From TVSpy:
KGW, the NBC-affiliate in Portland, is under fire after accidentally airing a graphic listing numbers of “stinky people” and “angry people” at Occupy Portland.
The graphic (pictured below) aired briefly, for less than a second, in the middle of the opening graphics sequence on the noon newscast Wednesday. “Somebody punched the wrong button, basically,” KGW news director Rick Jacobs told Willamette Week.
Full story:
KGW Airs Graphic Counting ‘Stinky People’ and ‘Angry People’ at Occupy Portland
In other news, an occupy protestor attacked TV news reporters in NYC. Proof positive they are clueless:
A disgruntled Occupy Wall Street protestor confronted WNYW‘s John Huddy this morning, as he was covering the latest developments in Zuccotti Park, and the situation quickly turned ugly.
“This is somebody I’ve come across several times for the last few days,” Huddy told viewers following the altercation. “He threatened to stab me in the throat with a pen. He ripped the mic out of my hand.”
That won’t help. I can tell you this, in my own small world of TV and radio contacts, the sense of the “occupy” movement seems to be one of arm’s length satirical treatment. When the media starts panning a movement privately, organizers might want to think twice about what they are doing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1.
Kevin Harris says:
October 28, 2011 at 9:38 am
Hello Anthony,
I generally enjoy reading your blog, but I find your recent negative coverage of the Occupy to be disturbing for two reasons…..
_________________________________
I would not call this negative coverage of Occupy, instead it is catching the News Media in a Candid Camera moment.
Our local news paper got caught in a similar moment when a internal joke headline got sent to print by mistake and made it to the public.
The editor in Chief of the paper was forced to resign.
I wonder whose head will roll for this one.
Still, it gives a good look at the real opinion of this news media vs the “politically correct” official stance.
“18% are willing to pay 20% more than they currently are for Fair Trade-certified pizza.”
18% of free is still free, or more accurately is just additional expense paid by those who actually work for their living, using their disposable income to subsidize the OWSers.
I’m really disappointed in all the hostility. I’m used to a way more civil tone on this blog.
Also,I wish you all wouldn’t extrapolate from my my comments. I’m not calling anyone names. I don’t believe that being a skeptic comes with any inherent political affiliation.
What I’m saying is that being overly critical of the occupy movement increases the perception of the proCAGW that politics are more important than science to the skeptical community.
If you feel the need to continue hating, by all means, continue to do so.
I believe one of the primary things the OWS folks are saying is that
rich people have a lot of money and poor people don’t have a lot of money.
Beyond that, the OWS folks don’t seem to agree on much.
🙂
Kevin Harris says:
October 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm
What I’m saying is that being overly critical of the occupy movement increases the perception of the proCAGW that politics are more important than science to the skeptical community.
Nah Kevin –
Being overly critical of the occupy “movement” only shows that one is a rational person.
“Breathing” increases the perception of the pro-CAGW folks that politics are more important than science to the skekptical community.
Which is somewhat odd since to the pro-CAGW folks, politics is more important than science.
Odd, that.
🙂
pat says:
October 28, 2011 at 9:47 am . . . . . “regarding these scum.”
50 Amazing Numbers About the Economy
Motley Fool
In 1952, corporate taxes were 6.1% of GDP, and employment taxes were 1.8% of GDP. In 2009, corporate taxes were 1% of GDP, and employment taxes were 6.3% of GDP. 46. The day after Standard & Poor’s downgraded US Treasuries was the second best day for …
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/21/50-amazing-numbers-about-the-economy-.aspx
Johnwho,
That’s two good points that I can definitely agree with.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm
[In stunning detail, KD answers H.R.’s question re OWS demands]
Brilliant!
And – no kidding – it’s probably worse than you thought.
@ur momisugly Kevin –
I had to go back and read to see if I actually made two points.
🙂
We no’d it wuz BIG AhWUL wut dun sneekt it in thayur. Hit wuz BIG AhWUL wat STOLE AhR glObaL WARMin too.
Just in kase you thawt we fergot about all them world endin climut stuff.
Yew has got yer foot on ahr nek ayund wee aint gonna take thayut any mower.
Do you wawnt to SUPER SIZE them FRIES?
I expect the OWSers will all be gone as the weather turns and I won’t be sad to see them go. Not so many decades ago my upper-ish middle class parents paid my state college tuition (about $600) and gave me $30 a week toward expenses (I still lived at home). I was grateful for the help. I knew it was a lot more than their parents were able to do for them for them (my dad grew up as an impoverished sharecropper in the deep south).
