so they can have a stronger voice, is exactly the opposite of what I think a real radical does, which is to listen to the people in the group, like the women, LGBT members and POC who's voices often go unheard and support them.

Ben I've heard you call people liberals and use 'reform' like it's a curse word. I don't hear anyone saying that radicals and anarchists are bad in any way. I think you are the one who is creating this division and I am hoping to point this out. The people reading these posts can make up their own minds what they think.

Some people had problems with the speaker list yesterday. The reason why McEneny spoke isn't because OA is reformist, it's because the person who put in the work to organize the speaker's event asked him to be there. I would suggest to all the would-be radicals who want your voices heard to join a working group, get your hand on a plough and set a good example of how a radical acts and prove through persuasion the value of a radical frame of mind rather than using this caucus.



Apparently the radical Ben went sleepy sleep but I fully anticipated a long winded response in the AM…I got it. You were all kiddos once, right? Can’t you just picture Ben sitting alone in his dorm room typing violently to put our little local activist, who knows nothing of real being a real “radical,” in his place. I’m not going to scare you with the length of his ire…you’ll have to click here as I had to create a document to avoid turning this already lengthy post into a novel. (Here’s a link to his picture in case you want to be on the lookout…oh, and remember, he’s a teaching assistant.)



Oh, and that wonderful little Occupation happening down the street from me isn’t half the utopian society the kiddos claim it to be…besides the public urination, seems they have a little drug problem amongst the “radicals.” Oh, and children right there in the middle of that environment:


OA…from the forum:

1. By now you've probably heard that someone violated the good neighbor policy and had a serious problem by taking too much of some drug (the police said it was Zanex, but I heard others talking about something else). This was a person who had a small, very small, child.

2. A few hours later, I was in my tent talking on the phone when I heard a verbal altercation. Again, it was about drugs. One person seemed to accuse another person of giving drugs to a third person (not at the occupation) who they seemed to be concerned might be in trouble.

3. During the trouble with the passed-out parent, one activist belittled the contribution of younger members in an extremely confrontational and harmful manner. The person called everyone here kids and referred to one woman of about 20 as "little girl.” [Ah, my little kiddos don’t like being called kiddos...thanks for letting me know.]

4. One person, who meant well, pleaded with the rest of us to seek training on how to get arrested before getting arrested. In so doing, however, this person adopted an air of authority to which several people bristled. A very small, slightly tense exchange took place but was quickly and easily resolved. Again, we need to be aware of the way we communicate. This means being humble. When we address each other, we should try to be aware of how subtle turns of phrase can suggest a hierarchy. When we speak unselfconsciously, we're always at the risk of making ourselves sound like we know everything, and it's irresponsible for others to fail to see us for the genius saviors we are.

5. Reports are that a significant sum of money from the finance WG was spent without consulting the GA or other members of the WG.

Seems we’ve done more than provide a platform for free speech, with the DA neutering out Police Department seems they aren’t enforcing anything. What if the police went into a house (rather than a tent) with a woman who was overdosed with a child in her possession? Do they just overlook loud discussions about drug distribution? And all this is being done with people like Ben Brucato whose sole mission seems to be to bring down the police…and then, apparently, escape to Italy.

The District Attorney’s refusal to prosecute any OA arrests has created an environment fertile for anarchists that are being shooed out of other downtowns across the Country. Our protesters are proud to point out that they are being accommodated and that they have been promised free reign to ignore all the rules which govern the rest of us.
Last Updated on Sunday, October 30, 2011 19:01

Comments

0 Awesome 2011-10-30 16:07 #1
This, is, AWESOME. I oft wondered when it would get too cold and these die-hards would go home. After reading these gems I wonder which will happen first: 1) they quit because it is too cold, 2) the infighting gets to be too much and they implode, or 3) the radicals or drug users get too brazen, do something REALLY stupid and the police finally shut them down. I really don't know where to put my money but I can't wait to see what happens!
Quote
0 Albany Citizen One 2011-10-30 19:16 #2
Me either...I'm assuming they will soon take this type of information offline....ya know, like those governmental types they hate. We'll see.
Quote
Refresh comments listRSS feed for comments to this post
Add comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required, but will not display)

Website

[Dan L]

I mean, do we really need to be investing time and effort in a pretty spiteful, hack of a conservative blogger who identifies herself as having an axe to grind against the 'democrats who have taken over politics'? I think we write this one off as an expense and focus, on being proactive with the media that chooses to engage with us directly. Otherwise, we get into this game of trying to win over every person who, in reality, is just out to sneer at anything different.

