I used to think that if a protest or strike received "sympathy" protesting support, that that would be viewed in a favorable light by the media. In the case of the 2013 Occupy Thanksgiving WalMart protest, outside support would be reported in a negative light.
I was watching KNBC Los Angeles news report about the 2013 Walmart Thanksgiving protest when suddenly the reporter brought up the issue that many of the protestors were the equivalent of "moles". The reporter further revealed that perhaps only 20% of the protestors were actually WalMart employees.
One protestor brought up the point that WalMart employees in fear of losing their jobs did not protest. How is one to count those invisible protestors I wondered to myself?
So there you have it. If only Walmart employees show up to a Walmart Thanksgiving day protest, the protest will downplayed as just a few malcontents trying to get attention. If a lot of Walmart employees protest, the loss of face and potential stock market value could cause the company to fire many of the protesting workers.
If however there is a solid blend of core WalMart employee protestors backed by many more probably union based protestors, that too is called into question by the reporter.
Ouch, it's a no win situation, I sure wish the reporter had at least pointed out that nugget of truth. I am pretty sure the video I saw was on KNBC Los Angeles, but I cannot find it on google, how strange is that? Perhaps because the report was done on location in front of a Wal Mart it was not actually saved?
