Professional Documents
Culture Documents
] and
[
] with [
marks
whether or not a word is repeated across texts (and thus is more salient) by being equal to 1,
should the word appear in both texts, and to 0 in the opposite situation (ibid). The words
resonance across texts A and B, WR
AB
,
is calculated using:
(ibid)
Thus, the more often the same words are used across texts, the bigger their resonance will be and
the more those words were prominent in structuring the texts coherence (Corman et al. 2002,
178). However, the above formula is considered to be unstandardized, as WR will increase
proportionally to the texts length (ibid). In order to limit the influence of text length on the WR
a new formula is introduced:
( ibid)
Further indexing includes the estimation of pair resonance by using co-occurring word pairs, as
opposed to co-occurring words (Corman et al. 2002, 179). First, for words i and j in text T the
pair influence is calculated:
49
( ibid)
Here,
represents the number of times that words i and j co-occur (their corresponding nodes
are connected directly by an edge) (Corman et al. 2002, 179).
In order to calculate pair resonance a new indicator,
and
The type of data inputted determined the choice of OLS as a model. Both the dependent, and the
independent variables are highly processed, linearized indices (centers) representing the same
quantities (measures) and built using the same formulas. Thus, if there is a relationship between
the underlying phenomena (messages), it will be most accurately reflected in an OLS model.
Only individual centers were kept for this stage of the analysis. Center pairs were not included.
The main reason for this is the difficulty, programmatically, to detect identical center-pairs in
two different source materials. This occurs as each center pair name is artificially created by the
CRA software based on resonance scores of its individual components (i.e., a center pair
containing center1 and center2 may be described by Crawdad as center1|center2 in one corpus
and center2|center1 in the other). Further, some months (basically those before OWS was
mentioned in print media) were dropped for obvious reasons - it is nonsensical to assess that
there are linkages between OWSt's message and traditional media messages before there is any
print media mention of OWS. No additional control variables were taken into account as part of
the model. As the purpose of the paper is to analyze discourse, no quantifiable, objective controls
could be devised that were not taken into account by the complex CRA analysis. No temporal
lags were used either, as it is expected that news propagation is extremely fast (or at least far
faster than the one-month windows used within this study).
Overall, the combination of the quantitative and qualitative methods was believed to produce
both a reliable outcome and a nuanced one that could show how the chosen theories worked in
practice.
53
6. Analysis
Power and counterpower in the network society are a central theme of this paper, as the Occupy
Wall Street movement is aimed at shifting the balance of power through its online and offline
actions. Its main stated goal is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and
multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an
economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations (Occupywallst.org
2012). Therefore, their intentions are actually directed at what Castells (2009) called the
switchers, one of the two types of social actors holding true network making power and the basis
for all the other types of power within the network society. However, this paper is aimed at
seeing how the media content was used by the OWS in order to gain counter power, and to see
whether or not its mainstream media portrayal is similar to its own. As such, the various
differences and similarities between the two types of sources will be analyzed: first through the
monthly evolution of content and then by looking at the cumulated monthly content as a whole.
6.1 Brief description of the overall newspaper content on Occupy Wall Street
Before moving on to the monthly development of the OWS messages, a first look at the amount
of content produced by established media can give a better understanding of OWS popularity.
Thus, the OWS movement generated 668 news articles in The New York Times (1.83 articles
per day or approximately 1 article every 13 hours), 294 news articles in The Wall Street Journal
(0.805 articles per day or approximately 1 article every 1.2 days) and 107 news articles in USA
Today (0.2961 articles/day or approx. 1 article every 3.5 days) (see appendix. 1 for details). Note
that no articles were published about Occupy Wall Street in any of the three major newspapers
before street protest erupted in New York City in the middle of September 2011. Further, in the
'hottest' of months (October and November 2011), with the exception of USA Today in October,
all three newspapers had, on average, at least one daily article concerning or referring to Occupy
Wall Street. The New York Times reached an absolute peak, with 171 articles published in
October 2011, a rate of 5.51 articles per day or 1 article every 4.5 hours, making it one of their
54
most covered subjects. NYT's coverage of Occupy Wall Street in October 2011 was above that
of Iraq (138 articles), Afghanistan (123 articles) or even the killing of Gaddafi, a major event
taking place in October 2011 (86 articles using Qaddafi, the canonical The New York Times
spelling, 2 with other spellings) (Factiva 2011).
6.2 Monthly evolution
In the next pages, I will be going through the CRA maps and top center pairs lists produced by
Crawdad and using the previously discussed theories, will analyze the CRA results. This will be
organized by month and by source. I will start with OccupyWallSt.orgs content which is
considered the movements original documents (Wodak 1995 in Blommaert and Bulcaen
2000, 450) and move on to the three national newspapers. As previously stated, the only content
about the OWS in July and August 2011 can be found on OccupyWallSt.org (OWSt), thus no
comparative analysis of top center pairs can be done for these months. Also, occasionally the
center pairs movement Occupy and movement Occupy Wall Street appear instead of Occupy
movement and Occupy Wall Street movement in the CRA top centers lists. For the purpose of
making the present paper more readable, they have been presented as Occupy movement and
Occupy Wall Street movement in the following pages. However, the analysis results are not
changed, since the most resonant individual centers are also identified separately. All the
monthly CRA maps as well as the tops of centers and center pairs are available in Appendix 2.
July 2011 on OccupyWallSt.org
The first month for which data is available is July 2011. As stated above, data for it exists only
on the OccupyWallSt.org website. Most of the content is a call-to-arms and is focused on
building legitimacy. In fact, the first three months in the life of the OccupyWallSt.org, can be
considered as being heavily focused on network making focused on a combination of goals: both
power-making (or, more appropriately, counter-power) and culture-making (Castells 2009).
Additionally, the content of the website strives to create the legitimacy for wanting this type of
power. As such, their July communication is centered on terms that evoke legitimacy through
55
representativeness (Entman 1993) with center pairs that are mostly combinations of the center
people and the centers Wall Street, assembly, Bloombergville, time, bull, decades-old, new,
Yorker, nation, voice, deadline, available, and general. In fact, of the thirty one top center-pairs
found by Crawdad, thirteen (41.9%) are pairs built with people. These help create an
unambiguous image of the group that OWS wants to organize (a general and all-inclusive the
people) and the grounds for this to happen: Wall Street, the need to have a voice based on or for
the nation and with a basis that is decades-old. The malleable delimitation of, or the lack thereof,
their target supporters is a normal step in the beginning of the counter-power building process.
This starts more like a mutual self discovery and recognition and as such, it is different from the
situation where traditional, mainstream holders of power can impose ideas onto their decided and
well-studied target audience. Bloombergville, an encampment to intensify and strengthen the
struggle against austerity in New York City (Bloombergvillenow.org 2011), is part of the sixth
most resonant center pair and creates a bridge between what has already been started in the
direction of OWS goals and what the new movement intends to do in its future.
The second most resonant center is Wall Street, found in nine of the thirty one center pairs
(29.03%). This is combined with: people, August, assembly, occupation, bull, cutback, new,
Yorker, September. While the first most resonant center (people: both stand-alone with a
resonance of 0.3592 and in pairs with 0.123) defines who us is for the OWS, the second one
(Wall Street) defines them, not quite the enemy but not quite far from that either. Answering the
question of who are we? versus who are the ones whose values were fighting against? is a
basic element in the definition of counter-power on the backdrop of established power. The way
this second most resonant center is combined also refers to legitimacy through representativeness
(people), as well as the cause of their discontent (cutbacks) and the means or technique of
reacting to the status-quo: the August 2 general assembly, at the Wall Street bull, speaking to
New Yorkers as their primary audience and a reiterated promise of future actions in the form of
occupations in September. The message is simple enough, clear enough and straightforward
enough that its resonant elements become the central focus of the discourse. Additionally, the
focus on organizational issues also shows the complementing connective and collective core
(Bennett and Segerberg 2012) of the movement. Thus, on one hand OWSt is providing its
audience with personalized messages (the basis of connective action), while on the other it
56
provides them with the tools for loose coordination of action (a moderate form of collective
action) (756).
Overall, the ratio of the stand-alone resonance of the center Wall Street versus the people is 1:2.
So, while both of them are extremely important in organizing the message, it is fair to state that
the focus is on gaining the attention and support of the people for the OWS rather than vilifying
their opponent, at least for the time being.
August 2011 on OccupyWallSt.org
The second month of online presence for OWSt focuses on clarifying the reasons why their
actions are necessary (the center right was verified with the OWS articles so that it refers to the
noun and not the adjective). This center is present in 67.7% of the most resonant center pairs and
is combined with: economic, adequate, large, opportunity, nation, decent, new, home, protection,
job, old, family, political, good, human, nonviolence, tenacity, strategic, state, medical,
language. Thus, most references are to substantive frames of either moral judgments (decent,
adequate, good, and human) or remedies to problematic situations (economic, human or medical
rights and opportunities). These issues are in line with social discontent with the values of
capitalism that Castells (2007) noted as being a part of a general trend that has, in recent years,
generated social movements. There are also references to procedural frames of legitimacy
through representativeness or technique: nation, family, human, on the one hand, and
nonviolence and tenacity on the other. In fact, the top six center pairs (all combinations with
right) are followed by the pair general assembly, a direct reference to their techniques
(procedural frame).
The second center that colonizes the meaning of the text is economic which is present in 22.6%
of the most salient center pairs, and is resonant with: right, adequate, large, day, freedom,
opportunity, and nation. As was the case of the previous month, the second most salient term
refers to a problematic situation and its remedies, both substantive frames. Other references are
made as two combinations of people and percent (the rich and affluent one percent vs. the
57
oppressed ninety nine percent) or assembly, as well as a more superfluous combination of
assembly and meeting.
August is the first month when Occupy Wall Street becomes a resonant center in the articles on
OccupyWallSt.org, but for now it appears only in the lower half of the top most resonant centers.
The overall primary focus on substantive frames, those which define the movement, rather than
justify its presence, demonstrates the evolution of the OccupyWallSt.org message from July to
August. Also, this type of frame is more appropriate for this particular stage when they are
defining the goals of the alternative network that it was building (Castells 2009, 420).
September 2011 on OccupyWallSt.org
September 2011 is when the actual OWS physical actions began. It is also the month when the
communication on the website explodes: from 455 nodes in the previous month to 1306 in the
current one. This also means that the content is no longer focused on one center that organizes
most of the text but that, instead, more varied centers are introduced. The center pair with the
highest salience score is general assembly, a procedural frame. However, the preferred center for
center pairs this month is the police, present in 29% of the center pairs in combinations with:
protester, assembly, September, public, plaza, square, member, event and demonstrator, thus
focusing on problematic interactions with the law and falling within the category of substantive
frames. This particular type of focus is aimed at showing to its public OWS ability to oppose
preexistent and taken for granted modes of interaction with established power, which in fact is
the defining quality of counter-power (Castells 2007, 239).
The second most present center within pairs, with 25% of the cases, is September, combined
with: occupation, wall-street, police, assembly, American, financial, group, general. The
resulting image of these co-occurrences is one of fixed techniques (occupations, assemblies) as
well as references to problematic situations or interactions (financial, police). With a slightly
higher resonance score than September, but somewhat less connected (19%) within the text is
people which appears in conjunction with occupation, assembly, power, group, Wall-Street, and
solidarity. These pairs help build the frame of legitimacy due to representativeness (assemblies
58
and occupations as well as wanting power become legitimate as they come through the actions of
the people).
September 2011 - The New York Times
September 2011 is the first month of media coverage of the movement which is now actually
present in the streets of New York. As expected from the literature (Rauch et al. 2007, Edgerly,
Toft and Veden 2011, Atton and Wickenden 2005) the focus is on the normative and legitimate
from the point of view of the authorities. Thus, the most resonant center pair is police
department, the second one is New York police, whereas the most resonant center is police
followed by New York. The most resonant center is also the most connected within the top center
pairs as it is present in 48.4% of them. It is linked to: department, New York, protester, people,
demonstration, city, page, inspector, street, Browne, Saturday, union, week, official, deputy.
This means that almost half of the content regarding the bourgeoning social movement looks at it
through the perspective of the actions of the police or OWS interaction with the police.
Furthermore, the New York police chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, is quoted repeatedly in the
text. However, at one point his failure to get the story straight regarding an incident during the
Brooklyn bridge march is described in detail. The focus on the interaction with the police is
similar to that of the OWSts itself. However, as the strongest voices being heard in the
newspaper are those of the authorities, this shows the newspapers reluctance to accept messages
from them movement. Thus, they are using their networking power to effectively reject those
messages coming from outside their network.
Another member of the New York police garners the attention of the newspaper: inspector
Bologna who was filmed pepper spraying protesters on two occasions. Though his actions are
presented, his name is not directly connected with the center police. So, though it may appear
that the story is presented from a strictly objective angle, this occasion of possible police
misconduct is not presented as such, or is presented in an evasive manner. As such, an instance
when they could have portrayed the authorities in a bad light, as well as give the OWS a form of
moral superiority is avoided due to networked power and its respective processes (Castells 2009,
59
2011). The pepper spray incident provides another valuable center: spray which is present in
16% of the top center pairs alongside pepper, page, use, protester, and video.
The second most connected center is New York, present in 19.4% of the most resonant center
pairs. Its strongest connections are with: police, officer, page, department, people and union. As
this is the place where the events are happening as well as where the newspaper has its
headquarters the focus was to be expected. However, its interesting to see that OWS focuses
much less on their physical birthplace and that already in September it has a more national scope
as it uses New York, San Francisco and American as lower resonance centers. However, as can
be seen for the connections built around the center New York, this is done in order to describe the
movement as a disruptive force. Additionally, this manages to portray OWS' attempts to create
counter-power that challenges institutionalized power relations (Castells 2007, 2009).
September 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
September 2011 is also the first month of OWS coverage in The Wall Street Journal. The most
resonant center pair is protester group followed by protester permit (one creates a substantive
frame while the other a procedural one of legitimacy). The most resonant center is police
followed by protester. The center police is found in 38.7% of the top center pairs and is
connected to demonstrator, New York, department, law, New York city, social, spray, street,
Browne, spokesman, low, and body. The focus is strongly on the authority perspective of the
situation (the NYPD spokesman Browne can be found in the list above) as was the situation of
the previous media source. This source does not focus its attention on inspector Bologna.
Although it mentions the incident, this is described as aiming a canister of pepper spray at a
small group of protesters (Gardiner 2011) and not actually pepper-spraying the protesters, even
though the video clearly demonstrates the action (USLAWdotcom 2011). This is another
instance of framing the issues in such a way that painting the authorities in a negative manner is
avoided, and it is likely a result of networked power. The second most connected center within
the top center pairs is protester which is present in 22.5% of the top center pairs. It forms
resonant pairs with: group, permit, Manhattan, people, Saturday, arrest, and spray. Thus, the
60
focus is on legitimacy (people, group, and permit) as well as problematic situations (arrest and
spray).
October 2011 on OccupyWallSt.org
October is the 2011 peak month in terms of number of communication nodes, with a total of
1631. It is also the only month when Occupy Wall Street is the most resonant center of
communication, which makes sense if you consider the movements need to create (something
similar to) brand awareness. The highest resonance center pair is Liberty Square followed by
people movement, the latter is a procedural frame referring to legitimacy through
representativeness.
The center with the highest resonance and frequency within the center pairs is OWS, which
appears in 38.7% of the top center pairs. It is connected with centers such as people, Wall Street,
square, occupation, October, world, protest, percent, solidarity, parent, Liberty, and movement.
Thus, it creates an image of representativeness based both on legitimacy (people, parent) and
techniques (movement, occupation, Liberty Square) as well as moral judgments with protest
and solidarity. The second most connected center within the center pairs is people which is
present in 29% of the top center pairs and is connected with centers such as movement, OWS,
world, action, percent, liberty, solidarity, and Wall Street. The presence of world in connections
with both the first and second strongest centers can also be accounted for by the fact that October
is the month when international protests following OWS model appear. October 15 marks the
beginning of international protests in Europe and Asia (MSN News 2011). These connections
provide a rather positive image of the OWS, one in which they are gaining counter-power and
are protesting with legitimate reasons This happens because the networked power is theirs and
thus they can (counter-) frame their messages in a way that is beneficial to them.
This is the first month when the term the ninety nine percent is salient enough to be part of the
top center pairs. The term refers to the OWS idea that the 1% of American society, such as
banks, the insurance and mortgage industry, hoard the biggest portion of the wealth while
allowing the 99% of the population to work for them without a decent and fair compensation
61
(Wearethe99percent 2012). The concept creates an image of legitimacy, as well as a moral
judgment as it refers to income inequality and wealth distribution.
October 2011 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is OWS protest, followed by OWS protester, whereas the most
resonant center is protester followed by protest. The strongest presence within the top center
pairs is that of protester in 45.1% of them. It is connected with: OWS, police, Wall Street,
people, group, Zuccotti Park, park, protest, movement, right, city, new, New York, and week. Its
strong connectivity is followed by that of protest which is present in 32.3% of the top center
pairs and is connected with: OWS, movement, people, New York, Wall Street, city, police, week,
protester, and page. This means that the two of them are present in the majority of the top center
pairs. What the OWS calls the movement which implies a longer lifespan for what was
happening, the newspaper refers to as the protest which creates an image of something that is
time sensitive and more likely to disappear just as quickly as it appeared, a more likely to be
ignored and irrelevant form of counter-power. This focus creates a strong representation of a
problematic situation (substantive frame). The newspaper seems to not direct its attention on
OWS causes or intentions, nor does it seek to explain it or understand it but only to present it
superficially in its physical presence in New York citys Zuccotti Park. It definitely catches the
eye that, even though NYT heavily focuses on protest it is not interested in answering one of the
basic questions in journalism: why? In fact, the two centers, tax and financial, that resemble an
explanation have lower rank connections only to other parts of the text: the first to New York,
American, financial and OWS and the second to New York, tax, city and new. This situation
provides an interesting instance of networked power in action which biases the text by not
completing it according to its own, basic rules of journalistic writing.
