The media can't figure out OWS; where are the leaders? The demands?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/on-occupywallstreet-and-the-power-of-open-source-and-consensual-processes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

"The media and the officialdom seem flummoxed by the lack of obvious leaders and official spokesmen.  OWS is an experiment in something more akin to direct democracy and it explicitly places the wishes and needs of the community first. If nothing else it is exercising muscles that have atrophied badly in American discourse."

ICA has no leaders. The media needs to figure that out eventually here.  The reasons behind an ICA are usually multiple, depending on which participant/group within the movement you ask. Basically there is some core agreement for what is wrong or what needs to be changed that unifies the otherwise diverse group.  For Project Chanology, it was simply to expose the bad side of Scientology, and have fun.  Not everyone agrees WHY you need to expose the bad side of Scientology, nor perhaps HOW, but a consensus is arrived at to do something, and off they go to the street.

The fact that ICA has very simple goals makes this possible. If the goal is to become a formal organization, to run some business or government, then ICA does not work.