Q&A: Tim Pool on Streaming Occupy Wall Street

Friday, November 18, 2011 - 05:26 PM

At about 1:30 AM Tuesday, as the NYPD was evicting protesters from Zuccotti Park, Tim Pool picked up his cell phone and started streaming video to his Ustream channel. Twenty-one hours, 100,000+ views, and countless batteries later, the 25-year-old activist put down his camera and found he had been declared “the eyes of the movement.”

My curiosity about Tim was officially piqued when I came across this moment in the archive of his stream. Within the first couple hours of shooting, Tim had stumbled across a group of masked people letting the air out of the tires of a police van. In a tense argument, Tim defended his right to keep filming:

TIM: [From] day one, transparency has been our principle of solidarity. And if you break that, you should not be a part of this movement.

GUY: Let me make it very clear. Transparency is not actually mentioned—

TIM: When you’ve got anarchists draining the air from police vehicles, and they say “Don’t film me because I’m breaking the law,” I am going to film them.

GUY: Well I think that’s really fucked.

TIM: No. No, it’s not really fucked. Because everyone deserves to know the truth. Information is free. End of story. Transparency is what brings me here. Period.

I decided to track Tim down on Wednesday and talk to him about that scene. While I was at it, I decided to ask him about some other stuff too.

DA: So, what happened in that moment by the police van?

TP: Someone came at me and was yelling at me about filming, which really confused me, because we’ve got multiple live broadcasts going on at the park. They charged at me. One guy put his forearm to my throat. You can see me put my hand up. He swats my hand away. They’re yelling at me, and then that’s when I saw a guy in a black jacket draining the air out of a tire. I realized, these guys are vandals, they’re causing problems, and that’s why they don’t want to be filmed.

Once you understood what they were doing, did you feel an obligation to document it?

I don’t care what the reason is; when we’re at something as pivotal, something as historic as that night, the camera’s not going off.  Especially since we had a very large amount of people watching, and I have an obligation to those people to let them know what’s happening. When people were vandalizing police property, which really had no strategic value whatsoever, and then attacked me for it, it was very obvious they were not part of Occupy Wall Street, and most likely had their own political motives and needed to be documented. 

Is there any circumstance under which you are willing to turn your camera off?

When there’s a meeting that says “We want to plan an action, but we’re worried that it will get leaked to the police or some agency and they’ll try and block us,” I can understand that for the most part. But I still think that a lot of the meeting should be allowed to be seen. “I don’t like being filmed” is not an excuse at all. There’s very few reasons short of “this could cause people harm” that is going to stop [me from] filming. 

Your media organization The Other 99 defines itself as independent from the Occupy movement. Even if you aren’t taking orders from the movement organizers, aren’t you still contributing to their cause?

We’re contributing the truth, I suppose. And that’s really important for Occupy Wall Street, as transparency has been one of the principles of solidarity since the beginning. You have the left-wing media using their left-wing lens on it, and you have the right-wing media using their right-wing lens on it, so everyone is getting a different picture of what it really is. So I think [truthful reporting] is what we’re able to accomplish, especially with platforms like Ustream. I’ve gotten a lot of comments, praise from people saying, “It’s raw; it’s unedited—so we actually can see what’s happening for once.”

Your stream is indeed “unedited” in that there are no cuts. But isn’t there is always selectiveness in where going with your camera and what you’re saying?

I know my commentary is biased, and what choose to point the camera at will always be my bias, but I really try to get everything. Before the eviction, there was what they referred to as “uptown” and “downtown”—the east and the west sides of the park. “Downtown,” the area close to Burger King with the drum circle and most of the occupiers, was considered grungy and dirty, and they called it “the ghetto.” I would stream from that side as well as the other side. But the [OWS-affiliated] media is mostly covering the east side of the park, where the General Assembly happens, where there’s the info booth, the library, the yoga. 

The right-wing media likes to go all the way to the grungy side and just grab a few people who look horrible and say “Oh, look at the Occupy movement’s garbage!” And then you get the left-wing media trying to find the cleanest, smartest individuals and saying, “Look how brilliant these people are!” When the truth is, we’ve got all different kinds of people.