Also, although OWS had started becoming an international movement the fact does not become
a high resonance center in the New York Times articles. Also, the OWS center has high
resonance connections only to protest, protester and lower resonance ones to movement, and
people, further proving the focus on OWS as a protest rather than a movement.
62
October 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
October 2011 is the month with the largest number of articles, 90, and centers, 6435, regarding
OWS in the WSJ. This increased interest is explained by the fact that by October the OWS had
spread nationally and was on the media agenda of most major newspapers. The most resonant
center pair is OWS protester (second: OWS movement) whereas the most resonant center is
people followed by OWS. In fact, the top three center pairs are identical for WSJ and the NYT
and two of them also appear as the top center pairs in USA today, showing that dominant media
frames (Entman 2004, 7) exist not only within one source but are instead persistent across
sources.
The center with the most connections within the center pairs is people present in almost 42% of
the top center pairs and linked with American, OWS, year, park, movement, Wall Street,
protester, new, group, bank, protest, time, and young. These combinations refer to legitimacy
through representativeness (American people) as well as problematic situations (protest,
protester, movement). However through using the adjective young the representativeness aspect
is limited and as a result it marginalizes the group (Rauch et al. 2007, 132). Also, as the center
bank is present in the top center pairs this is the first reference to a possible cause of the OWS
movement. Furthermore, the feeling of discontent is explained in the newspaper as stemming
from the impression that when Wall Street was on its knees, the American taxpayers came to
their rescue with trillions of dollars in bailouts and promise from the big banks that they'd invest
in our recovery. Instead, the banks used hard-earned tax dollars to enrich themselves (Henry
2011). However, no centers referring to specific actions of the banks that led to the protests
appear in the top centers. Thus, though it may seem that the WSJ is explaining the movements
reasons it certainly does not focus on this, as their language usage avoids legitimizing the
movement (Rauch et al. 2007, 135-6). The next most connected center is protester present in
29% of the top center pairs and connected to OWS, police, park, city, New-York, Wall Street,
people, group, and week. These create a combination of substantive and procedural frames as
they refer both to problematic situations as the interaction between the police and the protesters
and to representativeness: OWS, people, group.
63
The WSJ is the only one to focus on the center business the fifth most resonant center. This is
connected with big, American, government, Wall Street, bank, good and company. The strongest
connection, big business, is discussed as being in danger due to the populist anger over [the]
economy (Seib 2011) as further pressure on them to bring jobs back into the US is said that it
can only have the opposite effect. Such pressure from the public (among which the OWS is
found) could influence the government to pressure the corporations into bringing jobs back into
the US where the economic (fiscal) environment would only create further unbalance within
those companies and would hinder their growth. This framing allows the newspaper to protect
the status quo (Rauch et al. 2007, 133) while simultaneously casting a negative light unto the
intentions of the OWS.
October 2011 USA Today
October is the first month that USA Today covers the OWS protests. The most resonant center
pair is Wall-street protester followed by Occupy Wall Street protest, and protester police
whereas the most resonant center is Wall Street followed by people. The center with the strongest
connections within the top center pairs is protester, present in 29% of them. It is connected with
Wall-street, police, OWS, city, occupy, protester, New-York, Chicago, job. The protester job pair
is particularly important as it seeks to explain why the protesters came to the streets: loss of jobs
or job insecurity (substantive frame).
The second most strongly connected center is people making up pairs together with police,
American, protester, street, movement, OWS, government, year, good. Government cutbacks, a
high level of dissatisfaction with government as well as demanding a more responsive
government (Wickham 2011) are also part of the OWS reasons for protesting that are presented
in the newspaper. Another center that is important is party which is predominantly used as a
reference to the 2009 Tea Party protests for which the OWS is seen as a counter-narrative
(ibid) as the former wanted less involvement from the government whereas the latter demanded a
more responsible and involved one.
Thus USA today creates the most balanced frame for the OWS movement by using the conflict
frame that the other two newspapers used as well, and supplementing it with the more in depth
64
presentation of the reasons why the movement appeared. The result is a combination of the
traditional confrontation frame (Hertog and McLeod 2001 in Rauch et al. 2007, 138) and a
legitimizing one that speaks for the movement.
November 2011 on OccupyWallSt.org
In November 2011, OccupyWallSt.org begins to slowly quiet down, a process that will last until
March 2012. The most resonant center is movement followed by Occupy Wall Street, whereas the
most resonant center pair is the Occupy movement. The focus on the ninety-nine percent concept
increases as it appears as the third most resonant center pair. The most connected center within
pairs is once again (though for the last time) OWS. It is present in 32.3% of the center pairs and
is linked with movement, square, people, liberty, park, ninety-nine, percent, occupy, and
community. Once again the OWS is concentrating on communicating legitimacy through
representativeness ( people, ninety-nine percent, community) as well as on techniques being used
( movement, occupy), thus continuing to build their counter frame (Castells 2009).
The second most visible center is movement which is paired with occupy, ninety-nine, percent,
OWS, right, action, and square, so most of these are identical to those connected with OWS. The
focus on rights refers both to causes for the movement (human right to housing education is a
right OccupyWallSt.org November) or problematic situations such as the violent repression of
their basic right to dissent (OccupyWallSt.org November 2011) as well as to means of
improvement and techniques (right to occupy public space, right to express ourselves). The
overall effect is similar to that observed by Atton (2002) who noted that the protesters employed
the traditional conflict frame that is used against them, to instead present the establishment as
oppressive and unnecessarily violent. The center rights is also used in the context of the
November 15 eviction from Zuccotti Park, though the connection is not strong enough to appear
within the top center pairs but is visible on the CRA map. The center eviction is present in the
lower half of the top centers, but only has weak connections to Occupy, OWS, liberty and park
and is not connected with police, NYPD or protest. This may seem as unusual; however, the
eviction moment is presented on the website through videos (which show both an interaction
with the police and the protest) rather than text.
65
November 2011 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is Occupy Wall Street protester seconded by protester police
whereas the most resonant center is protester followed by people. These top elements resulting
from the CRA continue to not only use but actually focus on the traditional conflict frame for
social movements. Though almost three months have passed since the beginning of the protests,
the NYT continues to present the OWS in this light and continues to avoid presenting OWS
causes. This comes as a result of editorial decisions that stem from a combination of networking
power (not accepting messages coming from outside the network) and quite likely networked
power (not accepting messages coming from inside the network as they go against the accepted
narrative) (Castells 2009).
The strongest connections are created by protester present in 42% of the top center pairs and
connected with: OWS, police, park, city, group, people, country, tent, Occupy, New York,
Zuccotti Park, day, and university. Most centers in the enumeration seem to focus on localizing
the events: park (mostly refers to Zuccotti Park), city, New York, Zuccotti Park, and university.
The latter refers to the university student occupations happening across the country. The focus
on Zuccotti Park / park was to be expected as the middle of the month marked the eviction of the
OWS protesters from the Zuccotti encampment. Country is used both to present the spread of the
movement as well as to refer to the challenging economic situation across the country, though
once again no precise references to either usage make it unto the top centers or pairs. Occupy
refers to the various reinterpretations of the movement in cities across the US (Occupy Chicago,
Occupy Los Angeles, etc), whereas police refers to the often problematic interactions between
the protesters and the authorities.
Occupy Wall Street is linked to protester, movement, protest, people, providing a rather simple,
limited and even funny in an absurd way representation of the movement (just imagine the
resulting sentence: The Occupy Wall Street movement are the people protesters who protest).
The second most strongly connected center is people contributing to 38% of the top pairs
together with: park, protester, city, American, good, police, group, young, OWS, country, year,
and time. Most of the connections are identical to those of protester. Thus, while using the center
American gives the impression of real representativeness of the movement, limiting it with young
66
or, as did the WSJ in the previous month, university means that those involved are more likely to
be the representatives of at most a 23% minority made up of young people (18-34) with at least
a bachelors degree or working towards one (US Census bureau 2011). Not representative at all,
it seems.
November 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
The most resonant center pair is OWS protester (second: protester police) whereas the most
resonant center is protester followed by people. The top resonant center, protester, is also the
best connected center within the top pairs, present in 35.5% of them alongside: OWS, police, city,
people, group, Zuccotti Park, new, park, political, large, and week. The focus on Zuccotti Park
and the police given the protesters eviction was to be expected. However, no direct reference to
the event made it onto the top centers. Another strongly connected center is Occupy Wall Street
(16.1%) linked with protester, movement, protest, police, and New York, thus adding to the frame
of a problematic situation in a rather limited descriptive manner.
A new center that receives attention in November is tax linked to new, state, New-York, and
financial. This is mostly talked about in an article analyzing the possibility of a financial
speculation sales tax that could, in theory, limit the risky speculative trading that contributes
little real economic value (Nader 2011). On the one hand, this was strongly being opposed by
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Financial Services Forum and Business Roundtable the
representatives of the the most powerful corporations and financial-services companies in the
world (ibid). On the other hand, the OWS protesters are described as pushing elected officials
to break the corporate stranglehold on our economy (ibid). Thus the frame being used is that of
a problematic situation together with a moral judgment (risky speculation) as well as presenting a
possible remedy and linking these to the OWS thus establishing some legitimacy for the
movement which can only be seen by looking at the texts in their entirety and not at the CRA
map. Thus, once again, though a semblance of a positive nod in the direction of the protesters
appears in the newspaper, it is not relevant enough for WSJs frames to become a point of focus
for the OWS content. The preferred frames (Castells 2009) do not allow for this to happen.
67
November 2011 USA Today
The most resonant center pair is OWS movement, followed by OWS protester and good people,
while the most resonant center is people followed by protester. The most strongly connected
center within the top center pairs is people, present in 45.2% of them, and linked with good,
country, cause, business, American, time, Occupy Wall Street, tax, government, store, job,
movement, public, and way. Though people is a rather general, all inclusive term, the way it
connects with other parts of the text shows how the USA today attention is distributed. Take for
example business which is also connected to job, protester and new. One of the recurring themes
is the businesses create jobs one which is linked in the texts to the concepts of small businesses
and the American individual initiative rather than with the big business OWS criticizes. Thus, the
focus is shifted from what the OWS protests about (corporations) towards the innocent small
businesses that any American is said to be able to start. A problematic situation as OWS defined
it, the irresponsible corporations putting their profit before the wellbeing of the people, is
dismantled and reorganized into a completely different topic, therefore also shifting the moral
judgment from against (big) business to in support of (small) business. If one of the main goals
of any network is profit making (Castells 2009, 420) it certainly makes no sense to alienate
possible sources of advertising income by portraying them negatively.
Job is the second most connected center within the top pairs, but is only used in 16.1% of them.
It is linked with good, business, people, public, and economy. As was the case of business, the
jobs are also slightly redefined. On one hand, they are presented as creating an understandably
problematic situation for the American people and the OWS protesters. On the other hand, they
are connected to businesses, big and (mostly) small, and thus make it seem as though OWS
protest against the actions of big business are protests against job creation.
Another center pair referring to a problematic situation is student loan which, though it is
mentioned as a top grievance for the OWS community (Block 2011), is then removed from this
context and taken into a discussion about proposed changes of policy to ease its burden which
could actually be considered a positive outcome of the protests, although the connection is not
made overtly. The center OWS is slightly less connected than the previous ones (12.9%) and
generates top pairs together with: movement, protester, people, and protest thus resulting in a
68
limited substantive frame based on the vague description of a problematic situation.
Additionally, it can be said that the lack of definition of OWS goals, external support or direct
mentioning of its influence has a de-legitimizing effect (Rauch et al. 2007, 135-6).
December 2011 on OccupyWallSt.org
In December the number of centers continues to decline. The most resonant center pair is Occupy
movement, whereas the most resonant center is community. The latter is also the best connected
center within the top pairs, present in 25.8% of them, alongside OWS, right, local, action,
movement, occupy, home, and space. A related theme arises from the center home which is
present in 22.6% of the top pairs and is connected with movement, occupy, new, right, action,
community, and country. The shift in focus around the time of the winter holidays is rather
natural and is emphasized by other top centers such as local, community, food, solidarity, or New
Year. All of these give a more positive tone to the text, one that is more appropriate with the
holiday spirit, while instilling a sense of legitimacy based on representativeness as well as
slightly shifting and adapting the counter frame (Castells 2009).
Similarly, OWS strongest connections are to community, movement, December, and space, while
its slightly weaker ones are to home, local, New York, and occupier. Also, Occupy, the root of
the movements name, is used in connection with home, DC, Boston, new, and event. Some of
these refer to ongoing actions or necessities of the OWS. For example, December is mostly used
for organization purposes; space refers to OWS need for a physical space to express themselves,
Boston and DC refer to the spreading of the protests across the country; thus all referring to
procedural frames. The remaining centers, however, build the same positive emotions as the
centers mentioned in the previous paragraph.
December 2011 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is new tax (second: New Year) whereas the most resonant center is
new followed by year. The center OWS is only mentioned fleetingly in the articles and is most
69
strongly connected with protester, movement, and new (year and taxes). New, on the other hand,
has the strongest presence within the top center pairs (58%) and appears together with: tax, year,
art, show, bank, page, protester, work, way, music, New York, people, company, public, state,
day, OWS, and good.
The focus on new taxes comes from New Yorks Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, who declared
repeatedly that there are ongoing discussions about the possible change in the states tax code.
This could include an increased tax on the states wealthiest and a tax decrease for its middle
class. It may be an ironic coincidence, but their readers are being presented with another
mythical creature (apart from Santa Claus): the tax burdened rich man. Overall, these centers
create a substantive frame, and put some focus on the remedies proposed by the OWS (taxing the
rich similarly to how the rest of the population is taxed). This creates a slight shift from the
preferred frame that would most likely say that the status quo is ideal to a seeming adoption of a
counter frame (Castells 2009) which presents the rich as taxable. However, this is done at a time
when people are probably thinking of happier topics such as Christmas or the New Year and are
likely to disregard more serious topics. Art, music and show appear as top centers because of the
OWS support of or being supported by the art community, thus referring to legitimacy limited to
a very small group.
December 2011 - The Wall Street Journal
The most resonant center pair is income tax (second: new tax) whereas the most resonant center
is tax followed by U.S. Tax is the prevalent center within the top pairs, as it is used in 48.8% of
them. It appears alongside: income, new, state, federal, year, business, top, individual, U.S.,
bank, high, corporate, big, policy, and capital. Thus, this continues the previous months
discussion on taxes, as well as doubles the New York Times coverage of the issue. Occupy Wall
Street is connected with movement, group, protester, home, New York, and city. Thus the framing
seems similar to that that OccupyWallSt.org had for the OWS movement, though there is no
mention of community, for example. The center Oakland has a relatively strong presence in the
discourse and is connected with police, city, movement, occupy and business. This refers to
Occupy Oaklands negative effect on the local business as they were first evicted from their
70
encampment, only to later be allowed back which had a directly negative effect on the small
community businesses in its proximity (White 2011). This negative framing of the OWS is
similar to the one in Novembers USA Today. Thus, while the OWS may be saying that it wants
equality and it fights big business and corporate greed, its actions are actually hurting small
business. Thus, WSJ addresses a completely different problem than those that are on OWS
agenda, and shows that the networking power (Castells 2009, 2011) is working properly.
December 2011 USA Today
The most resonant center pair is president Obama (second: American Republican., third Obama
state) whereas the most resonant center is American followed by state. American and Republican
are the most connected centers within the top pairs, both being present in 22.6% of them. The
focus on the latter is due to the upcoming Republican presidential primaries that were to start in
January 2012. The center American appears in conjunction with Republican, OWS, time,
national, job, group, and association, while Republican is mostly used together with American,
president, Obama, time, national, political, and economic. This offers a glimpse into 2012s
heightened attention to the presidential election which will be often mentioned within the
references to Occupy Wall Street.
OWS appears with weaker connections to new, income, people and movement. The only new
center, income, is briefly mentioned in the context of income inequality which was provided
by one of Presidents Obama speeches (Jackson and Wolf 2011). Given that the readers of USA
Today have the lowest incomes of the three newspapers analyzed by this paper this is where it
would be expected to find such references. Additionally, as the quoted source is an official or
elite one (Rauch et al. 2007, 133) this decreases any potential risk that may derive from
mentioning such an opinion, thus the constraints imposed by the networked power (Castells
2009, 2011) are slightly diminished.
*
71
The end of 2011, the New Year celebrations, the problematic weather for outdoor protests all
meant a decreased interest and physical presence for the OWS movement. Thus, the period prior
to the May Day marches is best described as OWS getting rather marginal attention from the US
print media, as the street protests were no longer as visible and OWS lost the element of novelty.
Therefore, in the following paragraphs the months of January, February, March and April 2012
will be analyzed together.
January-April 2012 on OccupyWallSt.org
In January the most resonant center pair is Occupy movement, whereas the most resonant center
is people followed by Occupy. These two centers colonize the meaning of most of the text. Thus,
Occupy organizes 41.9% of the top center pairs, alongside: movement, Oakland, action, people,
January, home, police, Nigerian, DC, Boston, Portland, solidarity, occupier; while people has a
similar influence on 32.25% of them: Occupy, movement, home, Nigerian, corporation,
community, police, world, Boston, national. Most of the centers these two influence are identical,
thus their cumulated connections can be analyzed. Oakland, DC, Boston, Portland ( used as the
OWS was focusing on planning and organizing future events in these particular locations) as
well as home, community, national and world give a sense of a movement that is still alive and
growing, despite the temporary slowdown of their street protests. Their grouping thus builds a
procedural frame based on the success of their growth and on their representativeness (people,
community, and home). Also, as rather ambiguous frames are used (in the sense that they do not
refer to particular actions, goals or values) this counter-frame works well within Castells model
(2009). As such, while the preferred or mainstream frames are ingrained in the mind of the
public, it (the public) cannot be provided with information that goes completely against
everything it has learned from the media so far. Thus, only the more culturally ambiguous
(164) counter frames are likely to challenge the dominant frame and be adopted by the media
consumer. The interest in Nigerias situation refers to a January 11 demonstration in front of the
countrys embassy to protest the recent cut in the oil subsidies for their citizens and the violent
reaction of the government when faced with their discontent (OccupyWallSt.Org 2012).
