Occupy Wall Street was started by Adbusters. They could be called leftist, but are off the traditional political map in my opinion. They're inspired by anti-capitalist, anarchist, and Situationist ideas, but in a simple-minded way that is reminiscent of the limits of the anti-globalization movement--critique of corporations but not capitalism, of the collusion between corporate and state power rather than their very existence, etc.
Anonymous signed on quickly and was a pretty significant force in hyping it. They cannot be placed on a political spectrum and are not an anarchist group.
The host could have been referring to the Void Network (an anarchist group) who got behind OWS before it started, or to how David Graeber and others supposedly started the general assembly at OWS.
In any case, anarchists have been involved with Occupy* since the beginning and have related in different ways (if at all) in different places. The movement incorporates certain anarchist principles to various extents--the leaderless movement, general assemblies, non-endorsement of political parties, no demands, direct action, systemic/revolutionary analysis, etc. Some elements that have been hard for the movement to shake are clearly anti-anarchist--majority decision-making, 99% unity mentality, hesitancy toward autonomous action, appeals to the law, morality, etc, ideological pacifism, love of the police, movement policing & snitching, etc.
I think it's an error in judgment to call Occupy* a liberal or leftist movement. It is first and foremost populist. It's not aligned with any political party or wing. It's vague enough to include people from all over (and off) the political spectrum. It hasn't (yet) looked towards elections or even demands to the government, at least not in a way that a significant chunk of the movement can get behind.
There is a lot of analysis of Occupy* that's been authored by anarchists, and some of it analyses the movement as populist mass movement rather than as "liberal."
