The pepper spray incident at UC Davis went predictably viral and the fallout has begun with suspensions of the officers involved and an investigation by the Chancellor. It won’t end there. The shit has hit the proverbial fan and it will be flung far and wide before this incident is reviewed and likely adjudicated:
"As some faculty members called for her ouster, the chancellor of UC Davis launched an inquiry Saturday into the pepper-spraying of apparently peaceful Occupy Davis protesters by campus police.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-occupy-uc-davis-20111120,0,2407596.story
Oakland occupiers make a move:
OAKLAND — “Anti-Wall Street protesters took over a vacant lot and adjacent park in downtown Oakland late Saturday and erected a tent camp to replace one torn down by police, setting the stage for a potential showdown.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45374977/ns/us_news-life/#.Tskf3HLNn90
Once again we’ve been treated to a comical rendition of alleged journalism courtesy of our friends at the Los Angeles Times. Here’s a line from the Times hit-piece on the allegation of panhandling by Occupy Los Angeles protesters:
"Occupy L.A. representatives didn't dispute the claim, noting that many of the protesters don't have jobs or money.”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la-mall-20111119,0,4490661.story
Let’s go ahead and dispute this claim. Did panhandling in Downtown Los Angeles begin with the Occupation Movement? According to the Los Angeles Times the social ills that have plagued the Skid Row area are all of a sudden attributable to the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Los Angeles protests. Only a member of the Central City Association would come up with such a bogus angle, but none of the other CCA members own a major newspaper to propagandize and misrepresent the peripheral issues or the affiliations of those associated with this political movement.
We’ve already disputed earlier claims that crime has increased with our presence on the south lawn of City Hall. Crime in Downtown L.A. has remained the same; it has merely shifted locations. The same problems and troublemakers that were previously managed by the police and the Skid Row community are now being managed by us at the occupation. While it’s exhausting to deal with this flood of camp issues, we understand that they come with the territory.
So we've been provided with another example of how mainstream news organizations have made blatant attempts to divert attention from the message and falsely associate political activists with the criminals who were here in numbers long before the occupation began. When the Occupy Los Angeles activists change locations, what sort of story will the Times write about the crime and panhandling that continues after (as it did before)? Who will get the blame for poverty, crime and homelessness then? Will the Central City Association ever accept some of the responsibility? They are after all, the civic leaders and the people that control the purse strings of government, charities and organizations that are supposed to serve the people that the Times writes about, so how do we end up with the blame for the social ills that have plagued the “Central City” for decades?
Only in the biased, slanted view of an L.A. Times hit-piece can this argument be considered valid. As if to add a ridiculous twist to the story, we find the Los Angeles Times assertion that their claims were “not disputed” by anyone here. Obviously, the Times provided no opportunity to dispute anything, let along specious allegations made by people we’ve never met. How does the Times know who was shoplifting at CVS? If this report had any integrity, the Times would have checked whether or not the statistic had any merit by comparing it with the previous rate or other CVS locations.
What other claims will the Times make that are validated only by their lack of journalistic integrity? When legitimate journalists make unsubstantiated allegations, it is considered proper procedure to allow the accused to respond. The Times made no such effort. The facts of the story are suspect, the motives rather transparent, so we’ll let the Times continue to provide examples of their shoddy work and evidence of their bias. Thanks.
We've been asked to provide links to Teach-In videos from November 12-13, so here they are:
Robert Reich - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b7CM-5BgQc
Robert Scheer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA4lKRQg5h0
William Black - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_AuvLTJNh0
Joel Roders - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6heuj04gos
Ellen Brown - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sp8oREsvW0
From Ray Lutz at Occupy SD, this e-mail from an Occupy SD observer/protester:
“Now police are trying to starve the Occupiers out of Civic Center. They actually stopped a lady and told her she couldn't bring 2 pizzas into Civic Center. She could only bring in what she could consume. A young lady mic checked (yelled/asked what was happening) real quick and the crowd ran up and got some pizza. The young lady then asked them/SDPD to stop making up laws that don't exist and the female cop threatened to arrest her for Public Intoxication.
“I think it is a shame that the City Council and the Mayor are using the SDPD to harass and annoy these young people who are only trying to exercise their rights to peaceably protest, under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Their right to assembly and their right of free speech has been infringed upon by the SD City Government - all of it and you all should be ashamed of yourselves!”
And so should the Los Angeles Times.
Recent comments