72
In February 2012 the most resonant center pair is action day, whereas the most resonant center is
action followed by Occupy. Action colonizes 62.3% of the top center pairs, alongside Occupy,
Washington, today, community, world, corporate, global, food, support, corporation, city,
people, European, foreclosure, Oakland, national, direct, movement, and day. After a rather
long period of dormancy, the Occupy movement goes back to a call to action and offers the
reasons to do so. This is a substantive frame based mostly on a problematic situation and a moral
judgment. The other strongly resonant center within the pairs was Occupy, which was
responsible for 29% of the top pairs alongside: Oakland, Chicago, day, movement, community,
support, London, national, and protester. In this case, the frame is procedural and based on the
success of the movement in the US and internationally and is built by using legitimizing
language (Rauch et al. 2007).
In March, the most resonant center pair is Washington march, whereas the most resonant center
is march (a combination of the action and, in a smaller proportion, the month) followed by
action, both of which continue Februarys focus on getting people back into the streets in order
to act and to be seen. The center march is responsible for 38.7% of the top center pairs together
with: day, Occupy, square, OWS, people, liberty, May, occupier, Wall Street, public, union, and
Washington. Its connections are quite similar to those of last months action, thus moving from a
more general term to a better defined one. Washington and May are the first references to the
May protests that will be partly directed at the G8 Summit taking place near Washington.
April marks an increase in the content on the OccupyWallSt website, as it focuses on getting
people involved in the planned May 1 protests. As such, the most resonant center pair is May
Day, whereas the most resonant centers are its individual components. Day is the best connected
center within the top pairs (48.4%) alongside: action, Occupy, people, NYC, community, square,
strike, union, worker, march, general, student, event, April, and May. May is the second most
strongly connected center (present in 32.25%) in conjunction with: action, general, strike,
people, square, union, street, march, NYC, and day. Given the strong connection between these
two centers, their adjacent centers can be examined simultaneously. The continued focus on the
call-to-action is easily noticeable. However, this time it is complemented by a richer but focused
array of centers such as general strike, union, and worker, all of which come from the classic
rhetoric of the May 1 International Workers Day. Not only do these centers work well with the
73
May 1 rhetoric, but they also match their previous the 99% versus the 1% speech, which was a
great source of support in the beginning of OWS.
Overall, during these four months in the beginning of 2012 the websites public is slowly primed
for the May 1 marches. The idea is gradually introduced, by using the more general term action
in the first two months and then shifting to the more particular center march in the later two.
Thus, not only does the website provide information about the movement but it also works as an
aid to action and mobilization (Stein 2009, 752). This shows new medias role as the space
where power is decided (Castells 2007, 242) as social movement can gain true power by
mobilizing (geographically) disparate masses.
January-April 2012 - The New York Times
In January, the most resonant center pair is New Year (second: recent year) whereas the most
resonant center is year followed by new. In fact, year organizes most of the top centers pairs
(51.6%) alongside: new, recent, people, group, time, state, percent, business, financial, company,
city, world, Republican, way, school, member. New has the same function for 29% of them: year,
New York, political, American, world, financial, people, state, job. Once again, given the strong
connection between these two most influential centers, the enumerated centers can be analyzed
as a unified group. Interestingly enough, now that OWS is no longer protesting in the streets, the
discourse seems much more focused on the issues that are of interest for the movement:
business, schools (mostly about public schools and the quality of the education they provide), the
financial situation, jobs, or percent which is used in the context of the 1% and the 99%. This is
partly because the NYT cannot present instances of negative interactions with the authorities
since the OWS was not protesting at the time. However, OWS is only used as an adjacent to
these topics and not the other way around. In fact, OWS only top connection is to the center
movement, though it is used in the text (not in the top center pairs) in weaker connections to
income inequality and to some minor protests that took place in New York. Also, as the election
year had begun, the discourse started to include more references to it, such as political,
Republican as well as President Obama, which is one of the top center pairs. The overall context
in which the OWS is presented is more connected to the movements agenda, however, most of
74
the top centers are only secondarily linked to OWS, and the apparent counter frame the NYT
seems to put forward is rather weak.
In February, the most resonant center pair is police department (second: new museum) whereas
the most resonant center is new followed by year. New Year is connected, through its individual
components, to museum, work, city, school, year, bank, art, sculpture, officer, new, people,
police, good, city, and Kelly. The center police is present in 25.8% of the top pairs, alongside
department, Kelly, officer, year, protester, work, protest, New York. OWS is connected to time,
part, protest, protester, American and people, all of which appear on the CRA map, though none
in the top center pairs, thus showing the relative weakness of the resonance. This month, the
OWS crowd protested against the measures that commissioner Kelly was taking in order to keep
the protests under control. However, though there are bonds between the centers protester, police
and Kelly, no such connections exist between OWS and them. This is at least unusual since the
only reason the commissioner appeared in the news was because the OWS was protesting his
decisions. As such, the focus is on the authorities and their actions and, in a sense, the result is
that the movement is marginalized while the status quo is reinforced instead of questioned
(Rauch et al. 2007, 132) Also, the discourse is more focused on arts, a community where OWS
found supporters, and only to a lesser extent to the problematic situation described by using
police, department, protester, and protest. Thus, their legitimacy is limited as they are presented
as being primarily backed by the artistic community and as a source of civil disobedience.
In March, New York Times most resonant center pair is young people seconded by police
department, while the most resonant center are people and new. Occupy Wall Streets strongest
connection, and the only one present in the top pairs, is with movement. However, other
connections appear on the CRA map: group, year, police, department, and city. These additional,
less prominent, centers provide very little new information about the movement such as
problematic situations or discussions of the way they aggregate have been provided before.
Finally, Aprils most resonant center pair is city group (second: small group) whereas the most
resonant center is group followed by year. Protester is the most visible centre referring to the
Occupy movement and is connected with Occupy, time, police. The newspaper discusses OWS
need to regain momentum after a long period of not being present in the street or in the news but
75
sees no alternatives (Schmidt 2012), thus making it seem like the movement was bound to fade
out completely quite soon after.
The overall impression created by these four months is that of a diminished focus on the
movement as its street protests have become less prominent. Despite this, the newspaper
continues to provide the movement with space which is used not to present its goals but to
enforce previous frames of disobedience and limited legitimacy. This is a facile approach, but
one that was to be expected as journalists tend to fall back on the same patterns given that they
work under constant financial and time pressure (Atton and Wickenden 2005, Rauch et al. 2007).
January-April 2012 - The Wall Street Journal
Januarys most resonant center pair is year - company (second: U.S new, third: OWS protester)
whereas the most resonant center is U.S. followed by year. Occupy Wall Streets strongest
connections are with protester, group, movement, and new (year) whereas its somewhat weaker
ones are with American and New York. Thus the content of the speech is a condensed version of
that of last years, in a similar manner as NYTs, although the amount of text dedicated to the
movement decreased as the focus of the newspaper shifts towards the Republican primaries and
the presidential elections.
In February, the most resonant center pair is Anonymous group, at one point a supporter of the
OWS, which was now in the news due to the NSAs concerns with the negative impact it could
have should it continue its illegal actions (Gorman 2012). The second top center pair is the
Occupy Wall Street movement, while the third is protester group. OWS only visible connections
on the CRA map are with movement and fund, the latter in an article debating the value of and
economical viability of socially responsible investing (Gay 2012).
In March the most resonant center pair is OccupyWallStreet protester (second: protester police,
third New York police) whereas the most resonant center is protester followed by year. OWS
strongest connections are with protester, protest and police. Aprils most resonant center pair is
Devaney - people (second: OccupyWallStreet people. third OccupyWallStreet protester), whereas
the most resonant center is OccupyWallStreet followed by Devaney. John Devaney is featured in
76
an article describing how his hedge fund crashed in 2007, the following investigation that was
eventually dropped as well as the fact that he was declared by as one of the 25 People to Blame
for the Financial Crisis by Time magazine, which creates the connection with OWS whose
members are said to be sending him hate mail (Eaglesham 2012). However, for the first time in
months, OWS has many strong connections within the discourse, meaning that it is no longer a
marginal element, used at most as a reminder of a movement passed but instead alive and well.
Its connections include: people, protester, part, day, movement, group, member, time, march,
labor, company, organizer, eviction, space making OWS a part of 45.2% of the top center pairs.
Most of the new attention it receives is directed at its May 1 plans for a march in support of labor
unions, simultaneously creating a frame of legitimacy through representativeness as well as
limiting this representativeness as May 1 International Workers Day is not officially celebrated
in the US.
To sum up, the first months of 2012 in the Wall Street Journal show a decreased interest in the
movement that as the May 1 marches approach starts to intensify once again. This increased
attention, as well as the fact that WSJ is not only presenting past or current actions of the OWS
but also its future plans, shows that it is probably following the OccupyWallSt.org website and
using it as a source of information about the social movement, though the OWS website is never
mentioned in any WSJ article. While alternative media sources have been known to use
established mainstream media sources because they provide credibility (Haas 2006), WSJ shows
a temporary inversion of the trend similar to that observed by Harcup (2005).
January-April 2012 - USA Today
The number of articles regarding OWS or even touching on the subject decreases dramatically in
January, to a total of 7. In them the most resonant center pair is good job (second: company
CEO, third: year American) whereas the most resonant center is new followed by good. The
shifting focus towards the upcoming 2012 elections, which was observed in the previous two
newspapers, can also be seen in USA Today. Thus, the center president is one of the strongest
connected ones within the top pairs (used in 16.2% of them), alongside: company, CEO,
American, house, and Obama. Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, is more strongly connected
77
to the center corporate, as they appear together in articles regarding large corporate
compensations to their CEO as well as in an interview with JP Morgans CEO, Jamie Dimon
(Bartiromo 2012). OWS is also indirectly connected to income (in the context of income
inequality). OWS connections in USA Today continue to give proof to the newspapers
permeability to such messages most likely because the general content of the newspaper as well
as its target audience is already more accepting of such topics. As such, OWS proposed counter
frames (Castells 2009) are closer to the publications dominant frames.
February has a total of 13 articles on the OWS movement, and its most resonant center pair is
American people (second: Occupy movement, third rich poor) whereas the most resonant center
is people followed by American. Occupy and Occupy Wall Street are connected with movement,
course, economy and year. An important connection that makes it onto the CRA map for the first
time is the one between rich, poor and gap, one of the core issues raised by the OWS. This is a
leading substantive frame proposed by the OWS which refers to a problematic situation and a
moral judgment due to the reasons leading to that unbalanced economic situation. Furthermore,
there is a strong connection between American people and the above trio. This means that, at
least for the time being, the issue has made it onto the media agenda more as a description of a
situation than as a political slogan of the OWS movement.
Marchs two articles about the OWS have as most resonant center pair income wealth seconded
by wealth power, while the most resonant center income followed by wealth. Income is the best
connected center within the top pairs (32.25%) alongside: wealth, power, inequality, warning,
distribution, high, issue, institution, annual, and year. Wealth colonizes most of the top center
pairs, as it is present in 29% of them, alongside: income, power, group, distribution, unequal,
gap, poor, top, and people. These connections provide a similar, but more meaningful,
substantive frame to that of the previous month. Februarys trio reappears in March in the form
of wealth, poor and gap.
In April, the most resonant center pair is black church (second: white progressive third white
church) whereas the most resonant center is American followed by white. Occupy Wall Street
appears briefly in the text. Once it is in the context of student debt, and then in that of their faux
pas as they hijacked a protest following the shooting of an innocent young black man and turned
78
it into a disorganized discourse about everything (including their core grievances) (Krattenmaker
2012).
In conclusion, something extraordinary happens in USA Today in this period. As the actual
protests have calmed down and the OWS is no longer as present in the streets, the newspaper is
not falling back on previous OWS frames, but is instead presenting some of the movements core
grievances. This is becomes possible as the newspaper has, in previous months, presented some
ideas that complement these such as job security, student loans and student debt.
*
May 1, 2012 was planned by the Occupy Wall Street as something extraordinary: the first truly
nationwide General Strike in U.S. history (OccupyWallSt editorial team April 21, 2012). This
was intended as a historic coalition of OWS and the Alliance for Labor Rights, Immigrant
Rights, Jobs for All, the May 1
st
Coalition for Immigrant & Worker Rights, as well as other
immigrant community organizations, under the slogan A Day Without the 99% ( ibid). In the
paragraphs that follow the media coverage of OWS in May as well as their self representation
will be analyzed.
May 2012 on OccupyWallSt.org
May marks the peak in the number of centers (3474) used by the website for the entire period
analyzed by this paper. The months most resonant center pair was Chicago police followed by
Occupy Chicago, while May Day is only the seventh in this list. The most resonant centers were
people, police, Chicago and May which organized most of the discourse. People has the
strongest impact on the top center pairs, as it is present in 38.7% of them alongside May, world,
Chicago, police, Occupy, city, solidarity, group, summit, assembly, NATO, and action. Thus the
frames that are created are substantive (police, NATO summit) and procedural (assembly,
solidarity). May colonizes 22.6% of the top center pairs, thus appearing alongside people,
Chicago, day, solidarity, action, police, global. These combinations also create a blend of
substantive and procedural frames. It must also be noted that, despite declaring the historic
importance for the May Day event, the references to the Chicago NATO summit are somewhat
79
stronger than those to May 1. This is not a complete surprise, as they had already dedicated
almost two months to May 1 (since March 2012) and once the marches were done they needed to
focus on ongoing issues in order to stay relevant. Also, while the May 1 marches referred to a
national situation, the protests at the NATO summit were addressing American foreign policy.
As such, this works within other more international scope they had been building for quite some
time. For example, the first time that the center global appears as a top resonance center is
October 2011; it later appears on the CRA map in November 2011 and February and May 2012.
If an established political power is not only national but also international, counter-power can
aspire to have the same broader boundaries, which is in fact what OWS seems to be doing. The
OccupyWallSt.org has built across months an image of representativeness and continuous
involvement in issues that are important for the American people. Thus, it becomes acceptable
and feasible within this network to stretch beyond local protests about national issues to local
protest about international ones.
Occupy Wall Street does not appear as a top center this month, something that only occurred in
July 2011 when the movement was only an online idea, and in January and February when the
more generic Occupy was used together with a discourse that tried to re-coagulate people around
the movement. The situation is quite similar now, as Occupy has a moderate presence ( in 16.1%
of the top pairs) alongside Chicago, movement, police, people, action, while movement creates
strong bonds to Occupy, global, and Chicago. The shift from OWS to the more general and
inclusive Occupy started in November 2011 as Occupy slowly became more prominent than
OWS. As the movement had for some time been adopted and adapted internationally and was not
just a local Wall Street protest, the change was to be expected.
Solidarity, a center that should have a rather strong presence given the connotation of the
International Workers Day, has strong bonds only to people, May, and student, a fact that can
be explained by the almost immediate shift of focus after May 1. These connection do create a
legitimacy frame based on representativeness, however limited (student) or general (people).
80
May 2012 - The New York Times
May 2012 marks a temporary increase in media attention regarding the Occupy Wall Street
movement, one that can be noted in The New York Times (26 articles in April, but 34 in May
followed by 24 in June). Its most resonant center pair is young people (second: police protester)
whereas the most resonant center is people followed by president. The top center pairs create a
frame of limited legitimacy doubled by a problematic clash of two opposing forces.
The top center, people, colonizes 32.25 % of the top pairs alongside: young, police, protester,
year, company, group, president, city, good, and movement. These continue use the same frames
or persistent patterns (Gitlin 2003, 7) that had been employed for the OWS since its beginning.
The only addition is the mention of the president, as the elections are getting closer and thus they
are on the media agenda. The center president forms top pairs with Obama, New-York, people,
financial, and leader, thus 16.1% of top pairs contain it, proving the interest in the national
political events.
OWS only strong connection is with movement, which in turn is connected to new, good,
member, party, and group. Of these, only group is strongly connected to other centers, as
follows: city, people, and political. Thus, the frame these offer is rather general and dispersed.
Also, while the OccupyWallSt.org has steadily shifted from Occupy Wall Street to Occupy, the
same has not happened in the NYT. As such, in the pages of the newspaper, the OWS is still
mostly a local event. Additionally, there are no salient centers referring to the NATO protests.
Thus, the OWS is trying to extend its counter voice onto international issues. However, the
networking and networked powers functioning within the NYT do not allow for references to it
to become visible enough as evidenced by the fact that the protests are covered, but only to a
limited extent within the already limited number of articles.
May 2012 - The Wall Street Journal
The bigger attention given to OWS can also be observed in the Wall Street Journal, which has 17
articles, an increase from the 9 in April. The most resonant center pair is protest group (second:
protest city, third protest day) whereas the most resonant centers are the individual components
81
of the top center pair. Protest has the months strongest presence as it appears in 51% of the top
center pairs alongside group, city, day, police, OWS (this is its only resonant connection), year,
board, new, event, protester, May, business, Occupy_movement, Morgan-Stanley, country, and
Moscow. Again, the frames used are extremely similar to those from past months (such as the
problematic interactions with the authorities). The more general Occupy_movement appears as a
top center when the Occupy Moscow protest is mentioned, thus showing part of its international
success. It would be interesting to see, however, why no other international reincarnations of the
Occupy movement ever made it into the top centers in WSJ but this one. The adoption of the
Occupy_movement instead of OWS is similar to what happened on OccupyWallSt.org. However,
neither the May 1 marches nor the NATO protests that are central to OWSts content appear as
top centers. The overall effect is similar to that of NYTs content: mostly the same established
frames are used and no references are made to successfully gaining international supporters or
being considered a valid voice on international issues.