You said that the OWS media arm has exhibited a preference for covering one end of Zuccotti Park. What other examples of their coverage would you criticize?

This video came out just on YouTube; I’m pretty sure it was put out by the media team of Occupy Wall Street. We see a white-shirt officer swinging his baton at a crowd of people. And then you see everyone start screaming “police brutality” on Twitter. And then on LiveLeak, someone put the full video, where you actually see the front row of protesters counting down. They say they’re going to charge the barriers “in five, four, three, two, one.” [They] push barriers and the police are desperately trying to hold the line. And then you actually see an arm come over. And I wouldn’t say it was a “strike,” but the cop was essentially hit in the face. I don’t want to exaggerate—it wasn’t a very aggressive hit at all—but people are pushing on the barriers, the cop starts pushing people with the baton, they charge at him again, he starts swinging. 

The protesters pushing the barricades down the way they did was wrong, specifically because it was an unplanned action. There was a meeting afterwards where someone actually said, “How could you do that to us? I was being beaten by a baton because you pushed the barricades.” 

Yes, they hit people who weren’t pushing the barricades, and that’s wrong. But essentially you’ve got fear as the motive for the reactions between the police when they start swinging. Now, the pepper-spraying incident from [NYPD Officer] Bologna was just ridiculous: he just walks up and walks away. But this instance with the baton: you’re one person, you’re surrounded by 400-500 people who are trying to push you and your coworkers down. I mean, that was a reaction. What do you think’s gonna happen?

So, would you call yourself a journalist?

I don’t consider myself a journalist. I mean, people can say I am whatever I am, if that’s what I am. I consider myself an activist 100%. And I feel like the best thing for the movement is to have an independent media outlet that’s trying not to be biased. The truth will set you free—that’s the famous quote. 

You just admitted a certain bias, but you’ve also said that you try to minimize your bias. What’s with that?

I feel like I’m 80 percent of the time unbiased, and then I have that natural Occupy-Wall-Street-is-fighting-for-the-people in me, so I did come down here to support the movement. I’m not going to deny it or lie about it. One of the founding principles [of the movement] was transparency, and when I saw that that was being pushed aside, I felt like I needed to take that upon myself to restore [it]. Whether it’s good or bad, whether one person’s breaking the law, one person’s hurting the movement, or one person is, say, stealing donations, I’m going to report it. I’m going to film it, because that hurts the movement.

Many people appear to be watching and engaging with the live streams covering Occupy Wall Street. Why do you think that is? 

People have been commenting to me, saying that it’s as if they were there. and that they’re seeing the event through my eyes. Someone actually made the joke, “This is the first-person protest videogame.” Because I’m actually taking requests. When people say, “Can you walk around and check this out?” I do. Last night, someone said, “Can you give Jesse a high five?” I did. They were like, “It really is a videogame,” because they can give commands and I can do them.

Compared to other live streams like Global Revolution, Occupy Wall St NYC, and OccupyNYC, yours has been particularly popular—so popular, in fact, that the other streams were all streaming you at certain points on Tuesday. Even Reuters and Al Jazeera picked you up. What draws people to your stream in particular?

I’m actually overwhelmed, because I don’t really know what I do [to get] the reaction I did. Maybe it’s because you know that I’m not a journalist. That I’m one of the people here, and my only real goal is to have this window open that you can look through. There’s a certain truth to it. Someone mentioned to me, “This is realty. This is reality TV. Not the reality TV that everyone hears about, because that’s just scripted BS. This is what it is: an unedited, raw window into what’s happening at Zuccotti Park.”

When I’ve seen the other broadcasts from the other steams, you sort of just have a camera pointed somewhere...but when you have sort of the war reporting style, when you’re telling people, “What you’re seeing here is this and what’s happening here is this,” they’re getting to not only see it, but hear it, and process it in their heads, and sort of create the mental imagery of what it’s like to be there.

Tags:

More in:

Comments [13]

Joe from Hiawatha, Kansas

Tim, did you say that your mother has suddenly taken ill at home?