[markm]

I agree with being pro active with the media. That is why I have suggested releasing the GA meeting minutes and if possible have a daily press briefing. We need to get out in front of this and counter it by giving the press daily accurate information of what is really going on. The wrong response, in my opinion, would be to use non-public boards or private boards or let "reporting" like this intimidate us into moving our discussions and business into a more private sphere. IF WE DO THIS THEY HAVE WON. We need to counter this, AND FAST, with more information released, and make a commitment to continue to operate with complete transparency with all our business done in the open.

I don't think we need to win everyone over, but when unwarranted attacks are made and untrue information is released as fact, I do think we need to address it in some way.

I don't know anything about the individual who wrote the article. I did not see his name anywhere. His artice was on citizenone.org and he conveniently didn't give his name or contact info although he had no problem naming people and slamming them in his article, even posting a link to your picture so "people could watch out for you".

Maybe we need to let it go and just moveon (pun intended) but I hate to see articles like this, especially when they are full of untruths, go unchallenged.

[Caroline]

I agree with Dan on this one. It's also important to distinguish between ACTUAL journalists (who have editors and who will correct factual errors) and bloggers with an axe to grind.

[denmarkvesey]

criticize them who cares about the mainstream media why are we shocked corporate media are not with us

[markm]

I think we need to care about the mainstream media because they are the ones putting information out (many times inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information) and setting the parameters for the debate before the public. Whether we like it or not we need to acknowledge this fact . Another given, the movement will not succeed without MASSES OF PEOPLE INVOLVED. Yes we need to call out the media and be critical of them when needed. However in my opinion, the proper way to work with the media is to 1. Not make any broad assumptions about the media (that's a tactic they use in reporting about us) it's lazy and intellectually dishonest and 2. Give the media broad access. Get out as much info as possible to the press and media giving them wide and broad access. Releasing GA minutes would be a great start, having daily press briefings would be better. Then the press can't make broad or inaccurate assumptions and plead ignorance when reporting (or we will call them out on it) or worse yet just make up things and report them as truths.

By doing this, I think we will have less bad press and it will be easier to call out lazy, misinformed or biased "journalists" for what they are and expose their shoddy ways. For example to be able to site a piece of information (GA minutes,press release or other statement) that was previously released and contradicts what was stated as fact in a misleading or damaging media report , is a VERY POWERFUL way to discredit the damaging report and it's producer. Once the report is discredited, the next step is to call out the reporter. Were they just lazy or careless in their reporting (an honest mistake?) OR do they have an agenda and were intentionally deceptive.

I think it is very important to have a discussion about how OA (on all levels, as WG's and individuals) can best interact with the media so that the movement can keep growing and moving forward.

[madskeptic]

Although I don't care for the author of the blog, I do believe she hits on a couple salient points which, I believe, OA is not willing to address -- online:

Whether you like it or not, there are people trying to co-opt OA for their particular political agenda. The commentary which is being reflected by this particular blogger (who is a conservative) are some examples I have made a mental note of myself.

First, I don't really care how "right" or "radical" one thinks they are, there is a very good chance your opinion is not shared by the majority of the citizens of the United States. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise, but making absolute statements about what is right, implying you know the capital-T "Truth," and that all square pegs will be forced to fit though round holes is off-putting to many people -- myself included.

OA needs to keep focused on it's one unifying message -- that the economic inequality in this State and country needs to corrected. Talk about a socialist/communist/whatever revolution and discussions about how radical one may or may not be and what to do when being repressed (sorry, but Monty Python is the only thing I think of when you say that -- "Help! Help! I'm being repressed.") does nothing to further the cause. At a time when OA needs more support due to weather, etc., the last thing OA wants to do is alienate the 99%.

My message, therefore, would be to remain focused on the one unifying issue of economic inequality. When it becomes "apparent" or even appears as though that OA has become co-opted by any "radical" political persuasion, the whole message will be lost and so will the fight.

[markm]

I agree with madskeptic but my question is how do we do this? We need the masses and we need to remain inclusive and not alienate people yet we need to discuss and confront difficult complex issues where there is wide disagreement. My guess is keep emphasizing the process and getting people to buy into it. I think we also need simpler broader ways to get our message out and express what we are about to attract more people. We are the 99% is Ok , the idea was good. I like broad statements that are non-controversial like The System is broken and change is needed or We want a government that works for the people not corporations.
When I am talking to people I will ask them if they still believe in the American dream? Is it still alive for them? WIll it be for there kids? I see the movement as taking back the American dream that's dead to most.

I see it as a 3 step process. Step 1 bring the masses together (still ongoing) Step 2 Introduce and get people to buy into the process. Step 3 Watch what happens (once there are enough people buying into the process, exciting and UNPREDICTABLE actions will spontaneously occur)

If there are not enough people true change will be less likely. If the process isn't followed even with masses of people, MEANINGFUL change will be less likely. Just my thoughts.