May 2012 USA Today
USA Today has a total of 4 articles on (or rather, around) OWS. In them, the most resonant
center pair is group economy (second: group member, third group Obama) whereas the most
resonant center is group followed by CEO. Mays top center is also its best connected within the
top center pairs (used in 48.38% of them) appearing in combinations with: economy, member,
Obama, Cleveland, job, American, Romney, large, movement, suspect, single, people, thriving,
high, and legal. Occupy, on the other hand, is far less connected as it is used in conjunction with
movement, Cleveland, campaign, and Chicago, demonstrating the spread of the protests ( a form
of success, and as such, a procedural frame). Once again, no top centers address the May 1
marches or the NATO protest, while more attention is given to presidential candidates where
Occupy is used as a metaphor for social justice.
82
June 2012 on OccupyWallSt.org
The most resonant center pair is occupy movement (second: student debt) whereas the most
resonant center is people. Occupy has the biggest resonance within the center pairs and is present
in 38.7% of them alongside: movement, June, national, student, home, debt, occupy, public,
member, action, community, and campaign. Thus, their message is kept under the same general
pattern in a manner similar to the way that mainstream media functions proving that sometimes
the two are not so different (Atton 2002). The only new additions are the references to the
presidential election and the ongoing campaign, thus finally catching up with the mainstream
medias attention that had been in that direction since the beginning of the year.
June 2012 - The New York Times
The most resonant center pair is political American seconded by Hayes Show, while the most
resonant center is political followed by year. The center with the strongest connections was
political which was present in 70.97% of the top center pairs alongside: American, year, Hayes,
show, city, campaign, country, group, art, policy, new, member, part, movement, work, left,
national, union, leader, Europe, Texas, and morning. The only top center pair containing OWS
is Occupy Wall Street protester, a simple descriptive frame referring to a problematic situation.
Overall, the interest in OWS is only adjacent, and the references to it are limited to simple
comparisons, or are used as a way to build the background for other topics.
June 2012 - The Wall Street Journal
The most resonant center pair is book reader (second: digital book, third protester group)
whereas the most resonant center is book followed by reader. As is easily visible from the above
listing of the most prominent centers and pairs, the OWS movement is mentioned within the
context of culture and arts, as an accessory to the main story. It no longer is the main subject.
This creates a sense of it already being part of an accepted but passed storyline, as something that
is no longer alive.
83
June 2012 USA Today
The most resonant center pair is progressive frustration (second: Obama protest, third: Obama
frustration) whereas the most resonant center is progressive followed by Obama. Progressive is
the best connected center within the top pairs used in 35.5% of them together with: frustration,
daily, political, liberal, good, union, president, White House, marriage, agenda, and home.
Obama is the second most connected center (32.25%) alongside: frustration, group, liberal,
White House, brother, endorsement, Bettinson, Jonna, marriage, and sure. As such, USA Today
displays a similar trend to those in the other two newspapers: OWS as a source of metaphors that
can be used for ongoing events, though the OWS itself is no longer presented as ongoing.
6.3 Overall top centers: how do they compare?
Though the first level analysis clearly displays the differences and similarities between the OWS
messages in the movements own source and those coming from mainstream media, I wanted to
see exactly just how different they were and what proportion of OccupyWallSt.orgs centers
were also top centers in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA today. In order to do
so, a simple regression analysis was done in which the OccupyWallSt.orgs messages were
compared with each of the three mainstream media sources. The results can be found below.
Lets start by looking at the connection between the top centers in OccupyWallSt.org and those
from NYT. As what I am trying to find out is whether NYTs top centers can be explained by
OWSts top centers, OWSts top centers are the explanatory variable (Res1na) while NYTs top
centers are the response (dependent) variable (Res2na). The resulting R_squared will explain
what proportion of the variation observed in the response variable is due to the explanatory
variable.
84
Res2 (NYT)= Res1(OWSt.org)* (-0.1108)+ 0.0169
Fig. 1. Model 1: OWSt.org -> NYT, including the regression equation.
The model has a negative and relatively strong regression coefficient (-0.1108), indicating a
relatively strong attenuation effect - messages important (having a high centrality) to
OccupyWallSt.org show up as less important in NYT. At the same time, messages weak in
centrality to OWSt show up as more important to NYT. This finding is in line with the monthly
qualitative analyses described above. The coefficient is statistically significant at p<0.01,
meaning the correlation holds at a 99% confidence level. In terms of goodness of fit, the R
square of the model is extremely low, at 0.0383. Thus only 3.83% of the variation of NYT
centers can be explained by the variation of OWSt centers. In effect this translates to only 3.83%
of NYT's main positions and messages on OWS were reflections of OWSts messages. The
remaining 96.17% of it has no connection with the content of OWSt.org, meaning that, although
there is a connection between the two sources, this is, nevertheless extremely weak.
Fig. 2. The line of best fit generated by the NYT->OWSt.org regression equation. The grey interval is the 95%
confidence interval of the line of best fit. Green points are actual observations.
85
This weak link between OWSt.org and NYT can be further explored in figure 2 - a large number
of OWSt's centers are not present at all in NYT while a large number of NYT centers are not
present in OWSt.org's own messages. Thus, the line of best fit (and its 95% confidence interval
area), covers a relatively small amount of observations, leaving large residuals. Coupled with the
attenuation effect described above, it is rather clear that NYT's portrayal of OWS as a movement
differed substantially from OWSt's. Thus, once again, the statistical finds indicate the validity of
the qualitative analysis above.
OWSt and WSJ center similarities
The second model uses Wall Street Journal as the dependent variable, modeling the relationship
(correlation) between the messages (centers) of OWSt and WSJ. As in the first model, the
coefficient (-0.1887) is negative, indicating a similar attenuation effect as in the first model -
themes important for OWSt.org are weakly covered in WSJ and themes important for WSJ have
little importance for OWSt.org.
Res3(WSJ)= Res1(OWSt.org)* (-0.1887)+ 0.0235
Fig. 3. Model 2: OWSt.org -> WSJ, including the regression equation.
86
fig. 4. The line of best fit generated by the WSJ->OWS.org regression equation. The grey interval is the
95% confidence interval of the line of best fit. Green points are actual observations.
On the other hand, the relationship between the themes covered by WSJ and OWSt is somewhat
stronger than in the first model, with an R squared of 0.639, meaning that approximately 6.39%
in the variation of the response variable can be explained by the explanatory variable. The
remaining 93.61% of it have no connection with the content of OWSt.org. Although the
correlation is slightly stronger (more OWSt.org content is covered in WSJ than in NYT, and in a
closer form to that intended by OWSt.org), it still is incredibly small - very little of OWSt.org
messages makes its way into WSJ (see fig. 4 for a graphical explanation). This relationship is
similarly significant at 99% confidence level. Thus, the results derived from the qualitative
analysis above hold.
OWSt and USA Today center similarities
While the first two regressions analyses showed a weak connection between the content of the
two types of media, the results of this third model are somewhat different. It still holds that the
coefficient is negative, but the goodness of fit increases, as the model has an R square of 11.88%.
Whilst still low, with only 11% of the OWSt messages being reflected in USA Today, this level
87
is higher than the combined R squares of the two previous models. Thus, USA Today covers
more of OWSt.org's ideas and messages than any of the other two major newspapers. This model
is similarly significant at 99% confidence level.
Res4(USAt)= Res1(OWSt.org)* (-0.422)+ 0.0359
Fig. 5. Model 3: OWSt.org -> USAtoday, including the regression equation.
This is in line with the findings of the qualitative analysis, where the study identified major
issues on the OWSt agenda that were found in the top centers of the newspaper, such as the gap
between the rich and the poor (February 2012: rich-poor-gap, March 2012: income inequality,
wealth and income distribution and wealth-poor-gap) or the problem of student loans (appearing
in November 2011 and April 2012). However, an attenuation effect (a coefficient of -0.4228) is
present in this third model as well - the higher the resonance of a center will be in OWSt.org, the
lower it will be in USA Today's reporting. Further, this attenuation effect is stronger than in the
case of both WSJ and NYT - however it can most likely be explained by USA Today's more
schematic, less in-depth coverage of news (shorter article lengths), as well as by the smaller
number of articles in USA Today as opposed to WSJ and NYT.
*
88
The Occupy Wall Street movement has proven to be a popular source of media content,
generating a large amount of text even when the OWS demonstrators were not physically
protesting. As the months passed, OccupyWallSt.org has tried to build an identity for the
movement, a sense of legitimacy and of moral and practical urgency for social change. Its
content covered the entire frame typology provided by Entman (2004) as well as displayed the
attributes for the success of counter frames proposed by Castells (2009). We have seen how
OccupyWallSt.org has strived to support OWS struggle to gain counter power and how it has
chosen to present important events in the life of the movement. Also, as time passed,
OccupyWallSt.org not only held on to initial frames but, as the social movement evolved, it also
created new ones that could better suit OWS agenda.
The access to mainstream medias OWS frames has created the opportunity to understand the
other half of the story: how established means of creating power (Castells 2009) deal with
attempts to create counter power. We have seen how dominant frames are introduced at the
beginning of the movement to then never leave its side, and how events deemed important by the
OccupyWallSt.org never make it onto the major OWS events as defined by the newspapers. On
a more optimistic note, we have also seen how occasionally, when the circumstances are
favorable, new defining elements for OWS are introduced in the pages of mainstream media.
These do not come as a major shift within their established framing, but instead are punctually
presented as complements to OWS image they had already created.
89
7. Conclusions
I went into this paper with the intention of looking at the way the Occupy Wall Street movement
utilized online media in order to gain support. The complementary focus was on how mainstream
media, as exemplified by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today,
portrayed the OWS, and the way in which the frames provided by these two types of sources
differed. I have went through each level of the research question and looked at OWSts main
messages and their evolution, how they were used, then at established medias content about the
OWS and its respective evolution. At the same time, I have compared the two sources portrayal
of OWS in an effort to explain the differences and similarities. All this was done by employing
Castells network theory of power and Entmans theory of media framing.
Overall, the content provided by OccupyWallSt.org had a few distinguishing characteristics. In a
manner similar to that of mainstream medias, it established counter frames early on in the
development of the social movement. This happened because when a frame is created early on in
the news coverage it has a bigger chance to become the issues dominant frame, the most widely
accepted frame for that topic (Entman 2004, 7). One such dominant counter frame was that of a
legitimate and representative movement that is struggling for a much needed social change. Also,
the movements communication displayed some of the characteristics identified by previous
research of social movements using alternative media. As such, OWSts content occasionally
utilized the conflict frame that is usually used against them in mainstream media, but did so in
order to present the authorities as oppressive and violent, a fact previously described by the
research of Atton (2002) and Atton and Wickenden (2005). The present research also observed
that OWS use of online media resulted in a combination of connective and collective action
(Bennett and Segerberg 2012), as it focused both on disseminating personalized content and on
organizing action.
Returning to the papers main theories, Castells (2009) network theory of power proved a
valuable framework for interpreting OWSts and mainstream medias content, as well as their
different approaches. OWS struggled to secure counter power. It started by defining itself and
90
what it stands for, it explained the sources of its legitimacy and representativeness and it sought
to present the social and economical context it was born in as problematic and in desperate need
of a change. Initially, the focus was more on gaining attention and support than on vilifying what
they opposed. OWSts content also offered moral judgment for the causes that led to the
economic crisis, occasionally described alternatives, but more so, it presented immediate actions
that its supporters could undertake in order to show their dissatisfaction with the current
situation. In the way it used media, OWSt showed its understanding of the fact that, to a certain
extent, this is a space of power making (194). As such, even in those months when OWS was
not creating large street protests, the communication on the website continued. When mainstream
media was using it as a metaphor and presenting it as deceased, OccupyWallSt.org kept on
talking about legitimacy, action and the need to transform society. Overall, it can be said that the
way it packaged its content provided its audience with a critical reading of contemporary events
as well as with a choice in interpretation (160), something that was different from the preferred
frames (158). Also, OccupyWallSt.org presents the movements international success (as several
reinterpretations of it appeared in many countries) and carefully organizes important OWS
events. One such case was the May 1 International Workers Day, that was marked by marches.
The May 1 event was presented specifically since March 2012, followed two months of
references to necessary actions that would breathe life back into the OWS.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, mainstream media sources had a generally limited
portrayal of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Most of the frames that were used were decided
in the beginning and then used throughout the entire period. A large proportion of the content
was directed at presenting the problematic interactions of the OWS with the authorities, which
was almost always done from the point of view of the latter. This focus on official sources has
been repeatedly observed by researchers including Rauch et al. (2007) and Hall et al.s (1978)
and was confirmed by the current paper. Additionally, little to no attention was given to the
movements core issues. The exception was USA Today which in two consecutive months
addressed the matter of income inequality (February and March 2012) and that of student loans
(November 2011 and April 2012). The inclusion of such messages could be explained by the
attributes of their target audience. On average, they are, less economically affluent and less
educated than the readers of the New York Times and considerably so than those of the Wall
Street Journal. The better correlation of OWSt and USA Todays top centers was also observed
91
in the statistical analysis of their relationship. On the other hand, New York Times content
proved to be the most dissimilar. The newspaper used a very limited frame for defining the
movement. In fact, in some months this is restricted to linking it to protester, protest or
movement, neither particularly rich sources of information. The NYT is also the only source that
does not shift or at least present in similar proportions, the terms Occupy Wall Street and the
more general Occupy movement which would have shown that the movement is growing. Last,
the Wall Street Journal addressed slightly more issues considered important by the OWSt,
though usually the result was not favorable to the overall image of the movement. For example,
WSJ did present the impact that businesses can have on communities. However, it did not focus
on the major corporations that could be blamed for the economic crisis (which was OWSts
perspective), but on the small locally-owned businesses that were affected by OWS street
protests.
While the way Castells different types of network power functioned within this particular
context could not be directly studied as there was no access to decision makers on either side,
their end results were definitely visible. OWS struggle for counter power was complemented by
its continuous alternative media presence where it created a counter frame for the ideas it was
fighting for. Within its media environment, many more ideas about social change and moral and
economical responsibility were used. However, mainstream media held onto traditional modes of
referencing social movements as a result of political and economical restraints and of the
interaction of different types of network power, the most relevant and obvious of which was the
networked power. As such, agenda setting, priming and framing (Castells 2009) resulted in the
type of content that this paper analyzed.
In fact, the limitations of this study could provide valuable ideas for further research. On one
hand, it would be extremely interesting to see the exact mechanisms through which Castells
different types of power affected the newspapers content. As such, interviews with decision
makers who would be willing to disclose such information would provide important insight into
the way this theory works in reality, and would help verify the validity of its assumptions.
Another facet of OWS media exposure that could be studied is the way in which media
consumers actually perceived the social movement. The research would help add more detail to
the conversation about mass medias actual impact on its audience. However, if the text frame
92
emphasizes in a variety of mutually reinforcing ways that the glass is half full, the evidence of
social science suggests that relatively few in the audience will conclude it is half empty
(Entman 1993, 56).
93
Bibliography
Abrahamian, Atossa Araxia and Emmett Berg. 2012. May Day protests draw police but most
are peaceful. Reuters, May 1. Accessed July 31, 2012.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-usa-occupy-may-idUSBRE8400UV20120501
Adbusters, 2011. #OCCUPYWALLSTREET. Adbusters blog, 13 July. Accessed July 31,
2012. http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html
Adbusters Occupy Campaign. 2012. Accessed October 1.
http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet
Albertazzi, Daniele and Paul Cobley 2010. The Media: An Introduction. London: Pearson
Education Limited
Atton, Chris. 2002. News Cultures and New Social Movements: radical journalism and the
mainstream media. Journalism Studies 3(4): 491-505. Accessed October 1, 2012. doi:
10.1080/1461670022000019209.
Atton, Chris, and Emma Wickenden. 2005. Sourcing Routines and Representation in
Alternative Journalism: a case study approach. Journalism Studies 6(3): 347-359. Accessed
October 1, 2012. doi: 10.1080/1461670022000019209.
Audit Bureau of Circulation. 2012. US Newspaper search results. Accessed October 1.
http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/newstitlesearchus.asp
Bartiromo, Maria. 2012. JPMorgan's Dimon sees housing at the bottom. USA Today, January
16.
Bennett, W. Lance, and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. The Logic of Connective Action.
Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 739-768. Accessed October 1, 2012. doi:
10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661
Block, Sandra. 2011. Taking advantage of student loan help; Changes in policy may be modest,
but they can still make a difference. USA Today, November 1.
Blommaert, Jan and Chris Bulcaen. 2000. Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology 29: 447-466, http://www.jstor.org/stable/223428 .
Canary, Heather E. and Marianne M. Jennings. 2007. Principles and Influence in Codes of
Ethics: A Centering Resonance Analysis Comparing Pre- and Post-Sarbanes-Oxley Codes of
94
Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 80(2): 263-278. Accessed October 14, 2012.
doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9417-1
Castells, Manuel. 2007. Communication, Power and Counter-Power In The Network Society.
International Journal Of Communication 1: 238-266
Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel. 2011. A Network Theory of Power. International Journal of
Communication [Online] 5: 773-787. http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1136/553
Crawdad Technologies LLC. 2012. Crawdad Text Analysis Software.
http://www.crawdadtech.com/software.htm
Corman, Steven, and Timothy Kuhn, Robert McPhee, Kevin Dooley. 2002. Studying Complex
Discursive Systems. Centering Resonance Analysis of Communication. Human
Communication Research 28(2):157-206. Accessed October 1, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2958.2002.tb00802.x.
