New York Times: If it's in there, it's not at all obvious.
Free Daily papers they give out to folks getting on the subway: As last year, these more populist papers devote some coverage to Occupy.
The headline in The Metro reads, "Occupy Still Important Two Years After Start".
An editorial in AM New York reads, "Occupy Wall Street Must Raise It's Voice Again."
The author, Liza Featherstone, writes: "Occupy did not change our reality, but it did change our political rhetoric, especially here in new York City". Featherstone connects the Occupy movment to the current mayoral election in NYC. The paper's banner headline reads, "Ain't Even Close", referring to a poll placing Democratic candidate DiBlasio well ahead of Republican Lhota. I will try to share the full text of this editorial later, but she concludes by exhorting Occupy to "become a nuisance to the 1% again". I'm ready for that.
It did occur to me that there might be some connection between the dramatic decrease in police harassment and the election. DiBlasio is looking like the front-runner, has adopted a softened "Occupy ideology" and has the backing of labor. Our afternoon demonstration, organized by a labor/Occupy/Act Up coalition, seemed to get the royal treatment (there were amplifiers set up at one point along the route, from which labor speakers gave short talks as we marched to Bryant Park) For the most part the police didn't even appear to have come prepared to arrest anyone. Only a few had zip ties hanging form their belts, unlike last year.
Maybe they're thinking about impressing a new boss.
However, I'm not getting excited about any political candidates. They all seem to be cut from the same cloth, But maybe we can hope for "not so bad" as opposed to "really bad".