May. 01 2012 11:33 PM

Tim says "[From] day one, transparency has been our principle of solidarity. And if you break that, you should not be a part of this movement."

This is a myth that many within the OWS movement hold. Sadly, although OWS demands transparency of the US Govt., it does not require it of themselves. I have spent the better part of 5 days trying to find out how much OWS money there is, what the source of it is and where it is being spent. No one knows except 3 OWS insiders who hold the purse strings. These 3 refuse to show a single bank deposit or receipt. Their lack of transparency makes the US Govt appear to be open.

Nov. 30 2011 12:52 AM
The Philandrist from Canada

Check out our piece on Tim as well - https://thephilandrist.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/manly-man-2-tim-pool/

Nov. 26 2011 05:43 PM
AuntL from SW Michigan

Thank you all for your civil discourse in spite of differences of opinion. That's what free press is all about.

Nov. 21 2011 04:58 PM
JL from NYC

Not everyone is willing to be a martyr. The state will not allow you to alter it without a fight. US citizens will inevitably be killed before this government kneels. They've done it before, and they'll surely do it again.

I'm not saying that OWS is a load of crap. I AM saying that Wall Street isn't the only enemy here. The problems are much larger, and those larger problems will do anything to remain in place.

Nov. 20 2011 12:05 AM
JL from NYC

They weren't acting on behalf of OWS. They were acting on behalf of themselves. Anytime there is property destruction at a peaceful protest, those people are called provocateurs for the state. Why can no one get it through their heads that some people just think remaining peaceful while being pepper-sprayed, beaten and bloodied, and arrested for little to no reason is a load of crap?

By this point, people can see how ridiculous the police as a whole have become. People won't be branded as terrorists for letting air out of their car tires.

And as for the purpose it serves? IT LETS THE AIR OUT OF THE TIRES. It slows the police force down, even if it's just the slightest. Not everything needs to be symbolic. Direct action gets the goods, my friend.

Nov. 20 2011 12:00 AM
Nathan Garcia from Ireland by way of SFO, CA

Vandalizing police property actually serves no purpose other than ineffective retribution. And, it gives especially the right wing media an excuse to villify the movement, and hurts the cause. There's no need whatsoever to engage in destructive activity under any circumstances with a movement such as OWS. The agents provacateurs who were deprssurizing the tires in police vehicles were clearly not part of OWS or acting on behalf of OWS. Tim's stream demonstrated the loose cannon aspects of these people and proves their disconnect and irrelevance to OWS. For that, he's done a good thing in defusing the ammunition to denigrate OWS to all who are threatened by OWS and need to minimize OWS. Transparency is, indeed, exactly what the 1% deny the rest of us and one reason why they are effective and get away with what they do. OWS does not have to lower itself to such tactics because OWS has reality on its side. The right makes spit up to paint its narrative. Transparency blows the doors off their subterfuge, mendacity and machinations. Congratulations, Tim. You're brave, forthright, consummately honest, and in possession of all the other "American way" thics and ideas many of us were taught as children only to witness their betrayal by powers-that-be as we've reached adulthood.

Nov. 19 2011 10:11 PM
JL from NYC

(continued)

I think that if you felt as though their decision to vandalize NYPD property was acceptable, you would have moved that camera elsewhere. You pretty much became a visual snitch for the police state in doing what you did, and as the person giving this interview initially stated...

It's f*cked. (Apparently, the interviews on this site can contain vulgarities, but not the comments. -___-)

Nov. 19 2011 07:59 PM
JL from NYC

I respect the dedication you had to documenting for so many consistent hours. Not sure if I could have. I am very happy about where Occupy Wall Street has gone thus far. I am not anti-OWS, and I'm glad that your documentation exists, for myself and the rest of the world.

With that being said, that's all the praise you're getting.

There is nothing that makes a person a literal "part" of Occupy Wall Street, as it is not a functioning organization of any kind. With that being said, people have a choice to whether or not they adhere to the set tactic choices that have been approved within the GA. A 1000-person General Assembly deciding that letting air out of police tires to make it more difficult for them to mobilize is violent in some way, does not mean that an autonomous individual or group is, in any way, forced to abide by this.

