This article and its headline are incredibly deceptive and pro-corporate bullshit. Anyone who actually scrolls down to look at the actual numbers that lead to the misleading claims of the article and headline will quickly note that by far the largest block of jailed protesters, 161 of them, were from Oakland; and that if cities adjacent to and very near Oakland like Berkeley, San Francisco and Alameda are included, over two thirds of the jailed protesters came from the immediate area.

One can only conclude from this absurd disconnect between the headline and lead paragraphs, and reality, that the Bay Citizen and Mr. Shifflett, are purposely and cynically attempting to play into the total fiction that Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has cooked up that the protesters are a bunch of outsiders, when this is clearly not true; all because playing into a false controversy, where there isn't one, is sexy and sells papers.

And of course, as with most corporate influenced rags, the Bay Citizen editors, and the so called 'journalist' who wrote this article, know full well that many readers will just skim the headline and that many, if not most, of those who read further on will not actually scroll down to look a the list of tabulated totals to discover how deceptive, are the headline and first couple of paragraphs.

You now what? If I want to read deceptive sensationalist hype that whips up false controversy to sell papers and serve the interest of corporate elites, I'll start reading Rupert Murdock's newspapers.

Why don't the editors and Mr. Shiflett show some integrity and spare us this kind of self serving, divisive garbage, in the future.

Mr. Brooks --

The numbers are right there for all to see. It's not like they're hidden. It's a five-paragraph story. It hardly takes any effort whatsoever to find them. At the very least, this piece starts to tell a story about who OO is at this point, something that many of us who once supported OO want to know.

Your accusations and your divisiveness are at least on par with the story's headline.

"Pro-corporate bullshit"?? He's just analyzing Mayor Quan's assertion by listing the numbers. Frankly, I was hoping it would be more sensationalist—say maybe a few folks from Afghanistan or North Korea, for example. That would be Pulitzer material.

I, for one, take this as a good sign. It's been hard to convince people to spend their tourist dollars in Oakland, and weekly spats with our local police evidently can provide entertainment to those from around the Bay Area and the country. More tourist dollars flowing into local businesses, like glass repair, painting, tire shops, MJ dispensaries, gas masks and bail bonds. Attendance is falling, unfortunately, but perhaps Mr. Shiflett's divisive garbage will inspire more people to come and play here.

Maybe we could built an arena for this and sell tickets.

Just make sure to support the local businesses while you're in town folks.

This is a non-story, and Mayor Quan, the police and all involved in propagating this "outside agitator" talking point should be ashamed of themselves. The Bay Citizen's editors should be similarly embarrassed that they took the bait.

This sort of rhetoric has been used for decades against community activists. Union organizers have always been branded with this label, as have those who fight for civil rights and desegregation.

The Bay Citizen has worked hard to demonstrate that we who live in the Bay Area are connected regionally. Our lives are not defined by one city's borders. So many of us live in one city, work in another, will eat out anywhere within a 20 minute drive or BART ride. With the recession, so many of our youth haven't been able to find decent jobs - living at home, and interning in Oakland or SF.

We aren't defined by our addresses, and neither is capital. How many Oakland cops live in Oakland? Not many. How many Chamber of Commerce execs live in communities that have been impacted by the recession? Not many. Enough with the double standards!

Eric,

Pro-corporate bullshit? That's a little extreme, and this reporter is clearly a bean counter not a journalist like most of the other The Bay Citizen reporters I've spoke to. As far as that goes you know the old saying "figures don't lie by but liars can figure."

I have to agree the head line is deceptive, but I disagree it is pro-corporate. I see it as target to support the existing Oakland City government political hegemony supporting the City Council's unlawful assembly in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act 72 hour notice requirements at Lake Merritt on November 9, 2011 voting "Occupy Oakland Must Go!" [Source CC Times] action that was subsequently supported [that day] by Oakland Mayor Quan.

As far as The Bay Citizen being corporate bullshit I know many of the reporters at this publication who are all dedicated journalist.

But I have to say it is little disturbing to me that I let The Bay Citizen know about the City of Oakland's Brown Act Violations [which I have had confirmed by an attorney of the CA First Amendment Coalition]that it hasn't got any coverage by this publication; or any of what I know you would call so-called corporate media? I sent The Bay Citizen, in December last year, the Notice to Correct or Cure violation of the Ralph M. Brown Open Meeting Act but silence is all I get when I have a real violation of the state's Open Meeting law.

The free press is the bed rock of the First Amendment because it shines sunshine on The Peoples information.

In the middle of the 104,000 year time frame shown in the Aztec Sun Stone Calender there is Monkey with his tongue sticking out. This is the message to us all on the meaning of December 21, 2012; what the indigenous peoples of the Americas call the end of the White World and the Great Awakening. This message is simple; communication is the key to humanities survival.

Only time will tell I guess if The Bay Citizen lives up to stated non-profit purpose to provide us this vital information in a non-partisan no-biased manner "We exist for YOU: our readers who thirst for quality news focused on the Bay Area."

Peace.

Shane, To qualify my statement you are a "professional bean counter"...LOL

Shane Shifflett is a software developer and reporter who learned how to interrogate data while finding a human angle to the story at Northwestern's Medill School.[Source The Bay Citizen]

Hey all, thanks for your comments. We have updated the headline to be a bit more nuanced.

Thanks Zoe it is appreciated.

Shane,

I'm a professional bean counter too. My beans are just really really really small; like 1x10-9 meters or nanometers small.

Pro-corporate? I think its more about the majority of Oakland citizens who are simply tired of their tax dollars being used to deal with spoiled brats who think they have a right to break into property they do not own, and break and otherwise damage property.

Would love to see an article where we are informed of how many of these protestors have voted, pay taxes, have contacted their members of Congress or worked to change the laws they say they disagree with.

85% Bay Area; i won't go into the obvious arguments about acknowledging the Bay Area as a whole.

Certainly there are folks whose IDs are not current, including living in Oakland but ID saying elsewhere.

Occupy Oakland succeeded in recruiting from a variety of locations, which is to be expected of social movements.

I hate to point out the obvious to journalists, but the majority of people who work in downtown Oakland don't live in Oakland either. And the majority of people who eat at fancy downtown restaurants probably don't live in Oakland, nor do the majority of people who go to concerts or other cultural events in Oakland. When the New York Times does a glowing review of assorted hotspots in Oakland's Uptown district, they don't hint that only Oaklanders should patronize them, and or that people from the rest of the country would be considered outside troublemakers who should stay away.

There's a reason we call it the Bay Area and have a transit system linking its many communities. That applies to protests, too.

My math on the arrestees gives me almost a majority from Oakland and its two immediate neighbors, Berkeley and San Leandro, and a clear majority if we include San Francisco, whose downtown is less than a 10-minute BART ride from the nearest Oakland station. Including the rest of Alameda County makes the majority larger.

So what exactly's the "story" in this? It reminds me a lot of the "discovery" during Civil Rights days that it was all "outside agitators" from the North who were stirring up the supposedly docile local black population who'd been perfectly happy under Jim Crow.