By the way, the problem I had with the article was not necessarily about the discussion he or she highlighted, actually I found it quite interesting and informative typical o.f the type of discussions we have and really one that should be discussed on a broader stage like a GA. What I found most troubling about the article was all the commentary that the author interjected between the discussion that was being highlighted. A lot of personal attacks, misconceptions, misrepresentations and out right falsehoods. It's also worth noting that the author was not identified and hid under cover of some website while calling people out by name and even posting a link to their photo so people could "watch out for him"

[dabanks]

I am totally uninterested in what this angry woman writes at her country-themed kitchen table while she drinks decaf coffee. Its obvious that she has no interest in accurately portraying individuals or the occupation, so I have no interest in convincing her that she should.

And as far as the mainstream media goes, they are not just purveyors of slanted and shallow stories about made-up events, they are one of the many tools of the 1%. If they happen to get a few things right, that might be the work of a few enlightened individuals from within the system. But the media, as a system, is not built to accurately portray what we are doing here. Beyond some well-crafted press releases and our own reporting, I do not think we should be wasting our energy trying to convince them of the basic fact that we are adults having serious discussions about how we want to live in this world.

[madskeptic]

The woman we are discussing is named Theresa Grafflin -- a recent transplant from Texas. She is profoundly anti-union, and anti-occupation. It should come as no surprise someone like her would be writing something negative -- about anything remotely Progressive.

The Metroland fed this troll:

metroland.net/back_issues/vol33_no10/features.html

Regardless of how important she thinks she is, I would recommend no one loose any sleep over this woman's writing. Not only is it myopic and insipid, it's just plain bad. However, I do not feel her views nullify the points I have previously raised about alienating the 99%.

[jeannef]

Agree with madskeptic. She does this to *everyone*, thinking controversy and just plain nastiness passes for journalism. She wants a following--and she's got one, and you will not see them at any Occupy event (except perhaps to disrupt). I'd rather see serious discussion about negative points within Occupy come out of the movement than come at the hands of a local blogger who just wants attention--the same way the disruptor on Saturday wanted attention (and got it). Same MO, one does it physically, one does it online. At least the vet on Saturday IDed himself. I'd be more concerned with MSM who usually gets it right, and doesn't (such as Dave Lucas, WAMC, on Sunday). A regular press briefing is a terrific idea. We are controlling this story! Therefore we give them what we want! ;-)

[jeannef]

Additional thought: right off the bat CitizenOne lies. She is NOT on the inside "Tales from the Inside"), though she thinks she is/wants to be (because she's so *important*), and there is not really an "inside" to Occupy in the first place. Ask her to come to a GA meeting and speak in person, rather than vacuum up necessary open debate online and deliberately twist it. Somebody needs to reach out to her and issue her an invite. The response will be instructive.

[madskeptic]

Oct 31, 2011 15:05:01 GMT -5 jeannef said:

A regular press briefing is a terrific idea. We are controlling this story! Therefore we give them what we want! ;-)

In regard to reaching the Main Stream Media, a proxy may be a way to help get the message out. Yes, the webpage can be used but I think a good working relationship with an established outlet like the Metroland could be beneficial. They recently ran a story so I guess they are already covering things but I wouldn't know. If someone isn't emailing them with info, etc., they should be.

[hz]

yep.

We have a list of over 150 press contacts that we reach out to about 5 times a week with specific press releases.

Also echoing the sentiment that citizenone is not worth worrying about. To my knowledge she is not considered a 'serious journalist'

[madskeptic]

Oct 31, 2011 15:23:41 GMT -5 hz said:

Also echoing the sentiment that citizenone is not worth worrying about. To my knowledge she is not considered a 'serious journalist'

Like I said, I really don't know who you guys are actively working with.

As for Theresa Grafflin, I wouldn't consider her a journalist at all. She is a blogger who thinks she's "famous". More specifically, she's a blogger trying to sell advertising space with controversy/conflict. Should anyone go to her site, you'll see several places where she's looking for ads. Nothing wrong with that in itself. However, she says things that are demonstrably false in an effort to generate traffic and is trying to parlay that traffic into income. I view her as a sad, local attempt at being an Andrew Breitbart. I seem to recall her lying about a PEF/CSEA rally in 2009 or 2010 (it was against Paterson's furlough attempts) and using something she claims she overheard someone saying on the perimeter of the rally -- hardly using reliable sources. Someone corrected her misinformation but I don't remember her ever responding to the criticism.

-------------------
edit: I shouldn't have said "Like I said". Something like "like I implied" or something like that.

I don't know who's talking to who.

[denmarkvesey]

who cares

[Sebastien Barre]

Her coverage of OA is irrelevant, don't waste your time on it. Even acknowledging her post is given this blog the importance it feels entitled too.