Corman, S. and Dooley, K. 2006. Crawdad Text Analysis System, Chandler, Arizona: Crawdad
Technologies, LLC.
Eaglesham, Jean. 2012. Once-Reviled Bond Trader Rebuilds. The Wall Street Journal, April
20.
Edgerly, Louisa, Amoshaun Toft, and Mary Lynn Veden. 2011. Social Movements, Political
Goals and the May 1 Marches: Communicating Protest in Polysemous Media Environments
International Journal of Press/Politics 16: 314-334. Accessed March 15, 2012. doi:
10.1177/1940161211398480
Emery, Theo. 2012. Occupy D.C. Protesters Stay Put as Evacuation Deadline Passes,
The New York Times, January 30. Accessed July 31, 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/us/tensions-rise-but-no-evictions-at-occupy-dc.html
Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of
Communication 43(4): 51-58. Accessed March 15, 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-
2466.1993.tb01304.x
Entman, Robert. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign
Policy. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press
Gardiner, Sean. 2011. City News: Police Probe Pepper Spray Use. Wall Street Journal,
September 29.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
95
Francescani, Chris. 2012. Dozens arrested at Occupy's 6-month anniversary rally. Reuters,
March 18. Accessed July 31, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/18/us-usa-occupy-
wallstreet-idUSBRE82G0FC20120318
Gay, Chris. 2012. Fundamentals of Investing; Are Bank Stocks 'Responsible'? The Occupy
movement would shun the biggest financial institutions. Few funds do that.The Wall Street
Journal, February 6
Gardiner, Sean. 2011. Police Probe Pepper Spray Use. The Wall Street Journal, September 29.
Gitlin, Todd. 2003. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of
the New Left. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
GNU - Free Software Foundation. 2012. Wget. http://gnu.org/software/wget
Gorman, Siobhan. 2012. U.S. News: Alert on Hacker Power Play - U.S. Official Signals
Growing Concern Over Anonymous Group's Capabilities. The Wall Street Journal, February
21.
Graeber, David. 2012. Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots. OccupyWallSt, April 30.
Accessed July 31, 2012. http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-wall-streets-anarchist-roots/
Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A Framework for
Modeling the Local Coherence of Discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2): 203- 225.
Haas, Tanni. 2006. From <<Public Journalism>> to the <<Publics Journalism>>? Rhetoric and
Reality in the Discourse on Weblogs. Journalism Studies 6(3), 387-396. Accessed March 15,
2012. doi: 10.1080/14616700500132073.
Hall, Stuart, Charles Critcher, Tony Jefferson, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts. 1978. Policing
the Crisis: mugging, the state, and law and order. London: Macmillan.
Harcup, Tony. 2005. <<I'm Doing This to Change the World>>: journalism in alternative and
mainstream media. Journalism Studies 6(3): 361-374. Accessed March 15, 2012. doi:
10.1080/14616700500132016.
Henry, Mary Kay. 2011. Why Labor Backs 'Occupy Wall Street'. The Wall Street Journal.
October 8.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1984. The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in
Universal Grammar. Language 60 (4): 703-752. Published by: Linguistic Society of America.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413797
96
Iskander, Elizabeth. 2011. Connecting the national and the virtual: can Facebook activism
remain relevant after Egypts January 25 uprising? International journal of communication 5:
13-15. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/38165/
Jackson, David and Richard Wolf. 2011. Obama: 'Make or break moment' for middle class ;
Puts focus on economic inequality. USA Today. December 7.
Juris, Jeffrey S. 2008. Networking Futures: The Movements against Corporate Globalization.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Juris, Jeffrey S. 2012. Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: social media, public space, and
emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist 39 (2): 259-279. Accessed October 14,
2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1425.2012.01362.x
Kaplan, Thomas. 2011. As Economy Lags, Cuomo Reconsiders Tax Position. The New York
Times, December 1.
Knoke, David, George W. Borhrnstedt and Alisa Potter Mee. 2002. Statistics for Social Data
Analysis. 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Krattenmaker, Tom. 2012. Church closes racial divide; Black congregation and new white
deacon learn about each other in N.J. USA Today, April 30
Kroll, Andy. 2011. Occupy Wall Street, Powered by Big Labor. Mother Jones, October 5.
Accessed July 31, 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-labor-
unions
Matsu, Kono. 2011. A Million Man March on Wall Street.Adbusters, February 2. Accessed
July 31, 2012. http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/million-man-march-wall-
street.html
Matthes, Jrg. 2009. Whats in a Frame? A Content Analysis of Media Framing Studies in the
World's Leading Communication Journals, 1990-2005. Journalism& Mass communication
quarterly 86: 349-367. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi: 0.1177/107769900908600206.
McCombs, Maxwell E. and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass
Media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176-187. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi:
10.1086/267990.
Mcphee, Robert D., Steven R. Corman and Kevin Dooley. 2002. Organizational Knowledge
Expression and Management : Centering Resonance Analysis of Organizational Discourse.
Management Communication Quarterly 16: 274-281. Accessed October 14, 2012.
doi:10.1177/089331802237241.
97
Mother Jones news team. 2011. Map: Occupy Wall Street, a global movement. Mother Jones,
October 4. Accessed July 31, 2012. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/occupy-wall-
street-protest-map
MSN News. 2011. The Occupy Wall Street Protests. Accessed 14 July 2012
http://news.ca.msn.com/the-occupy-wall-street-protests?page=7
Mudde, Cas. 2011. Occuppy Wall Street: lessons and opportunities, OpenDemocracy, October
12. Accessed July 31, 2012. http://www.opendemocracy.net/cas-mudde/occupy-wall-street-
lessons-and-opportunities
New York Times Media Kit. 2012. Accessed October 1
http://nytmarketing.whsites.net/mediakit/newspaper
Nader, Ralph. 2011. Time for a Tax on Speculation. The Wall Street Journal, November 2.
Occupytogether Website. 2012. Accessed October 1. http://www.Occupytogether.org
OccupyWallSt Website. 2012. Accessed October 1. http://www.OccupyWallSt.org
Occupywallstreet Website. 2012. Accessed October 1. http://www.OccupyWallStreet.org
Papacharissi, Zizi and Maria de Fatima Oliveira. 2008. News Frames Terrorism: A
Comparative Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S. and U.K.
Newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 13(1): 52-74. Accessed October 14,
2012. doi: 10.1177/1940161207312676.
Rauch, Jennifer, Sunitha Chitrapu, Susan Tyler Eastman, John Christopher Evans, Christopher
Paine, and Peter Mwesige. 2007. "From Seattle 1999 to New York 2004: A Longitudinal
Analysis of Journalistic Framing of the Movement for Democratic Globalization Social
Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 6(2): 131-145. Accessed
October 14, 2012. doi: 10.1080/14742830701497244.
Sandoval, Marisol and Christian Fuchs. 2009. Towards a critical theory of alternative media.
Telematics and Informatics 27(2):141-150. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2009.06.011.
Seib, Gerald F. 2011. Populist Anger Over Economy Carries Risks for Big Business. The Wall
Street Journal, October 11.
Semetko, Holli A., and Patti M. Valkenburg. 2000. Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication 50(2): 93109. Accessed
October 14, 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x.
98
Scheufele, Dietram A and David Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The
Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication 57:9-20. Accessed
October 14, 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x.
Schmidt, Michael S. 2012. For Occupy Movement, a Challenge to Recapture Momentum. The
New York Times, April 1.
Schwartz, Mattathias. 2011. Pre-Occupied: The Origins and Future Of Occupy Wall Street.
The New Yorker, November 28. Accessed July 31, 2012.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz
Simply Measured Inc. 2012. Rowfeeder. https://rowfeeder.com
Stein, Laura. 2009. Social movement web use in theory and practice: a content analysis of US
movement websites. New Media & Society 11: 749-771. Accessed October 14, 2012. doi:
10.1177/1461444809105350.
US Census bureau. 2011. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2011. Accessed 14 July
2012. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2011/tables.html
USA Today Media Kit. 2012. Accessed October 1.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/marketing/media_kit/usat/audience_overview.html
USLAWdotcom. 2011. NYPD Police Pepper Spray Occupy Wall Street Protesters (Anthony
Bologna) video. Accessed 14 July 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig
Wall Street Journal Media Kit. 2012. Accessed October 1.
http://www.wsjmediakit.com/newspaper
Wall Street Journal Media Kit Audience Profile. 2012. Accessed October 1.
http://www.wsjmediakit.com/downloads/GNY_Audience_Profile.pdf?121001031213
Wall Street Journal Media Kit Fact Sheet. 2012. Accessed October 1.
http://www.wsjmediakit.com/downloads/WSJ_Fact_Sheet.pdf?121001030714
Wearethe99percent. 2012. Accessed October 1. wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
Walker, Marilyn A, Aravind K. Joshi and Ellen F. Prince. 1998. Centering in Naturally-
Occurring Discourse: An Overview. In Centering theory in discourse, edited by Marilyn
Walker, Marilyn A, Aravind K. Joshi and Ellen F. Prince, 1-31. New York: Oxford University
Press.
White, Bobby. 2011. Bay Area: Occupy Flap Prompts Oakland Recall Drive. The Wall Street
Journal, December 1.
99
Weigel, David and Lauren Hepler. 2011. Everything You Need To Know About Occupy Wall
Street a timeline. Slate, November 18. Accessed July 31, 2012.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/features/2011/occupy_wall_street/what
_is_ows_a_complete_timeline.html
Wickham, DeWayne. 2011. Occupy Wall Street is a 2nd American revolution. USA Today,
October 11.
***, DOW Jones Factiva About Page. 2012. www.dowjones.com/factiva/
***, OccupyWallSt editorial team. 2012. May Day Directory: Occupy General Strike In Over
135 Cities. April 21. Accessed October 14. http://occupywallst.org/archive/Apr-21-2012/page-
1/
100
Appendix 1
Source Month
Number of
Articles
USAt Jul-11 0
USAt Aug-11 0
USAt Sep-11 0
USAt Oct-11 27
USAt Nov-11 36
USAt Dec-11 14
USAt Jan-12 7
USAt Feb-12 13
USAt Mar-12 2
USAt Apr-12 3
USAt May-12 4
USAt Jun-12 1
USAt TOTAL 107
NYT Jul-11 0
NYT Aug-11 0
NYT Sep-11 5
NYT Oct-11 171
NYT Nov-11 149
NYT Dec-11 107
NYT Jan-12 90
NYT Feb-12 24
NYT Mar-12 38
101
NYT Apr-12 26
NYT May-12 34
NYT Jun-12 24
NYT TOTAL 668
WSJ Jul-11 0
WSJ Aug-11 0
WSJ Sep-11 3
WSJ Oct-11 90
WSJ Nov-11 71
WSJ Dec-11 29
WSJ Jan-12 36
WSJ Feb-12 12
WSJ Mar-12 21
WSJ Apr-12 9
WSJ May-12 17
WSJ Jun-12 6
WSJ TOTAL 294
102
paras
words
chars doc_name month year
OccupyWallSt.org
25 636 3780 100.txt July 2011
87 1949 11998 101.txt August 2011
471 11176 67318 102.txt September 2011
658 12210 76333 103.txt October 2011
363 9453 59033 104.txt November 2011
304 7552 47286 105.txt December 2011
212 5806 36319 106.txt January 2012
180 6315 39757 107.txt February 2012
368 9768 62166 108.txt March 2012
889 24157 150660 109.txt April 2012
1295 31993 201875 110.txt May 2012
672 15319 96180 111.txt June 2012
5524 136334 852705 total July 2012
Wall Street Journal
75 2227 13919 102WSJ.txt Sept 2011
1970 71553 446008 103WSJ.txt Oct 2011
1603 52337 327557 104WSJ.txt Nov 2011
621 19235 121513 105WSJ.txt Dec 2011
1166 36096 225813 106WSJ.txt Jan 2012
255 8505 54240 107WSJ.txt Feb 2012
435 14458 91023 108WSJ.txt March 2012
224 6927 42815 109WSJ.txt April 2012
345 9117 58800 110WSJ.txt May 2012
103
154 6852 42568 111WSJ.txt June 2012
6848 227307 1424256 total
New York Times
135 4256 26345 102NYT.txt Sept 2011
4250 152623 940156 103NYT.txt Oct 2011
3980 158748 973033 104NYT.txt Nov 2011
2769 106653 658934 105NYT.txt Dec 2011
2458 97235 595962 106NYT.txt Jan 2012
570 25836 158085 107NYT.txt Feb 2012
959 40039 246419 108NYT.txt March 2012
691 26417 162050 109NYT.txt April 2012
758 32508 200005 110NYT.txt May 2012
482 20541 126680 111NYT.txt June 2012
17052 664856 4087669 total
USAtoday
591 17985 111872 103USA.txt Oct 2011
898 24661 151844 104USA.txt Nov 2011
383 9253 56945 105USA.txt Dec 2011
184 6112 36400 106USA.txt Jan 2012
246 8455 52091 107USA.txt Feb 2012
28 1322 7899 108USA.txt March 2012
65 2454 14885 109USA.txt April 2012
128 4320 26831 110USA.txt May 2012
22 587 3660 111USA.txt June 2012
2545 75149 462427 total
104
Appendix 2
Section 1: OccupyWallSt.org Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of OccupyWallSt.org (OWSt.org) content.
Each map graphs one individual month. Resonance scores of top centers are listed under each
individual map.
