Over the last several days, I have watched the media coverage of the protesters in New York and other places and have noticed something that illustrates the need for vigilance when it comes to watching the media.

Over and over again, the coverage has been largely a breathless expose of why this protest represents the best things about America.  Yet, you don't hear what the demands are of this group.  Some want a free education, some want $20 an hour for the minimum wage and some want a cheap excuse to walk around naked in public, or worse yet an excuse to have sex in public.  This obviously doesn't represent the best of America.

The media treatment has been slanted, to put it mildly.  There are even "trusted media voices" that make wild claims in their treatment of the story, like Diane Sawyer of ABC, who claimed that the movement had spread to "thousands of countries on every continent except Antarctica"  Never mind that there are just under 200 countries in the world.  She follows that up with a look at the income of the top 1% versus the bottom 90%.  Such things will actually spur on a class warfare, which seems to be the theme of the current administration when they continue to call on the rich to pay their fair share, when they pay more than that and then some.

One thing missing has been the look at what the occupy protests want because no one knows.  It resembles Woodstock and the free love era rather than a legitimate protest of problems in America.

Vigilance is called for when you look at media treatment of this protest.  Are they presenting both sides of the debate?  Are they being biased in general in their reporting?  If bias is evident, then it's time to exercise the choice that we all have to choose a different source for news that is more balanced than what we see in the mainstream media.