The Occupy Wall Street movement has captured the curiosity of the media, as well as the imagination of social change activists across the country. This is in no small part because of the new model of organizing that the 99% are testing.

I recently participated in an open-mic discussion about Occupy Wall Street as a “leader-full” (as opposed to a leader-less) movement. Hosted by the New Organizing Institute, the forum brought together a diverse audience of progressive activists who shared their experiences working within this communal method of protesting.

The Sunset of the Leader as Hero?

Traditional protest movements had clear, visible leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cesar Chavez. Candidate campaigns typically operate on a “top-down” model, with an inner circle of people calling all the shots and doling out very specific tasks to volunteers. Over many years, these campaign models essentially trained the media and the masses to expect attractive spokespeople rattling off poll-tested talking points. As a result, the Occupy movement is under a lot of pressure to put forth credible leaders who will supply a list of demands.

Goodbye Hierarchy, Hello Network

But OWS operates on an entirely different model. If it had an organizational chart, that chart would be round. Leaders remain behind the scenes, and decisions are made on the ground, by the participants. And while it’s true that Twitter has replaced the phone tree for peer-to-peer communications, the real power of online communication is what it enables people to accomplish offline. So, although protesters are uploading photos to Facebook and posting cell phone videos to YouTube, OWS really is an on-the ground experience. That’s where the decisions are made, and where strategy is decided. And while there is no ability for someone to come in and run the show, there is room for anyone to step into a leadership role. Many contend that this model of shared leadership makes the movement more resilient and more easily scaled, because there is no single leadership bottleneck.

Pros & Cons

This model is proving challenging for some, and inspirational for others. Several forum participants expressed frustration with a lack of direction: (Comments paraphrased.)

I’m concerned about the Occupy movement. Usually in a campaign, there’s a clear consensus, a clear ask. How can we measure the outcome when we don’t have a clear goal? How will we know if and when we’ve succeeded?

I’m less interested in whether we’re using Twitter or Facebook, and more interested in the fact that we’re getting pummeled politically. Where is there room in this process for a discussion about actually getting things done?

Without a goal, this is mainly a spectacle. I noticed there has been a move encouraging people to withdraw their money from big banks, and that’s great. But it took two months for that to happen.

Despite these frustrations, others actually saw the movement’s ambiguity as a benefit.

The occupy movement has changed the dialogue in this country. The majority of Americans agree with the general sentiment of Occupy. Once we start getting specific on legislative requests, we lose people. You can see this with the Anti-War movement. People look at them and say, ‘We know what they’re about, so we don’t need to pay attention.’ The real power of Occupy is that it is inspiring others who agree with the general sentiment to step up and do something about it, such as the ‘move your money’ day.

The civil rights movement didn’t start off with one goal. It started because people were pissed off and said, ‘We’ve got to do something.” Eventually, goals came from that, but it took a while.

Not having goals and talking points is a strength. It inspires people to join for their own reason.

Whether you call it a leader-less or leader-full movement, the media and the masses are going to continue pressing OWS to produce leaders who will articulate clear goals. Many inside are urging OWS to resist that pressure. So is Lemony Snicket, a prolific children’s books author, who recently published “Thirteen Observations made by Lemony Snicket while watching Occupy Wall Street from a Discreet Distance.” Observation #10 states, “It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.” Perhaps the real victory of OWS is the shift of the power dynamic around who gets to be heard on the economy and our nation’s values.

(Image courtesy of flickr user Michael of Scott)

. . .

Renee Alexander is LightBox Collaborative Collaborator and thinks Lemony Snicket should rule the world.

First there was no coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Now there’s tons of coverage and it’s endlessly frustrating. The media keep asking, “What do they want? What are their demands? What will make them go home? Why zombies?”

Ok. I admit, quite a few of us are asking that last question.

But it’s really frustrating that it’s so hard for the mainstream media to wrap their heads around an action that is organic, loosely organized and not sound bite ready. Sure, there’s the rare reporter who gets it and some articulate protestors, but the media is mostly churning out crummy coverage that misses the point and dismisses the effort.

It’s as if most reporters can’t figure out something that anyone who has ever been in line at the bank can tell you: people are fed up with the lack of opportunity and the imbalance of power that has been brewing for years. It’s come to a head in a double-dip recession and a post-Citizens-United election environment — and so people have taken to the streets.

The issue is: there are issues

The problems manifest themselves in different ways for different people. Many can’t find a job that pays the bills. Some people have lost their homes. Others are doing okay right now, but are frustrated by the fact that if calamity befalls them, they know that Congress won’t bail them out.

The problems are as numerous as the protesters. But the through line is this: Where is our safety net? Where is our bailout? And when did our country stop supporting and — as it often seems — caring about people who are not ultra-wealthy or ultra-connected? There is no single demand or set of demands that can address that question. It requires a culture shift and a reorientation of our priorities as a nation.

Are communications professionals part of the problem?

And it’s my fault that the media can’t figure that out. Well, me and people like me.

Communications professionals have been helping nonprofits and grassroots organizers design winning media campaigns — with bullet point messages, concise calls to action, and prepared spokespeople. The media eat these campaigns up. We win some and we lose some, but when we do get coverage, the media usually has the story straight.

But by preparing so well and always giving the media what they want, the way they want it, have we rendered them unable to understand a grassroots movement without a central messenger? Media look for the single fact sheet that will answer all their questions about the Occupy Wall Street protests, and in this case there simply isn’t one.

What’s the solution?

When I see coverage like this, I usually want to jump in, develop the talking points, frame the story, and pitch it so the media can deliver it. But this time is different. I feel solidarity with the premise that there are far too many issues, too many problems in this country, and too many opportunities for solving them than should be boiled down to make Occupy Wall Street media-ready.

I am not sure if this means I am losing my edge or just finding the exception that proves the rule. Yet, I find myself feeling like I am part of the messy media coverage of this historic moment and wondering how I (and you other communications folks out there) can be part of the solution.

(Image courtesy Flickr user _PaulS_, Creative Commons)
. . .

Amanda Cooper is a LightBox collaborator who recognizes she is one of the lucky ones in the 99% because she gets to do the work she loves and earn a living from it. For now.