July 2011 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 169
Density: 0.026
Focus: 0.343
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.35917
people | wall-street 0.123
105
wall-street 0.17066
people | assembly 0.065
event 0.16114
wall-street | august 0.045
august 0.13162
wall-street | assembly 0.031
call 0.13026
wall-street | occupation 0.030
assistance 0.09942
people | bloombergville 0.029
banker 0.09909
people | time 0.026
assembly 0.09113
people | bull 0.025
bloombergville 0.08164
event | august 0.021
time 0.07236
people | decades-old 0.018
sept. 0.07134
event | banker 0.016
bull 0.07055
people | new 0.015
organizing 0.0645
people | yorker 0.015
work 0.06323
people | nation 0.015
activist 0.06287
people | voice 0.014
north 0.06126
people | deadline 0.013
wall 0.05862
august | assistance 0.013
adbuster 0.0524
august | banker 0.013
student 0.05211
people | available 0.012
106
decades-old 0.05117
wall-street | bull 0.012
looting 0.04957
event | sept. 0.011
unemployed 0.04478
people | general 0.010
occupation 0.04399
wall-street | cutback 0.010
new 0.04284
event | organizing 0.010
yorker 0.04284
call | sept. 0.009
nation 0.04224
call | organizing 0.008
hq 0.0422
call | wall 0.008
security 0.04144
wall-street | new 0.007
voice 0.03766
wall-street | yorker 0.007
deadline 0.03752
wall-street | september 0.007
patient 0.03497
event | new 0.007
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 101
107
August 2011 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 455
Density: 0.013
Focus: 0.254
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
right 0.26256
right | economic 0.444
economic 0.18787
right | adequate 0.185
people 0.13886
right | large 0.128
assembly 0.11849
right | opportunity 0.092
new 0.09706
right | nation 0.083
living 0.06285
right | decent 0.070
108
general 0.06282
assembly | general 0.052
large 0.06109
right | new 0.051
day 0.05936
people | assembly 0.049
occupation 0.05373
right | home 0.042
percent 0.0534
right | protection 0.039
financial 0.05286
right | job 0.035
new york city 0.0493
right | old 0.030
freedom 0.04874
economic | adequate 0.017
dreamer 0.048
right | family 0.013
opportunity 0.04402
right | political 0.011
adequate 0.04396
economic | large 0.011
occupywallstreet 0.04281
economic | day 0.011
political 0.04267
right | good 0.009
demand 0.03999
economic | freedom 0.009
nation 0.03959
right | human 0.008
part 0.03868
right | nonviolence 0.008
world 0.03824
right | tenacity 0.008
august 0.03808
right | strategic 0.008
109
system 0.03777
right | state 0.008
decent 0.03314
economic | opportunity 0.008
human 0.03231
assembly | meeting 0.008
meeting 0.0319
right | medical 0.007
rare 0.03161
economic | nation 0.007
food 0.0315
people | percent 0.007
jammer 0.03082
right | language 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 102
110
September 2011 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1306
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.114
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
police 0.11628
assembly | general 0.048
people 0.10146
police | protester 0.038
september 0.08746
wall-street | day 0.024
111
occupation 0.06793
people | occupation 0.021
assembly 0.06526
police | assembly 0.015
group 0.062
people | assembly 0.013
wall-street 0.06016
september | occupation 0.012
world 0.05959
occupation | wall-street 0.012
solidarity 0.05052
september | wall-street 0.011
day 0.04398
police | september 0.010
public 0.03991
people | power 0.007
occupywallstreet 0.03967
world | country 0.007
percent 0.03684
people | group 0.006
city 0.03508
people | wall-street 0.006
new 0.03476
september | assembly 0.006
protester 0.03273
september | american 0.006
food 0.03221
september | financial 0.006
today 0.03138
group | solidarity 0.006
demand 0.02869
group | process 0.006
march 0.02758
wall-street | message 0.006
peaceful 0.0271
world | solidarity 0.006
112
sotheby 0.02688
police | public 0.005
general 0.02644
police | plaza 0.005
media 0.02382
police | square 0.005
american 0.02238
people | solidarity 0.005
political 0.02182
september | group 0.005
economic 0.02143
september | general 0.005
financial 0.02136
public | information 0.005
information 0.02095
police | member 0.004
right 0.02076
police | event 0.004
video 0.0196
police | demonstrator 0.004
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 103
113
October 2011 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1631
Density: 0.005
Focus: 0.107
CRA Map
114
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
occupywallstreet 0.1084
square | liberty 0.094
people 0.0801
people | movement 0.032
wall-street 0.07278
percent | 0.032
square 0.05136
occupywallstreet | movement 0.022
movement 0.05031
occupywallstreet | people 0.017
action 0.04763
occupywallstreet | wall-street 0.016
liberty 0.04592
people | world 0.016
police 0.0445
people | action 0.015
city 0.04234
people | percent 0.015
world 0.04041
occupywallstreet | square 0.011
occupation 0.03248
occupywallstreet | occupation 0.011
percent 0.03073
wall-street | square 0.011
new-york 0.03019
occupywallstreet | october 0.010
time 0.03013
action | city 0.010
solidarity 0.0299
percent | ninetynine 0.010
park 0.02905
occupywallstreet | world 0.009
economic 0.0273
people | 0.009
115
community 0.02658
wall-street | city 0.009
protest 0.02497
occupywallstreet | protest 0.008
party 0.0245
occupywallstreet | percent 0.007
occupy 0.02443
people | liberty 0.007
october 0.02358
people | solidarity 0.007
american 0.02348
wall-street | liberty 0.007
support 0.02322
square | occupation 0.007
group 0.02297
movement | liberty 0.007
global 0.0224
occupywallstreet | solidarity 0.006
local 0.02021
occupywallstreet | parent 0.006
today 0.01961
people | wall-street 0.006
system 0.01889
square | time 0.006
0.01787
| ninetynine 0.006
home 0.01713
occupywallstreet | liberty 0.005
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104
116
November 2011 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1443
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.092
CRA Map
117
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
movement 0.09367
movement | occupy 0.087
occupywallstreet 0.09193
percent | 0.086
occupy 0.08465
percent | ninetynine 0.076
people 0.07684
square | liberty 0.064
square 0.06525
movement | percent 0.057
percent 0.0557
movement | occupywallstreet 0.043
ows 0.05029
ninetynine | 0.038
action 0.04676
occupywallstreet | square 0.036
community 0.04423
movement | ninetynine 0.031
city 0.04297
square | park 0.028
november 0.04168
movement | 0.026
park 0.03839
occupywallstreet | people 0.014
police 0.03798
square | november 0.014
right 0.03292
occupy | people 0.013
street 0.03088
movement | right 0.012
ninetynine 0.03049
occupywallstreet | liberty 0.012
nypd 0.02941
occupywallstreet | park 0.011
118
woman 0.02797
action | day 0.011
0.02764
occupywallstreet | percent 0.010
occupier 0.02728
park | liberty 0.010
today 0.02567
movement | action 0.009
eviction 0.02459
occupywallstreet | ows 0.009
occupation 0.02448
occupy | ows 0.009
solidarity 0.02439
occupywallstreet | occupy 0.008
global 0.02318
occupywallstreet | community 0.008
group 0.02317
occupywallstreet | ninetynine 0.008
liberty 0.02141
percent | action 0.008
world 0.02118
action | november 0.008
day 0.02083
people | world 0.007
new 0.01991
percent | november 0.007
supporter 0.01879
movement | square 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 105
119
December 2011 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1271
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.065
CRA Map
120
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
community 0.06772
movement |
occupy
0.040
movement 0.06671
movement |
right
0.014
occupy 0.0662
movement |
home
0.012
home 0.0593
occupy |
home
0.012
right 0.05099
home |
new
0.012
people 0.05049
community |
occupywallstreet
0.010
action 0.04767
movement |
occupywallstreet
0.010
occupation 0.04371
new |
year
0.010
ows 0.04259
home |
right
0.009
new 0.0388
movement |
new
0.008
december 0.0384
home |
action
0.008
occupywallstreet 0.03825
action |
ows
0.008
121
street 0.03764
community |
right
0.007
wall-
street
0.03482
community |
local
0.007
occupier 0.03462
action |
day
0.007
country 0.03344
community |
action
0.006
local 0.03219
occupy |
dc
0.006
space 0.03208
occupy |
boston
0.006
city 0.03137
occupation |
country
0.006
year 0.03077
december |
occupywallstreet
0.006
dc 0.03057
community |
movement
0.005
day 0.03003
occupy |
new
0.005
square 0.02915
community |
occupy
0.004
event 0.02873
community |
home
0.004
solidarity 0.02705
community |
0.004
122
space
new-
york
0.02632
movement |
year
0.004
food 0.02573
occupy |
event
0.004
police 0.02537
home |
country
0.004
eviction 0.02536
right |
civil
0.004
system 0.02448
action |
solidarity
0.004
boston 0.02418
occupywallstreet |
space
0.004
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 106
123
January 2012 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1081
Density: 0.007
Focus: 0.126
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.1286
occupy | movement 0.069
124
occupy 0.11343
action | day 0.040
action 0.09122
occupy | oakland 0.023
movement 0.05569
occupy | action 0.021
january 0.04846
| percent 0.020
community 0.04405
people | occupy 0.015
day 0.04386
people | movement 0.014
0.04156
people | home 0.011
home 0.04137
occupy | january 0.011
police 0.04085
people | nigerian 0.010
nigerian 0.03904
people | corporation 0.009
world 0.03768
occupy | home 0.009
city 0.03415
occupy | police 0.009
year 0.03246
occupy | nigerian 0.009
occupation 0.032
occupy | dc 0.009
country 0.03135
occupy | boston 0.009
right 0.03013
action | january 0.009
oakland 0.02842
january | nigerian 0.009
solidarity 0.02716
occupy | portland 0.008
125
march 0.02693
action | nigerian 0.007
dc 0.02579
action | solidarity 0.007
percent 0.02464
people | community 0.006
corporation 0.0246
occupy | solidarity 0.006
state 0.02384
action | city 0.006
support 0.02379
action | country 0.006
democracy 0.02363
people | police 0.005
economic 0.02295
people | world 0.005
park 0.02294
people | boston 0.005
earle 0.02012
people | national 0.005
boston 0.01998
occupy | occupier 0.005
national 0.01966
action | national 0.005
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107
126
February 2012 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1152
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.161
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
action 0.16318
action | day 0.110
occupy 0.14152
occupy | oakland 0.070
police 0.09549
action | occupy 0.069
127
day 0.05193
action | washington 0.045
world 0.0494
occupy | chicago 0.034
today 0.04892
action | today 0.032
people 0.04672
occupy | day 0.029
oakland 0.04473
action | community 0.021
community 0.04335
action | world 0.016
chicago 0.03963
occupy | movement 0.016
movement 0.03829
action | corporate 0.015
home 0.03116
action | global 0.015
school 0.03079
action | food 0.014
group 0.03026
action | support 0.014
corporate 0.02964
occupy | community 0.012
event 0.02888
occupy | support 0.012
corporation 0.02775
occupy | london 0.011
city 0.02612
police | washington 0.011
bank 0.02385
action | corporation 0.009
ows 0.02375
action | city 0.009
protester 0.02369
occupy | national 0.009
128
european 0.02321
police | oakland 0.009
foreclosure 0.02316
action | people 0.008
global 0.02244
action | european 0.008
economic 0.02182
action | foreclosure 0.008
social 0.02174
police | chicago 0.008
solidarity 0.02115
action | oakland 0.007
austerity 0.02112
action | national 0.007
square 0.02109
action | direct 0.007
national 0.02093
occupy | protester 0.007
park 0.02051
action | movement 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108
129
March 2012 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1488
Density: 0.005
Focus: 0.108
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
march 0.11014
march | washington 0.127
130
action 0.08229
march | day 0.056
people 0.07311
action | day 0.053
occupy 0.07054
square | union 0.041
day 0.06395
day | woman 0.033
public 0.05011
square | liberty 0.033
nypd 0.04939
march | occupy 0.031
square 0.04936
action | occupy 0.023
police 0.04308
march | square 0.022
woman 0.03934
occupy | square 0.021
world 0.03274
day | may 0.019
right 0.03222
occupy | day 0.018
government 0.03083
march | ows 0.017
park 0.03023
march | people 0.016
economic 0.02638
nypd | square 0.015
union 0.02596
people | woman 0.014
occupywallstreet 0.02586
occupy | woman 0.011
occupier 0.02493
occupy | movement 0.011
wall-street 0.02361
action | may 0.010
131
street 0.02349
| percent 0.010
0.02318
march | liberty 0.009
city 0.02291
march | may 0.009
community 0.02173
march | occupier 0.008
ows 0.02158
march | wall-street 0.008
education 0.02105
public | park 0.008
liberty 0.02023
people | nypd 0.007
movement 0.01999
people | square 0.007
event 0.01989
people | park 0.007
may 0.01964
square | occupier 0.007
front 0.01949
march | public 0.006
worker 0.01946
march | union 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109
132
April 2012 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2896
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.086
CRA Map
133
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
day 0.08677
day | may 0.610
may 0.06504
day | action 0.101
people 0.06088
union | square 0.036
occupy 0.05153
may | action 0.033
action 0.05055
occupy | movement 0.028
community 0.03996
day | occupy 0.018
movement 0.03884
day | people 0.016
student 0.03747
may | general 0.016
union 0.02909
may | strike 0.016
public 0.02884
day | nyc 0.015
group 0.0276
day | community 0.014
square 0.02718
day | square 0.014
police 0.02604
day | strike 0.014
worker 0.02483
day | union 0.013
new-york 0.02446
occupy | action 0.013
street 0.02375
may | people 0.012
city 0.02237
occupy | student 0.012
134
right 0.02169
general | strike 0.012
bank 0.02154
day | worker 0.011
march 0.0206
day | march 0.011
food 0.02048
day | general 0.011
protest 0.01892
may | square 0.011
new 0.01838
day | student 0.010
park 0.01742
day | event 0.010
free 0.01685
may | union 0.009
april 0.01684
action | direct 0.009
general 0.01612
percent | 0.009
strike 0.01608
may | street 0.008
occupywallstreet 0.01599
may | march 0.008
occupier 0.0158
may | nyc 0.008
percent 0.01531
day | april 0.007
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110
135
May 2012 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3474
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.083
CRA Map
136
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.08345
police | chicago 0.068
police 0.07978
chicago | occupy 0.049
chicago 0.05708
people | may 0.037
may 0.05555
people | world 0.036
movement 0.04134
chicago | may 0.035
city 0.03965
people | chicago 0.033
occupy 0.03746
may | day 0.029
solidarity 0.03111
movement | occupy 0.022
assembly 0.03048
people | police 0.020
street 0.02975
police | occupy 0.018
action 0.0289
people | occupy 0.016
park 0.02868
chicago | action 0.015
world 0.02699
chicago | nato 0.014
student 0.02529
people | city 0.013
nato 0.02377
people | solidarity 0.013
war 0.02326
police | action 0.012
protest 0.02326
people | group 0.011
137
global 0.02312
police | protester 0.011
community 0.0218
movement | global 0.011
group 0.02125
occupy | action 0.011
march 0.01955
may | solidarity 0.010
right 0.01904
may | action 0.010
protester 0.01897
people | summit 0.009
public 0.01799
police | may 0.009
square 0.01792
chicago | movement 0.009
state 0.01787
solidarity | student 0.009
day 0.01743
people | assembly 0.008
anarchist 0.01521
people | nato 0.008
government 0.0149
may | global 0.008
activist 0.01379
action | day 0.008
nyc 0.01364
people | action 0.007
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111
138
June 2012 on OWSt.org
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2214
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.086
CRA Map
139
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.08717
occupy | movement 0.058
occupy 0.08631
student | debt 0.045
movement 0.06751
occupy | june 0.025
june 0.05819
movement | student 0.023
student 0.05607
occupy | national 0.021
action 0.04591
occupy | student 0.019
community 0.04587
student | solidarity 0.019
public 0.04364
people | movement 0.018
bank 0.03824
people | community 0.016
solidarity 0.03676
occupy | home 0.011
debt 0.03614
movement | social 0.011
education 0.03364
movement | solidarity 0.010
right 0.02662
occupy | debt 0.009
new 0.02523
people | occupy 0.008
home 0.02436
people | action 0.008
ows 0.02404
occupy | public 0.008
national 0.02391
student | strike 0.008
140
event 0.02372
public | debt 0.008
percent 0.02266
people | world 0.007
state 0.02254
june | ows 0.007
protest 0.0216
public | education 0.007
activist 0.02151
people | home 0.006
street 0.02127
june | debt 0.006
time 0.02039
june | event 0.006
union 0.02038
people | june 0.005
new-york 0.0196
occupy | member 0.005
day 0.01958
student | public 0.005
social 0.01946
debt | education 0.005
world 0.01933
occupy | action 0.004
march 0.01886
occupy | community 0.004
member 0.01816
occupy | campaign 0.004
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0
141
Section 2: The New York Times Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of NYT content (articles) containing mentions of Occupy
Wall Street. Each map graphs one individual month. Note that months with no content are not included
(July 2011 and August 2011). Resonance scores of top centers are listed under each individual map.
