Re media coverage of--and responses to the Occupy protests.

It's safe to say that there are three essential responses by the mainstream media to demonstrations:
1. They're unseemly! 
2. They're full of all sorts of groups with different agendas!
3. Not THAT many people are out there demonstrating!

Here's a recent Glenn Greenwald Salon.com article about responses to Occupy Wall Street:
http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/28/protests_21/

Links to articles about Occupy Wall Street and Los Angeles protests:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/protesters-set-up-camp-in-front-of-los-angeles-city-hall.html
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/occupy_la_wall_street_proteste.php
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/29/nation/la-na-wall-street-protest-20110930

Now, some observations from commenters on the KABC-7 website:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8375524
"A bunch of losers possessed with a sense of entitlement. Where's a firing squad when you need one?"
"The 60's was a FAD for me but it seems to be a lifestyle for these people... somehow they haven't grown past it!"
"Wow. That's the best negative comments you can make? Pathetic. My husband and many friends went today, they ALL have jobs and they ALL pay taxes. Corporations don't. That needs to change."

[UPDATE 10/4/11: Some more recent links to pro-and-con Occupy Wall Street articles:]
http://www.observer.com/2011/10/from-blackout-to-circus-the-evolution-of-media-coverage-at-occupy-wall-street/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_and_the_creation_of_the_post_obama_left_.html
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/04/andrew_ross_sorkins_assignment_editor/
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/04/occupy_wall_st_right_wing/
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163767/we-are-all-human-microphones-now?rel=emailNation

Frank Rich on Obama hearting Wall Street/Big Business.

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/obama-economy/presidents-failure/

Certainly an article worth reading, though Rich loses his original thesis part of the way through to cheerlead for Obama's re-election by a voluminous recounting of the myriad sins of Mitt Romney, who's probably the most obvious used-car salesman of a Presidential candidate since John Edwards (who may have actually believed in a few of the populist notions he espoused).

My choices for People of the Year.

Purely subjective choices for People of the Year:

1. Joe Lieberman--the man who gives aid and comfort to Republicans,

conservative Democrats and the health insurance lobbyists who love them.

2. Stanley McChrystal--this generation's version of the general

who once croaked "old soldiers never die, they just fade away"

and prompted President Harry Truman to remove him for defiance

regarding the Korean War; President Obama, facing a similar situation

with Afghanistan, meekly rolled over instead.

3. Lloyd Blankfein--head of Goldman Sachs, the bank

which apparently keeps Gordon Gekko's motto "greed works"

to heart.

4. Jeff Zucker--the man who has made NBC what it isn't today.

5. Oprah Winfrey--the talk-show megamogul who's moving from

syndication to ruler of her own cable network (acronym OWN)

6. Tiger Woods--from all the recent chatter, one would think

that he's the first-ever sports celeb to ever have affairs. Now

the media has shifted to wondering how much endorsement

money he stands to lose.

Re the Goldman Sachs megaprofiting.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/14/trading-stock-underwriting-propel-goldman-to-record-profit/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/07/15/goldman/index.html?source=newsletter
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/07/16/on-goldmans-giganto-profits/