If you wish to play by those rules, then why condone any of the law-breaking situations of the last two months? We live in a country where over 300,000,000 people reside, and the vast majority feel that abiding by the laws set for us is what we should do. You don't seem to agree with this, so you act accordingly. The General Assembly does not speak for every freely-acting individual wishing to see a different world, so there will be many who don't agree that property destruction is an inherently violent act... and THEY will act accordingly.

This has been going on for years in NYC. Occupy Wall Street is just the newest and brightest face of social unrest. Consulates and recruitment centers have been attacked. Marches have snaked throughout the train systems and streets, disrupting the Lower East Side's bourgeois nightlife, and Williamsburg's trustafarian endless partying. Luxury cars have been vandalized, and buildings have been squatted/occupied. Riots have ensued from police strategically raiding fundraisers for political arrestees. Many of these just didn't receive massive coverage from MSM because they were singular acts, as opposed to a long-staying squat of a park in the middle of NYC's financial stronghold.

But as I said... for the more involved in OWS to say "WE ARE NON-VIOLENT" does not put chains upon the people that disagree with this sentiment. The state is extremely violent toward our people. How is tampering with their property necessarily out of line? And who are you to make that call? You specifically stated that you see few reasons to stop filming, short of footage that can "cause people harm." You jeopardized the freedom of the individuals attacking the police van by continuing to film. Not in the uber-patriotic sense, but in the literal sense. You were filming them committing a politically motivated crime, which put them at greater risk of being arrested. You chose to film something that could have caused them GREAT harm. They realized this, and again, acted according to their own morality.

Nov. 19 2011 07:58 PM
setdecor from Liverpool

I think it is difficult to expect someone to not have any contradictions when they are working under the adrenaline fuelled pressure that Tim has put himself under. By doing what he does he exposes himself to some serious scrutiny which will always expose weaknesses. He obviously enjoys answering the chat when someone is querying his motives or transparency, as if it is this criticism that really interests him. He wants to keep the chat unmoderated as much as possible so that everyone has a voice, for example. I have been watching for about a week now, and there is no doubt that his work is groundbreaking, inclusive and contains a kind of raw honesty that is not experienced elsewhere. From this point on, however, it will be interesting to see if the level of attention he is attracting personally and professionally from all spheres will affect the integrity and transparency of his work. He is 25 and his apparent lack of ego, his intellect and his energy is what makes his streaming so approachable. And as for #OWS, Tim's work will act as a testament to one of the unedited versions of the truth. And, to quote Gandhi, "Truth never damages a cause that is just".

Nov. 19 2011 07:02 PM
chandraisgreat from NYC

great piece! I watch Tim's stream all the time and he's doing a great job!

Nov. 19 2011 10:50 AM
PR_uno from Orlando, Florida

Tim; First of all let me add my name to the many that have thank you for keeping us informed. We did not expect the corporate media to live to its value.
Secondly; I do have some doubts as to your intentions. The thing that worries me is that at one point during your epic broadcast someone on the chat posted a question about Michael Moore and you were pretty critical of him. Regardless whether MM made lots of money making documentaries, the fact remains that those documentaries where fact based. He gave a voice to the ills which affect our Nation long before our "movement" began out of necessity. Tim; I also noticed that when someone pointed out to you during your webcast that MM was also re-streaming your live cast, then you responded very affirmative towards him. My point is that you can't have it both ways. Once again, thank you for being in the front line and that your luck continues to serves you well by allowing for you to be at a safe place so far all the time.

Nov. 19 2011 10:11 AM
Chaim from NYC

Tim, I was watching live when someone you were interviewing said something negative about the media covering OWS. It may have been after you mentioned that a channel 11 news truck was defaced. There was an audible sound of disapproval from you causing the fellow to say he was just joking.

Nov. 19 2011 09:51 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Supported by

Subscribe to Podcast iTunes RSS

Feeds