The media and other public communication work by Occupy Melbourne has been great the last few days. Some comment is required though. There have been reports in the corporate media that 'spokespeople' and lawyers have made various comments on behalf of Occupy Melbourne. For example, last night SBS suggested that Occupy Melbourne will disrupt the Queen's visit – possibly by blocking trams. Maybe this isn't such a bad idea and people have every right to do it if they want to. But I have attended Occupy Melbourne demoes and I am uncomfortable being ‘represented’ in the corporate media in this way, especially by people that I have never even met. I also believe that if this precedent continues it may create problems for the movement.
The process at Occupy Melbourne is that ‘representation’ as such should not occur. The only way that Occupy Melbourne can be truly quoted is through a resolution at a general assembly. The role of media workers and lawyers is liaison and advice – that is all. Can the people who have been quoted in the corporate media in this way please put out clarification messages via Indymedia or the Occupy Melbourne website? If they did not wish to present themselves as ‘representatives’ or ‘spokespeople’ for Occupy Melbourne can they please make it clear – publicly – that they ought not be quoted as such? If they did actually present themselves as such, can they please explain to us what they were doing and make a public statement that they made a mistake?
It may be that Occupy Melbourne wants to change the ground rules to allow representatives - including lawyers - to speak on behalf of all of us without a general assembly resolution to endorse it. If 90% agree to that, I will go along but the movement may well fail as a result. Many people may drop their support for Occupy Melbourne if they see 'elites' emerge within the movement who start speaking on behalf of everyone else. It will also make it easier for the corporate media, the police and state elites to characterise us as a movement run by 'self-interested' activists, 'do-goodie' lawyers and 'minor political parties' (which we are not). As a member of the 99% I am protesting against the 1% of people who claim to represent me. I prefer to represent myself through a process of direct - not elitist - democracy.
Of course everyone has the right to talk to the media and injured people ought to empower their lawyers to represent them if they choose. They don’t have to be identified as ‘Occupy Melbourne’ though in order to do that. They can simply say who they are and if they do represent someone state who that it is – ‘Bill Smith from the Greens’; ‘Jan Blow from Carson and Carson’; or ‘John Snow – one of the 99%’ (or just ‘John Snow’).
Thanks again to all those who have appeared in the media, done the legal work and have made everything possible. Your work has been great. Solidarity.
Comments
Stories will be sensationalised, people will exceed their remit
Hi there,
I've done some occasional work for the OM media working group in the last week.
On the whole, we've been careful to not venture anything that hasn't been explicitly agreed to at one of OM's General Assemblies. At the same time, we can't stop other people purporting to represent OM from speaking to the media and they may not feel similarly constrained.
In the case of the QEII story, from what I saw it got legs in the media before anyone who participated in OM was quoted. They then found someone from outside the media working group who was willing to speculate about what a great opportunity it would be for a protest, and the story was beat up from there. When journalists called the media working group to inquire about the story, they were told that the issue had not been canvassed by OM, there were thusfar no plans to protest and they should attend the GA outside the State Library if they wanted to know about OM's next move.
IMO this sort of thing is inevitable given OM's amorphous nature. Stories will be sensationalised and people involved will exceed their remit.
Very different things to me
I'm curious to know which which statements by lawyers "representing" OM you are referring to? There have been multiple comments made by the volunteer legal support group and community legal centres critiquing and condeming police violence but none that I have seen ever claiming to "represent" the movement? Do you draw that distinction between condeming state violence and " speaking on behalf of"? They are very different things to me.
Condemning state violence should be applauded
Thanks for your comment Anthony. No I am not referring to comments made by the legal group and community legal centres but the way that legal aspects of the Occupy Melbourne stories have been portrayed in the media. I did not claim in my article that the legal team/centres etc have purported to represent OM. Condemning state violence should be applauded. And I agree with you that this is quite different to 'speaking on behalf of'. Please contact me via my contact page if you would like to discuss this further. Cheers.
A few trams altered/improved for our international visitors
Look, it's excellent media. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia belongs to Australia, not England. It's lovely that a few of the trams have been altered/improved for our international visitors. Perhaps we should seek to raise standards for our selves and not just our visitors? I'M SICK OF THE STINKY TRAM. Anyway, see you at the picnic on Saturday?
Love M>A>Neofitou.
QEII story got legs in the media before anyone in OM was quoted
In the case of the QEII story, from what I saw it got legs in the media before anyone who participated in OM was quoted. They then found someone from outside the media working group who was willing to speculate about what a great opportunity it would be for a protest, and the story was beat up from there.