When I moved out from home I had nothing but an old Honda CVCC (the really tiny one) and a few thousand dollars I’d saved from working various part-time jobs. Since then, I’ve worked hard to make a living and build a happy life for my family. As the businesses I started became more successful, I directly created good jobs for literally hundreds of people. I still work every day. My wife worked every day until she was laid off in February. Today, according to a chart I just saw, I’m well into the upper .5% based on net worth (which includes our battered retirement savings). I just don’t get it. *I’m* supposed to be the fat-cat getting rich by cheating the common man? I still get nice notes from folks thanking me for the creating a job and career opportunity for them.
I think a lot of regular people, who may not go out and protest, still buy into the idea of this mythical “fat-cat” class. I know people who have been more successful than I (well into the upper tenth of one percent) and they worked hard for their success too. They could probably retire and live comfortably on their savings for the rest of their lives – but they don’t. They’re still working too. I guess there may be a very small number of uber-wealthy crooks who got there by screwing everyone else. But they are flukes. The world just doesn’t work that way. The Madoff types are very, very rare (and I think most are in jail).
OWS.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/pair-living-with-occupy-boston-protesters-arrested-for-selling-heroin/
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/accusations-of-teen-runaway-sexual-activity-at-occupy-dallas/
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/24/is-occupy-oakland-as-bad-as-they-say/?singlepage=true
http://www.breitbart.tv/were-the-occupy-oakland-protesters-non-violent/
http://www.breitbart.tv/occupyoakland-real-talk-this-fcked-up-system-makes-us-racists-violent/
http://www.breitbart.tv/occupydayton-protester-fck-the-military-fck-your-flag-and-fck-the-police/
And remember how the left (and climate warmists) described the Tea Party as a mob?
Where is grandma when you need her. Parenting is not what it used to be.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9MiS9tn_r4&w=560&h=315%5D
I, for one, would appreciate that your comments address some subject or an issue directly or perhaps someone specific, otherwise, I feel like they are addressed to everyone and that is a very broad brush you are painting with and not everyone is deserving of that ‘brush’ …
.
Kevin, calling the OWS crowd names is free speech. I for one believe they are selfish, hypocritical leftists who may be in the pay of people whose only interest is to damage the economy of this country as much as possible. Or they may be idiots who were too stupid to get an education that would enable them to get profitable employment upon graduation from college. Or they are kids from families who are themselves rich, and are merely doing what a lot of kids from upper class liberal families do until they mature and turn into capitalists. Or they are opportunistic homeless people taking advantage of the situation and getting free food and shelter. But more likely they are a combination of all the above. Regardless, the AGW crowd will always think skeptics are evil, ignorant, corrupt people, no matter how much we try to be civil.
oMan says:
October 28, 2011 at 9:52 am
“Anthony: “…organizers might want to think twice about what they are doing.” That statement assumes a number of facts not in evidence: (a) that there indeed “organizers””
This should answer the question of whether there are indeed organizers.
http://www.breitbart.tv/chicagos-chuck-goudie-wls-tv-tells-truth-about-occupys-radical-origins-bigotry/
(I mean, how silly is that question to begin with. As if some losers randomly aggregate at some place, all having camping equipment with them. Even if they were, say, the usual suspects of the black blocs in Europe, somebody would have to be in charge of organizing the gathering, no? Even if they’re professionals in covering up their traces.)
re: JohnWho says: October 28, 2011 at 2:21 pm
What he said! :0)
Laurie,
I was just looking at tax numbers. The corporate tax rate and the Capital Gains rate have been pretty steady since the inception of income and earnings taxes. What has changed is the top marginal rate for wage earners. With the exception of the Depression (the real one) this rate was between 70 & 90 %. Until about 1986. The rate for median income earners has increased a few percentage points (although the real rate – which I believe represents what is actually paid after deductions – has only increased by about 1%).
After looking at this, I have to admit some support for the concept of increasing the tax rate on say the top 1% of earners. Of course the devil is in the details.
Where the OWS folks lose me is with the anti-corporation talk. How many times do we hear about evil Big Oil getting billions in subsidies and not paying taxes. Imagine my surprise last night when CNN reported that last year Shell paid out taxes at a rate above 40%.
I just want to say that there are only a couple of comments that I was offended by.
Thank you to everyone else, especially to Anthony Watts. I only have two blogs that I follow religiously, and this is one of them. Obviously, we don’t agree on everything, but you provide the only climate relates website that provides a forum that allows uncensored civil disagreement.
I was in Seattle last weekend and wandered down from the hotel to the Occupy Seattle event at Westlake Center. I only observed the crowd for about 20 minutes, so what I experienced is a very small sample. There were several hundred people milling around in the square and I estimate there were at least 50 cops, mostly in bicycles. I could see four or five police vehicles, including a large van. I don’t know what Seattle is spending for all this police presence, but it has to be substantial. Lest anyone think this is excessive, in 1999 when the World Trade Organization held their meeting in Seattle there were riots. The city response at that time was tardy and inadequate.