September 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 822
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.192
CRA Map
142
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
police 0.19621
police | department 0.080
new-york 0.11234
police | new-york 0.066
protester 0.0968
police | protester 0.057
city 0.09332
spray | pepper 0.033
officer 0.08736
police | people 0.027
page 0.08532
police | demonstration 0.026
spray 0.06881
protester | officer 0.025
people 0.06767
police | city 0.018
demonstration 0.06679
page | spray 0.018
group 0.05614
police | page 0.017
video 0.05331
police | inspector 0.016
street 0.05294
spray | use 0.013
inspector 0.04171
inspector | bologna 0.012
number 0.03762
officer | inspector 0.011
occupywallstreet 0.03624
police | street 0.010
legal 0.03606
police | browne 0.010
president 0.03565
new-york | officer 0.010
143
zuccottipark 0.03427
new-york | page 0.010
arrest 0.03409
new-york | department 0.010
union 0.034
officer | street 0.009
week 0.03207
police | saturday 0.008
activist 0.03075
new-york | people 0.008
department 0.0292
new-york | union 0.008
personhood 0.02529
city | officer 0.008
use 0.02364
police | union 0.007
action 0.02359
protester | spray 0.007
corporation 0.02302
protester | people 0.007
pepper 0.02285
spray | video 0.007
member 0.02121
police | week 0.006
woman 0.02113
police | official 0.006
bologna 0.02097
police | deputy 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 103NYT
144
October 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 10499
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.059
CRA Map
145
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.05973
protest | occupywallstreet 0.095
protest 0.04997
protester | occupywallstreet 0.074
people 0.04406
occupywallstreet | movement 0.033
city 0.03225
protest | movement 0.030
new 0.0319
protester | police 0.024
occupywallstreet 0.02704
protester | wall-street 0.020
year 0.02662
protest | people 0.020
movement 0.0225
protest | new-york 0.014
american 0.02201
protest | wall-street 0.014
new-york 0.0202
protester | people 0.013
group 0.02011
protester | group 0.012
page 0.01934
protester | zuccottipark 0.012
wall-street 0.01801
protester | park 0.011
company 0.01645
protest | city 0.011
president 0.01633
protest | police 0.010
police 0.01621
protest | week 0.010
time 0.01613
people | occupywallstreet 0.010
146
tax 0.01533
protester | protest 0.009
park 0.01522
protester | movement 0.009
financial 0.01506
people | group 0.009
public 0.01387
people | movement 0.008
week 0.0131
protester | right 0.007
day 0.01297
protest | page 0.007
country 0.01273
people | city 0.007
bank 0.01225
city | new-york 0.007
good 0.01209
president | obama 0.007
former 0.01201
protester | city 0.006
mayor 0.01185
protester | new 0.006
man 0.01182
protester | new-york 0.006
part 0.01177
protester | week 0.006
state 0.01158
people | american 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104NYT
147
November 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 10665
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.059
CRA Map
148
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.05891
protester | occupywallstreet 0.042
people 0.05696
protester | police 0.041
year 0.02931
protester | park 0.032
city 0.0284
protester | city 0.028
new 0.02423
movement | occupywallstreet 0.020
police 0.02323
protester | group 0.018
group 0.02215
people | park 0.014
movement 0.01973
protester | people 0.013
protest 0.01971
people | city 0.013
state 0.01934
people | american 0.013
american 0.01821
protester | country 0.011
president 0.01787
protester | tent 0.010
student 0.01782
protester | occupy 0.009
occupywallstreet 0.01773
people | good 0.009
time 0.0171
people | police 0.008
park 0.01647
people | group 0.008
149
new-york 0.01617
protest | occupywallstreet 0.008
day 0.01575
protester | new-york 0.007
university 0.01523
protester | zuccottipark 0.007
country 0.01507
people | young 0.007
member 0.01468
city | park 0.007
company 0.01428
protester | day 0.006
way 0.01369
people | occupywallstreet 0.006
man 0.01359
people | country 0.006
government 0.01354
city | new-york 0.006
job 0.01277
protester | university 0.005
good 0.01214
people | year 0.005
big 0.01191
people | time 0.005
former 0.01181
year | time 0.005
republican 0.01179
city | police 0.005
large 0.01138
police | park 0.005
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 105NYT
150
December 2011 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 10079
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.067
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
new 0.06703
new | tax 0.022
year 0.04701
new | year 0.009
151
art 0.02663
new | art 0.009
new-york 0.0259
new | show 0.007
people 0.02484
year | time 0.007
bank 0.02166
new-york | state 0.006
president 0.02102
year | bank 0.005
time 0.02096
year | art 0.004
american 0.02086
tax | state 0.004
show 0.01861
protester | occupywallstreet 0.004
street 0.01762
occupywallstreet | movement 0.004
city 0.01749
new | bank 0.003
company 0.01722
new | page 0.003
public 0.01685
new | protester 0.003
tax 0.01678
new | work 0.003
page 0.0161
new | way 0.003
state 0.01585
new | music 0.003
day 0.01576
year | show 0.003
protester 0.01481
year | state 0.003
police 0.01449
new-york | tax 0.003
152
work 0.01444
people | tax 0.003
occupywallstreet 0.01401
bank | president 0.003
world 0.01382
president | obama 0.003
good 0.01378
new | new-york 0.002
david 0.01275
new | people 0.002
group 0.01262
new | company 0.002
member 0.01229
new | public 0.002
former 0.01216
new | state 0.002
business 0.0119
new | day 0.002
man 0.01134
new | occupywallstreet 0.002
own 0.01054
new | good 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 106NYT
153
January 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 8181
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.050
CRA Map
154
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
year 0.0504
year | new 0.005
new 0.04537
year | recent 0.005
people 0.03654
people | group 0.005
new-york 0.02914
new-york | state 0.005
group 0.0284
year | people 0.004
time 0.02468
year | group 0.004
political 0.02395
year | time 0.004
state 0.02323
year | state 0.004
company 0.02246
year | percent 0.004
american 0.02151
new-york | city 0.004
public 0.02026
year | business 0.003
city 0.01922
year | financial 0.003
world 0.01893
new | new-york 0.003
day 0.01887
new | political 0.003
economic 0.01818
new | american 0.003
good 0.01771
new | world 0.003
business 0.01725
new | financial 0.003
155
country 0.01707
state | university 0.003
page 0.01633
president | obama 0.003
president 0.01544
occupywallstreet | movement 0.003
financial 0.01535
year | company 0.002
center 0.01493
year | city 0.002
republican 0.01489
year | world 0.002
romney 0.01296
year | republican 0.002
manhattan 0.01278
year | way 0.002
former 0.01264
year | school 0.002
protester 0.01245
year | member 0.002
part 0.01218
new | people 0.002
bank 0.01166
new | state 0.002
government 0.01138
new | job 0.002
work 0.01138
people | company 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107NYT
156
February 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3404
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.075
CRA Map
157
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
new 0.07604
police | department 0.031
year 0.06815
new | museum 0.016
people 0.05611
new | work 0.011
police 0.05546
new | city 0.007
work 0.04661
new | school 0.007
city 0.04448
year | officer 0.007
kelly 0.03785
city | school 0.007
group 0.03657
police | kelly 0.006
officer 0.03527
police | officer 0.006
american 0.03519
new | year 0.005
school 0.03082
work | smith 0.005
department 0.03076
kelly | officer 0.005
time 0.03065
new | bank 0.004
artist 0.02792
year | people 0.004
titanic 0.02587
year | police 0.004
world 0.02567
year | good 0.004
158
bank 0.0232
people | money 0.004
protester 0.02203
police | protester 0.004
public 0.02049
work | kelly 0.004
financial 0.02036
new | art 0.003
art 0.02035
new | sculpture 0.003
protest 0.02022
year | city 0.003
part 0.01945
year | kelly 0.003
day 0.01932
police | work 0.003
early 0.01863
police | protest 0.003
photograph 0.01837
police | new-york 0.003
good 0.01804
work | time 0.003
way 0.01741
work | artist 0.003
occupywallstreet 0.01633
city | group 0.003
large 0.01629
city | department 0.003
teacher 0.0161
city | day 0.003
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108NYT
159
March 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 5102
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.068
CRA Map
160
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.06814
people | young 0.020
new 0.0566
police | department 0.019
year 0.04231
people | year 0.009
group 0.04013
people | police 0.008
police 0.03974
year | group 0.007
city 0.03329
people | city 0.005
political 0.0311
occupywallstreet | movement 0.005
school 0.02782
people | new 0.004
family 0.02172
people | right 0.004
part 0.02126
people | time 0.004
occupywallstreet 0.02111
new | city 0.004
good 0.02011
new | political 0.004
department 0.01959
people | group 0.003
street 0.01914
people | street 0.003
man 0.01904
new | co-op 0.003
right 0.01851
police | new-york 0.003
161
time 0.01822
city | department 0.003
work 0.01801
people | co-op 0.002
young 0.01752
people | money 0.002
movement 0.01751
people | park 0.002
own 0.01745
new | year 0.002
american 0.01701
new | school 0.002
public 0.01677
new | new-york 0.002
way 0.01564
new | social 0.002
student 0.0156
new | magazine 0.002
woman 0.01554
year | police 0.002
officer 0.01479
year | school 0.002
place 0.01457
year | time 0.002
bank 0.01436
year | recent 0.002
new-york 0.01417
group | part 0.002
social 0.01393
police | officer 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109NYT
162
April 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3570
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.079
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
group 0.08009
group | city 0.006
163
year 0.0552
group | small 0.005
people 0.04851
year | student 0.005
city 0.0371
protester | occupywallstreet 0.005
american 0.03592
group | year 0.004
police 0.03587
group | people 0.004
protester 0.03393
year | police 0.004
student 0.03277
american | student 0.004
day 0.03014
group | police 0.003
new 0.02972
group | student 0.003
page 0.02849
group | protest 0.003
time 0.02837
group | member 0.003
breitbart 0.02811
group | own 0.003
america 0.02593
group | official 0.003
college 0.02237
city | police 0.003
financial 0.02233
city | tent 0.003
new-york 0.02179
protester | time 0.003
good 0.02141
student | college 0.003
part 0.0214
group | new 0.002
164
life 0.0213
group | america 0.002
protest 0.02105
group | movement 0.002
right 0.02101
group | bank 0.002
movement 0.01966
group | labor 0.002
street 0.0186
year | city 0.002
member 0.01816
year | page 0.002
occupywallstreet 0.01724
people | american 0.002
week 0.01709
people | student 0.002
own 0.01709
people | high 0.002
place 0.01694
city | official 0.002
official 0.01653
american | day 0.002
park 0.01647
police | protester 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110NYT
165
May 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3876
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.059
CRA Map
166
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.05947
people | young 0.017
president 0.05101
police | protester 0.012
police 0.04608
people | police 0.008
year 0.04397
president | obama 0.008
city 0.04295
people | protester 0.007
company 0.04067
people | skadden 0.007
group 0.03695
city | bank 0.007
new-york 0.03587
police | department 0.006
financial 0.03332
people | year 0.005
young 0.03148
people | company 0.005
bank 0.03131
police | new-york 0.005
protester 0.02841
city | group 0.005
page 0.02809
young | america 0.005
obama 0.02558
people | group 0.004
conard 0.02502
president | new-york 0.004
new 0.02494
police | city 0.004
member 0.02426
police | page 0.004
167
time 0.02163
year | company 0.004
good 0.02115
financial | bank 0.004
movement 0.01905
movement | occupywallstreet 0.004
executive 0.01858
people | president 0.003
political 0.01798
people | city 0.003
leader 0.01777
people | good 0.003
party 0.01757
people | movement 0.003
public 0.01651
president | financial 0.003
money 0.01607
president | leader 0.003
american 0.0156
year | financial 0.003
long 0.01483
city | new-york 0.003
world 0.01478
city | official 0.003
guest 0.01315
group | new 0.003
campaign 0.01299
group | political 0.003
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111NYT
168
June 2012 in NYT
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 3189
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.061
CRA Map
169
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
political 0.06198
political | american 0.005
year 0.04647
hayes | show 0.005
hayes 0.03813
political | year 0.003
people 0.03801
people | group 0.003
day 0.0368
occupywallstreet | protester 0.003
time 0.03166
political | hayes 0.002
manhattan 0.02979
political | show 0.002
american 0.02932
political | city 0.002
power 0.02892
political | campaign 0.002
show 0.02726
political | country 0.002
public 0.02639
year | people 0.002
artist 0.02532
hayes | artist 0.002
city 0.02526
public | art 0.002
campaign 0.02492
common | ground 0.002
country 0.0249
news | fox 0.002
republican 0.0243
political | group 0.001
170
group 0.02276
political | art 0.001
party 0.02254
political | policy 0.001
police 0.02048
political | new 0.001
state 0.02024
political | member 0.001
president 0.02019
political | part 0.001
right 0.02007
political | movement 0.001
program 0.01969
political | work 0.001
occupywallstreet 0.01967
political | left 0.001
park 0.01945
political | national 0.001
recent 0.01938
political | union 0.001
common 0.01925
political | leader 0.001
protester 0.01886
political | europe 0.001
design 0.01806
political | texas 0.001
art 0.01804
political | morning 0.001
171
Section 3: The Wall Street Journal Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of WSJ content (articles) containing mentions
of Occupy Wall Street. Each map graphs one individual month. Note that months with no
content are not included (July 2011 and August 2011). Resonance scores of top centers are
listed under each individual map.
September 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 470
Density: 0.009
Focus: 0.186
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
police 0.19345
protester | group 0.073
protester 0.18399
protester | permit 0.017
172
group 0.13276
protester | manhattan 0.017
protest 0.09519
police | demonstrator 0.015
park 0.07874
police | new-york 0.014
demonstrator 0.07796
police | department 0.014
u.s. 0.07724
group | protest 0.013
new-york 0.07287
protest | manhattan 0.013
law 0.06319
police | law 0.012
people 0.05489
park | manhattan 0.011
short 0.05072
protester | people 0.010
saturday 0.0504
police | new york city 0.009
arrest 0.04804
protester | saturday 0.009
permit 0.04738
protester | arrest 0.009
manhattan 0.04487
manhattan | low 0.009
social 0.04273
police | social 0.008
spray 0.03998
police | spray 0.008
street 0.03726
protest | social 0.008
part 0.03616
park | low 0.008
browne 0.03582
police | street 0.007
173
spokesman 0.03541
police | browne 0.007
march 0.03481
police | spokesman 0.007
day 0.03427
police | low 0.007
low 0.03413
protester | spray 0.007
student 0.03143
group | people 0.007
monday 0.03085
group | short 0.007
body 0.02927
protest | u.s. 0.007
lawmaker 0.02838
police | body 0.006
financial 0.02768
group | permit 0.006
price 0.02735
group | social 0.006
tent 0.02721
park | demonstrator 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 103WSJ
174
October 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 6435
Density: 0.001
Focus: 0.062
CRA Map
175
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.06289
occupywallstreet | protester 0.079
occupywallstreet 0.05298
occupywallstreet | movement 0.049
protester 0.05125
occupywallstreet | protest 0.031
year 0.03694
people | american 0.021
business 0.03536
protester | police 0.011
new-york 0.03459
people | occupywallstreet 0.010
american 0.03318
protester | park 0.010
new 0.03296
people | year 0.009
protest 0.02953
people | park 0.009
president 0.02894
protester | city 0.009
group 0.02721
president | obama 0.008
movement 0.02695
people | movement 0.007
city 0.02579
people | wall-street 0.007
time 0.02269
protester | new-york 0.007
government 0.02151
protester | wall-street 0.007
wall-street 0.02136
people | protester 0.006
176
bank 0.02128
people | new 0.006
good 0.02092
protester | group 0.006
u.s. 0.02006
business | big 0.006
park 0.01961
protest | movement 0.006
week 0.01901
people | group 0.005
company 0.01781
people | bank 0.005
job 0.01716
occupywallstreet | new-york 0.005
financial 0.01647
protester | week 0.005
former 0.01512
people | protest 0.004
police 0.01392
people | time 0.004
country 0.01383
people | young 0.004
day 0.01361
occupywallstreet | group 0.004
member 0.01317
occupywallstreet | member 0.004
political 0.01267
year | american 0.004
large 0.01238
business | american 0.004
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104WSJ
177
November 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 5147
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.070
CRA Map
178
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.07066
protester | occupywallstreet 0.060
people 0.05952
protester | police 0.047
city 0.0469
occupywallstreet | movement 0.030
new 0.041
protester | city 0.020
tax 0.03992
protester | people 0.017
police 0.03934
people | police 0.014
occupywallstreet 0.03832
protester | group 0.013
new-york 0.0339
occupywallstreet | protest 0.013
president 0.02889
new | school 0.012
year 0.02888
city | police 0.011
business 0.02883
people | city 0.008
state 0.02642
police | new-york 0.008
movement 0.02561
protester | zuccottipark 0.007
protest 0.02438
protester | new 0.006
public 0.02274
president | obama 0.006
u.s. 0.02095
protester | park 0.005
group 0.02024
people | new 0.005
179
government 0.01976
city | protest 0.005
political 0.01862
city | public 0.005
park 0.01811
new | tax 0.005
american 0.01688
tax | state 0.005
time 0.01654
police | occupywallstreet 0.005
former 0.01605
occupywallstreet | new-york 0.005
day 0.01566
protester | political 0.004
mayor 0.01518
protester | large 0.004
financial 0.01501
protester | week 0.004
service 0.01467
new | protest 0.004
big 0.01462
new | government 0.004
wall-street 0.01317
tax | new-york 0.004
obama 0.01283
tax | financial 0.004
180
December 2011 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2858
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.078
CRA Map
181
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
tax 0.07884
tax | income 0.031
u.s. 0.05953
tax | new 0.014
year 0.05216
tax | state 0.013
oakland 0.04735
oakland | police 0.012
bank 0.04604
tax | federal 0.009
business 0.04551
tax | year 0.008
new 0.04321
u.s. | bank 0.008
city 0.04009
bank | big 0.008
group 0.03637
income | top 0.008
new-york 0.0341
tax | business 0.007
president 0.03371
tax | top 0.007
film 0.03141
business | city 0.007
police 0.02854
business | income 0.007
people 0.0275
tax | individual 0.006
state 0.02415
oakland | city 0.006
income 0.02298
city | group 0.006
182
occupywallstreet 0.02218
tax | u.s. 0.005
federal 0.02216
oakland | movement 0.005
union 0.02047
oakland | occupy 0.005
wall-street 0.02045
city | police 0.005
museum 0.02037
tax | bank 0.004
movement 0.02029
tax | high 0.004
big 0.01975
tax | corporate 0.004
protester 0.01945
u.s. | service 0.004
top 0.01879
bank | federal 0.004
high 0.01811
new | home 0.004
home 0.01706
police | department 0.004
day 0.0166
occupywallstreet | movement 0.004
occupy 0.01637
tax | big 0.003
economic 0.01628
tax | policy 0.003
v1.0 106WSJ
183
January 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 4423
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.075
CRA Map
184
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
u.s. 0.07549
year | company 0.015
year 0.07359
u.s. | new 0.011
new 0.05036
protester | occupywallstreet 0.011
group 0.04433
year | time 0.009
protester 0.04378
u.s. | firm 0.008
people 0.04068
firm | financial 0.008
company 0.03968
u.s. | city 0.007
firm 0.0342
new | class 0.007
city 0.03247
u.s. | year 0.006
time 0.03146
u.s. | company 0.006
new-york 0.02875
new | bank 0.006
occupywallstreet 0.02538
group | protester 0.006
bank 0.02516
u.s. | service 0.005
american 0.02321
group | occupywallstreet 0.005
romney 0.02125
occupywallstreet | movement 0.005
financial 0.02118
u.s. | new-york 0.004
large 0.02056
u.s. | news 0.004
185
director 0.02005
year | bank 0.004
day 0.01953
new | company 0.004
service 0.01775
new | tax 0.004
country 0.01692
protester | people 0.004
state 0.01595
company | media 0.004
law 0.01587
u.s. | group 0.003
former 0.01575
u.s. | world 0.003
movement 0.0157
year | people 0.003
tax 0.01543
year | firm 0.003
industry 0.01514
year | romney 0.003
protest 0.01492
new | time 0.003
security 0.01438
new | occupywallstreet 0.003
home 0.01411
group | city 0.003
president 0.01391
group | romney 0.003
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107WSJ
186
February 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1612
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.089
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
group 0.09092
group | anonymous 0.011
movement 0.06801
movement | occupywallstreet 0.009
company 0.05859
group | protester 0.007
u.s. 0.05576
group | movement 0.006
social 0.05132
group | u.s. 0.005
187
year 0.04886
group | people 0.004
people 0.04121
group | recent 0.004
rand 0.04093
movement | power 0.004
protester 0.04043
movement | occupy 0.004
attack 0.0364
social | issue 0.004
city 0.03234
group | attack 0.003
power 0.03225
group | city 0.003
tax 0.03103
group | power 0.003
fund 0.03011
group | business 0.003
business 0.03
group | occupy 0.003
bank 0.02883
movement | social 0.003
former 0.02878
movement | french 0.003
industry 0.02789
movement | new 0.003
american 0.02688
company | social 0.003
candidate 0.02654
company | high 0.003
federal 0.02636
u.s. | government 0.003
occupywallstreet 0.02565
group | issue 0.002
economic 0.02533
group | public 0.002
188
republican 0.02489
group | official 0.002
issue 0.02443
group | member 0.002
policy 0.02377
movement | american 0.002
high 0.02357
movement | economic 0.002
recent 0.02345
company | attack 0.002
money 0.02291
company | industry 0.002
government 0.02273
company | american 0.002
service 0.0227
company | federal 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108WSJ
189
March 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2169
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.058
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protester 0.059
protester | occupywallstreet 0.012
year 0.05619
protester | police 0.006
police 0.04955
police | new-york 0.006
university 0.0461
social | justice 0.005
190
new 0.04515
protester | people 0.004
man 0.03822
year | protest 0.004
protest 0.03685
police | department 0.004
public 0.0362
university | professor 0.004
amberson 0.03618
protester | occupy 0.003
time 0.03503
university | public 0.003
people 0.03379
university | policy 0.003
welles 0.03362
new | time 0.003
social 0.0335
protest | occupy 0.003
business 0.03192
bank | big 0.003
bank 0.03162
protester | new-york 0.002
new-york 0.03054
year | time 0.002
policy 0.02877
year | new-york 0.002
way 0.02838
year | income 0.002
ccrb 0.0241
police | new 0.002
political 0.02326
police | public 0.002
george 0.02271
police | occupywallstreet 0.002
country 0.02262
police | case 0.002
191
city 0.02219
university | new 0.002
occupywallstreet 0.02185
university | political 0.002
federal 0.02036
university | institution 0.002
film 0.02011
university | california 0.002
beck 0.01984
new | system 0.002
case 0.01943
public | policy 0.002
professor 0.01879
people | american 0.002
low 0.01851
new-york | department 0.002
news 0.01822
city | member 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109WSJ
192
April 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1218
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.082
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
occupywallstreet 0.08493
devaney | people 0.017
devaney 0.0775
occupywallstreet | people 0.012
people 0.07341
occupywallstreet | protester 0.012
occupy 0.06026
ms. | martinez 0.008
193
part 0.05468
occupywallstreet | part 0.005
day 0.05435
occupywallstreet | day 0.005
property 0.05196
occupywallstreet | movement 0.005
police 0.04935
property | new 0.005
protester 0.04636
occupywallstreet | group 0.004
new 0.04431
occupywallstreet | member 0.004
year 0.04422
people | day 0.004
building 0.04316
people | police 0.004
group 0.04262
day | march 0.004
union 0.04095
day | may 0.004
protest 0.03575
police | group 0.004
time 0.03415
occupywallstreet | time 0.003
ms. 0.03374
occupywallstreet | march 0.003
march 0.0324
people | protest 0.003
month 0.03101
occupy | service 0.003
martinez 0.03091
occupy | site 0.003
city 0.02973
occupy | organizer 0.003
cleaning 0.02939
new | protest 0.003
194
movement 0.02899
year | march 0.003
service 0.02829
union | labor 0.003
home 0.02819
union | worker 0.003
site 0.02712
square | finsbury 0.003
labor 0.02693
occupywallstreet | labor 0.002
report 0.02675
occupywallstreet | company 0.002
crew 0.02557
occupywallstreet | organizer 0.002
company 0.02527
occupywallstreet | eviction 0.002
organizer 0.02401
occupywallstreet | space 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110WSJ
195
May 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1798
Density: 0.003
Focus: 0.134
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
protest 0.13566
protest | group 0.068
group 0.12596
protest | city 0.027
196
year 0.06813
protest | day 0.014
board 0.06752
protest | police 0.013
city 0.06565
protest | occupywallstreet 0.012
new 0.06257
protest | year 0.009
company 0.05216
protest | board 0.009
police 0.04952
group | year 0.009
israel 0.03726
group | board 0.009
people 0.03665
protest | new 0.008
pride 0.03663
group | business 0.008
protester 0.03561
city | new 0.008
fund 0.03496
protest | event 0.007
business 0.03358
group | company 0.007
film 0.03294
group | occupywallstreet 0.007
firm 0.03204
year | pride 0.007
tuesday 0.03202
police | protester 0.007
morgan-stanley 0.03129
protest | may 0.006
facebook 0.03058
protest | business 0.005
public 0.02985
protest | occupymovement 0.005
197
occupywallstreet 0.02867
group | israel 0.005
country 0.02714
group | pride 0.005
u.s. 0.02659
board | pride 0.005
meeting 0.02637
board | president 0.005
day 0.02528
protest | morgan-stanley 0.004
event 0.02507
protest | country 0.004
stock 0.02414
protest | moscow 0.004
new-york 0.0213
group | official 0.004
movement 0.02107
year | new 0.004
activist 0.02089
board | company 0.004
member 0.01989
city | member 0.004
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111WSJ
198
June 2012 in WSJ
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1319
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.161
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
book 0.1637
book | reader 0.150
reader 0.13092
book | digital 0.034
company 0.09944
reader | data 0.018
publisher 0.05124
book | publisher 0.017
president 0.04973
book | series 0.015
199
conard 0.04845
reader | publisher 0.013
good 0.0475
book | conard 0.008
ms. 0.04715
book | good 0.008
new 0.04631
book | time 0.008
data 0.0462
book | amazon 0.007
editor 0.03659
book | line 0.007
white-house 0.0359
book | people 0.007
museum 0.03092
book | nonfiction 0.007
obamacare 0.0308
reader | author 0.006
economy 0.03033
reader | hour 0.006
director 0.03028
book | economy 0.005
series 0.03025
reader | way 0.005
former 0.02642
company | publisher 0.005
digital 0.02608
book | service 0.004
group 0.02574
book | particular 0.004
time 0.02514
reader | series 0.004
industry 0.02374
company | editor 0.004
party 0.02367
company | drug 0.004
200
author 0.02328
book | chanel 0.003
lopez 0.02317
book | kind 0.003
big 0.02314
book | clear 0.003
service 0.02307
reader | group 0.003
year 0.02277
reader | time 0.003
drug 0.02154
reader | service 0.003
hour 0.02123
reader | line 0.003
amazon 0.02108
reader | nook 0.003
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0
201
Section 4: USA Today Crawdad Analysis Results
Centering Resonance Analysis Graphical Maps of USA Today content (articles) containing mentions of
Occupy Wall Street. Each map graphs one individual month. Note that months with no content are not
included (July 2011, August 2011 and September 2011). Resonance scores of top centers are listed under
each individual map.
