In her post, Harriet Ho mentions a good point that the main problem behind the Occupy Wall Street movement is the “lack of substantial evidence”.
Protester fighting for the rights of the 99% of the world in terms of economic freedom.
Furthermore, she states that protesters are thriving on any information, whehter misleanding or falsified, that my aid their cause. What does this mean? With a lack of solid support and evidence, Protesters are found insecure and and hungry for any source of power they can find.
According to a CNC analysis, Neil Macdonald brings up a good point. Protesters are vague in their demands that soound idotic to the casual observer. For example, as stated in the artcle, anti-globalization protesters seldom demand a re-imposition of the barriers to trade and labour while the Occupy Wall Street protesters rabbit about bring “an end to globalization”.
On top of what Harriot believes is the main problem of the article, I believe that the vagueness of demands is the root cause of not having substantial evidence to back it up. With demands that are as vague as “end globalization”, it is no wonder that they can not find evidence to help their case.