I listened briefly to one speaker telling a story about the police shooting someone right in front of him and saying it wasn’t enough to end police brutality; we had to overthrow the whole f***ing system. The crowd cheered. I went into Westlake Center and did some shopping with my wife. Coming out 30 or so minutes later someone was leading the crowd in a responsorial chant (“we belive” … “WE BELIEVE” … “that we must adopt” .. “THAT WE MUST ADOPT” … “a policy of tolerance” … “A POLICY OF TOLERANCE” …). I couldn’t help but think of Animal Farm where the animals are taught the simplified rule that “Four legs good; two legs bad”, repeating it over and over. Power to the sheeple.
A cousin once removed (senior at a local University with sympathies for the protest) was there with her father, both carrying shopping bags from Mario’s (an extremely exclusive fashion store with locations in Seattle and Portland). My son observed that shopping at Mario’s automatically made you part of the 1%. I agreed and thought a picture of someone in the protest crowd with a Mario’s bag would be priceless.
However my main reason for this comment is to provide an historical perspective on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, which most people today do not appreciate. The text reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
If you want to weight the relative importance of these freedoms based on where they appear in the text, then the authors probably thought the freedom of religion was more important than the freedom of speech. But that’s not my point here.
The authors of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not just inventing stuff out of thin air; they were trying to correct the observed defects in the English law with which they were very familiar. Under the practice of times, the Crown could accuse anyone of “treason” for something said or written or communicated to others. The accused would be arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London until such time as it pleased the Crown to try him, by such a court as it pleased the Crown to appoint, which after due deliberation would return whatever verdict it pleased the Crown to demand. Whereupon the unfortunate wretch would be executed in whatever painful and degrading manner the Crown desired.
Thus the many detailed provisions in the US Constitution severely constraining the prosecution for “treason”, making it extremely difficult to do.
The First Amendment guarantee is for political speech and must be understood as additional protection against English practices of the times: anyone in the US has an absolute right to criticize the government, its policies, its elected or appointed officers and to communicate with others to enlist them in similar views; and to take such dissatisfaction to the government in the form of its elected and appointed officers and demand changes. And failing to receive redress, the people have the right to change their government through the electoral process.
However the First Amendment does *not* say that you can form a mob and stop other citizens from going about their lawful activities, or block access to public buildings, or in any other way create a public nuisance.
The intent of the First Amendment is fully realized in new media: you can post on blogs, or create your own. You can express your views to others in email, facebook pages, cell phones, and even put pen to paper and post in the mail. You can meet with others in person or virtual venues and enlist support. You can run for office or support others doing so who share your views. Your rights to do so completely free from government restraint or prosecution are guaranteed. This was a radical departure from the norms of the time.
But freedom of speech does not mean anyone, including the US government, has any obligation to provide you with a microphone or a venue or in any other way subsidise your political activities.
You have the right to say anything you believe, even if others think it is stupid. You do not have the right to force anyone to listen. If you stand on a corner on your podium and shout your message to the public who just pass you by, maybe the problem is your message.
I accept that people are greedy; certainly some big corporate CEOs are paid way beyond what I think their efforts are worth (ditto many movie stars and professional athletes). But the worst evils in history have been done by people greedy for power, even if they live personally ascetic lives. I’m much more worried about the public education bureaucracy which has taken hundreds of billions of dollars to run a monopoly cartel producing “graduates” who are completely inadequate to hold a job in the modern technical economy than I am about overpaid corporate executives.
And to try to bring this back to something within the sphere of WUWT’s focus, I am most worried about people who think we can empower some central government office to determine what we must spend to meet the threat of “catastrophic climate change”.
Living organisms, including people, can adapt to environmental changes. Just as societies of free individuals can solve most of the problems that come their way without a Big Brother to tell them what to do.
@Kevin Harris
Why should it not be so when, clearly, politics is more important than science, in the scientific community?
@Laurie Bowen
Are you saying we should raise corporate taxes? We are already so out of line high that we can’t compete with the rest of the world, to the detriment of those of us who see the need to remain employed.
@zmarkran
Very well said. The OWSer’s need to study the parable of the ant and the grasshopper. They are grasshoppers.
One of the best pieces of coverage I’ve seen is this video of 1%er Peter Schiff trying to dialogue with the OWSers in NY.
_Jim:
I appreciate your concern. My main concern is to differentiate us(CAGW Skeptics who oppose lunate alaiam from an informed perspective) from those who oppose climate alarmism from a purely political standpoint.
Jay Davis,
I agree to certain extent. Being of Jewish heritage, I almost jump out of my skin when someone calls me a denier. I truly believe that we can overcome the negativity by staying above their level. Maybe I’m an idealist, but I think that puts me in some pretty good company.
Mike G,
I wish there was an easy answer, but I would hate to answer your question with a platitude. It might sound trite, but hopefully we can overcome the attitudes of the uninformed with positivity and rationality.
I really appreciate your honest criticism.