October 2011 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2421
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.090
CRA Map
202
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
wall-street 0.09074
wall-street | protester 0.058
people 0.08977
protest | occupywallstreet 0.035
protester 0.07981
protester | police 0.028
protest 0.06792
movement | occupywallstreet 0.028
movement 0.05491
wall-street | protest 0.025
new 0.05201
protest | movement 0.022
occupywallstreet 0.05153
people | police 0.018
police 0.05012
protester | occupywallstreet 0.016
american 0.04985
protester | city 0.015
government 0.04983
people | american 0.013
college 0.03808
protester | occupy 0.010
big 0.03588
wall-street | american 0.009
bank 0.03421
wall-street | big 0.007
political 0.03316
people | protester 0.007
job 0.03046
people | street 0.007
city 0.03037
government | big 0.007
year 0.02422
wall-street | bank 0.006
203
economic 0.02314
protester | new-york 0.006
new-york 0.02312
protester | chicago 0.006
director 0.0215
movement | party 0.006
week 0.02087
people | movement 0.005
good 0.02054
people | occupywallstreet 0.005
group 0.01975
protester | job 0.005
time 0.01905
protest | war 0.005
problem 0.01902
movement | political 0.005
party 0.01769
occupywallstreet | american 0.005
leader 0.01707
police | city 0.005
media 0.01673
wall-street | new-york 0.004
war 0.01664
people | government 0.004
student 0.0162
people | year 0.004
corporate 0.01543
people | good 0.004
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 104USA
November 2011 in USA Today
204
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 2961
Density: 0.002
Focus: 0.076
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
205
Words Pairs
people 0.07716
movement | occupywallstreet 0.023
protester 0.04613
protester | occupywallstreet 0.009
job 0.04361
people | good 0.008
movement 0.03811
people | country 0.006
good 0.03533
people | cause 0.006
gingrich 0.03462
job | good 0.006
public 0.03263
people | business 0.005
business 0.03229
people | american 0.005
year 0.03114
protester | occupy 0.005
former 0.03041
president | obama 0.005
time 0.02806
student | loan 0.005
occupywallstreet 0.02693
people | time 0.004
protest 0.02659
people | occupywallstreet 0.004
tax 0.02526
people | tax 0.004
country 0.02461
people | government 0.004
government 0.02442
people | store 0.004
new 0.02437
job | business 0.004
206
way 0.02407
occupywallstreet | protest 0.004
american 0.02339
protest | occupy 0.004
president 0.02267
people | job 0.003
obama 0.02233
people | movement 0.003
u.s. 0.02232
people | public 0.003
economy 0.02101
protester | public 0.003
member 0.02004
protester | business 0.003
policy 0.01987
job | public 0.003
state 0.01919
job | economy 0.003
occupy 0.01894
movement | way 0.003
store 0.01883
movement | party 0.003
student 0.01857
gingrich | former 0.003
loan 0.01842
year | election 0.003
political 0.01776
people | way 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 105USA
207
December 2011 in USA Today
CRA MAP
208
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
american 0.1113
obama | president 0.019
state 0.08649
american | republican 0.013
obama 0.06745
state | obama 0.012
year 0.06679
obama | economic 0.009
people 0.06076
republican | president 0.007
republican 0.0605
state | year 0.006
president 0.05736
state | president 0.005
bank 0.04654
state | nation 0.005
political 0.04433
state | campaign 0.005
economic 0.04259
obama | campaign 0.005
occupywallstreet 0.04027
president | economic 0.005
band 0.03862
school | high 0.005
time 0.03319
american | occupywallstreet 0.004
home 0.03152
american | time 0.004
national 0.03057
state | bank 0.004
nation 0.03025
obama | republican 0.004
school 0.02907
year | people 0.004
209
campaign 0.02695
year | president 0.004
job 0.02645
year | campaign 0.004
group 0.02609
republican | time 0.004
good 0.02459
republican | national 0.004
education 0.02302
economic | nation 0.004
high 0.02253
american | national 0.003
conservative 0.02121
american | job 0.003
wage 0.02082
american | group 0.003
movement 0.02066
american | association 0.003
public 0.01978
obama | political 0.003
wristband 0.01965
year | wage 0.003
new 0.01926
republican | political 0.003
federal 0.01924
republican | economic 0.003
fund 0.01888
president | political 0.003
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 106USA
210
January 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 1152
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.104
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
new 0.10685
good | job 0.021
good 0.08983
company | ceo 0.013
company 0.08829
year | american 0.013
people 0.07685
new | job 0.012
president 0.07252
good | thing 0.011
211
year 0.07195
new | company 0.009
ceo 0.07105
good | people 0.007
american 0.06178
good | american 0.006
great 0.06171
good | great 0.006
business 0.06077
good | evil 0.006
time 0.05804
company | president 0.006
job 0.05795
company | year 0.006
romney 0.04754
new | professor 0.005
bank 0.04402
good | business 0.005
house 0.03841
company | job 0.005
kaan 0.03463
president | ceo 0.005
star 0.03215
year | ceo 0.005
thing 0.03128
new | house 0.004
income 0.03025
new | kaan 0.004
hard 0.02941
new | comedy 0.004
crazy 0.02837
new | testament 0.004
firm 0.02732
president | american 0.004
money 0.02645
ceo | time 0.004
212
big 0.02571
ceo | firm 0.004
market 0.02476
great | business 0.004
capital 0.02386
great | job 0.004
show 0.02326
company | crazy 0.003
evil 0.02324
president | house 0.003
cheadle 0.0226
president | obama 0.003
occupywallstreet 0.02197
american | bank 0.003
obama 0.02189
business | romney 0.003
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 107USA
February 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
213
Number of nodes: 1425
Density: 0.004
Focus: 0.109
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
people 0.11121
people | american 0.018
american 0.07962
movement | occupy 0.017
michigan 0.05709
rich | poor 0.016
movement 0.05375
people | poor 0.014
new 0.04918
obama | president 0.010
rich 0.04779
people | job 0.007
214
year 0.0472
movement | social 0.007
tax 0.04527
people | michigan 0.006
obama 0.0433
people | movement 0.006
poor 0.04098
people | obama 0.005
great 0.03903
michigan | obama 0.005
government 0.03791
movement | course 0.005
president 0.03726
new | course 0.005
campaign 0.03411
people | government 0.004
course 0.03341
people | course 0.004
money 0.03208
people | young 0.004
occupy 0.03164
american | tax 0.004
state 0.03093
michigan | state 0.004
social 0.03065
movement | great 0.004
job 0.03014
people | public 0.003
bank 0.03006
people | economy 0.003
romney 0.02939
people | small 0.003
wealth 0.02926
american | obama 0.003
big 0.02881
michigan | economy 0.003
215
public 0.02695
movement | year 0.003
economy 0.02494
movement | occupywallstreet 0.003
thing 0.02452
rich | gap 0.003
budget 0.02363
obama | budget 0.003
wall-street 0.0216
course | occupy 0.003
congress 0.02132
bank | big 0.003
business 0.0192
people | congress 0.002
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 108USA
March 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
216
Number of nodes: 318
Density: 0.012
Focus: 0.325
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
income 0.33915
income | wealth 0.271
wealth 0.26629
wealth | power 0.103
power 0.19398
media | social 0.077
group 0.16536
income | power 0.066
kony 0.15464
income | inequality 0.052
media 0.14842
wealth | group 0.044
warning 0.11776
income | warning 0.040
university 0.11299
income | distribution 0.033
public 0.10485
power | kony 0.030
217
distribution 0.09691
power | media 0.029
g. 0.09414
wealth | distribution 0.026
harvard 0.09274
wealth | unequal 0.021
social 0.08695
wealth | gap 0.020
unequal 0.07939
wealth | poor 0.019
film 0.07898
wealth | top 0.017
gap 0.07692
wealth | people 0.017
worker 0.07416
power | social 0.017
poor 0.072
income | high 0.016
awareness 0.07128
public | awareness 0.015
north-carolina 0.06589
group | social 0.014
top 0.06382
income | issue 0.013
chapel-hill 0.0601
income | institution 0.013
politics 0.05303
group | film 0.013
tuft 0.04855
kony | social 0.013
high 0.04638
income | annual 0.012
place 0.04521
kony | film 0.012
dictator 0.04458
warning | harvard 0.011
218
recent 0.04315
university | g. 0.011
policy 0.04297
gap | poor 0.011
movement 0.0426
income | year 0.010
issue 0.0391
public | distribution 0.010
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 109USA
April 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 538
Density: 0.009
Focus: 0.136
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
219
Words Pairs
american 0.14227
church | black 0.060
white 0.12907
white | progressive 0.050
church 0.12744
white | church 0.033
major 0.10192
american | today 0.027
progressive 0.09623
american | dream 0.020
today 0.09599
church | member 0.019
future 0.09498
american | white 0.018
student 0.08189
american | progressive 0.014
black 0.07855
major | dream 0.014
economic 0.07846
student | college 0.014
member 0.07428
student | debt 0.014
dream 0.0702
church | progressive 0.012
salesman 0.06336
black | member 0.012
month 0.06108
american | black 0.011
college 0.05788
white | black 0.010
christian 0.05036
white | member 0.010
shiloh 0.05026
church | moriah 0.010
220
reality 0.04989
student | loan 0.010
different 0.04629
progressive | today 0.009
nichols 0.04554
white | month 0.008
job 0.04453
major | student 0.008
current 0.04298
progressive | economic 0.008
brother 0.04231
future | student 0.008
debt 0.04227
american | nichols 0.006
wife 0.04011
american | current 0.006
moriah 0.0382
white | christian 0.006
people 0.0345
white | new 0.006
shot 0.03277
church | christian 0.006
loman 0.03144
church | shiloh 0.006
right 0.03112
church | reality 0.006
liberal 0.03045
major | college 0.006
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 110USA
221
May 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 841
Density: 0.006
Focus: 0.197
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
group 0.20095
group | economy 0.024
ceo 0.12072
group | member 0.019
board 0.11665
group | obama 0.015
obama 0.07508
ceo | board 0.014
corporate 0.07389
group | cleveland 0.013
economy 0.05899
ceo | company 0.012
222
issue 0.05785
group | job 0.011
poor 0.05636
group | american 0.010
job 0.05378
obama | romney 0.010
american 0.05116
group | romney 0.009
company 0.05083
board | corporate 0.009
romney 0.04471
group | large 0.008
economic 0.04063
board | director 0.008
chicago 0.04021
board | member 0.008
personal 0.03659
group | movement 0.007
director 0.0358
ceo | poor 0.007
movement 0.03528
board | poor 0.007
year 0.03328
group | suspect 0.006
member 0.03215
ceo | job 0.006
suspect 0.03163
group | single 0.005
cleveland 0.03159
obama | year 0.005
bridge 0.03114
obama | president 0.005
u.s. 0.03082
group | people 0.004
shareholder 0.02855
group | thriving 0.004
223
business 0.02799
ceo | personal 0.004
alleged 0.02745
ceo | year 0.004
single 0.02271
board | year 0.004
president 0.02117
obama | poor 0.004
occupy 0.02101
economy | year 0.004
people 0.02092
group | high 0.003
university 0.02032
group | legal 0.003
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0 111USA
224
June 2012 in USA Today
CRA Network Statistics
Number of nodes: 173
Density: 0.024
Focus: 0.283
CRA Map
Influence Analysis
Words Pairs
progressive 0.30149
progressive | frustration 0.072
obama 0.26987
obama | frustration 0.064
frustration 0.23729
frustration | enthusiasm 0.041
election 0.17973
progressive | daily 0.032
225
enthusiasm 0.1747
election | enthusiasm 0.031
republican 0.12461
frustration | republican 0.030
daily 0.10547
progressive | political 0.026
gov. 0.09452
progressive | liberal 0.024
roll 0.08568
obama | group 0.023
group 0.08497
progressive | good 0.022
liberal 0.07848
obama | liberal 0.021
questioner 0.0767
obama | white-house 0.021
good 0.07417
progressive | union 0.019
brother 0.07175
obama | brother 0.019
cookie 0.06759
obama | endorsement 0.017
purge 0.06759
obama | bettinson 0.015
union 0.06311
progressive | president 0.014
endorsement 0.06205
election | questioner 0.014
tampa 0.05834
enthusiasm | good 0.013
bettinson 0.05665
progressive | white-house 0.012
event 0.04896
republican | gov. 0.012
non-federal 0.04896
progressive | marriage 0.010
226
president 0.04718
obama | jonna 0.009
political 0.04301
obama | marriage 0.009
white-house 0.0397
progressive | agenda 0.008
pundit 0.03944
gov. | roll 0.008
programmer 0.03944
republican | president 0.006
race 0.03944
roll | purge 0.006
dream 0.03833
progressive | home 0.005
koch 0.03627
obama | sure 0.005
conservative 0.03498
group | endorsement 0.005
CRAWDAD Visualizer v1.0