We learn about astro-turf movements, and we are given examples of them. But really, most of the examples we get are Republican/Conservative movements - perhaps for good reason, as they are notorious for it, but they are certainly not the only ones who do it. I like as much as anyone does portraying the other side as completely evil and my side as the shining light on the hill. But sometimes I have to step up and say: The ends do not justify the means. If you are going to call the opposing side out for such things as astro-turfing, you just can’t do them yourself. I was fairly happy when I got an email from the ACLU – an organization I wholeheartedly support – telling me about the Stupak amendment to the health care bill, and how we have to stand up against it. But my approval turned into outrage when I saw what they wanted me to do about it. In about the middle of the email, they had a large box with a button saying “TAKE ACTION NOW!” I click the link, and what do I get? This site: https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=1815&page=UserAction&s_src=UNW090001ACT&s_subsrc=1202actiontakers&JServSessionIdr004=xv4nlexed1.app20a . A prewritten letter with the opportunity to fill in your personal information and “personalize” (You can edit the letter if you want to, but it is all written out already) the letter. I definitely understand the sentiment when supporters of the ACLU okay it, because it’s the right thing to do. But when you are asked to do something to support a cause, what you really need to look at is this: Would you accept that kind of action as legitimate from the opposing party?
This was posted as a favor to my friend he typed it out and I thought it was interesting
Tim Dyer
3 comments:
Of course, the point should be made about the practicality of such things in real politics. The moral thing may be to eliminate it entirely, but people are very difficult to motivate even for something they fully support, and writing letters and the like take large amounts of time and energy most people don't have. As well as this, the simple fact is that the other side does it to get more voices heard, so we need to use what means we have to get our voices heard as well.
I still condemn such horribly fake grassroots movements as calling you just to forward you to a congressperson or other political figure, but toning it down just a little just has to make it acceptable in the real world. Instead of a forward, give the number of the political figure to call, and instead of just a quick forward of an email, an email that you can actually edit and personalize, and such things. Those, by the real world, I am forced to accept as practical.
-Ilan Seid-Green
There is an important distinction to be made between giving people the opportunity to take action on a matter they actually care about, and inciting people to take action on something they don't actually care enough about. The argument can be made that the ACLU email I received was the first, and thus acceptable. The latter, however, I completely condemn.
-Ilan Seid-Green
I must admit I find it a little bit funny that you're posting someone else's writing, but I guess that's better than taking credit for it altogether. Anyway, I find astroturfing an interesting topic and had an experience this week that relates.
I work as an intern for the San Mateo Daily Journal, a local newspaper, and one of my duties each week is to read, edit and proof their letters to the editor section. Within the past few weeks, I've seen several letters about the current proposed modifications that Caltrain is proposing for all of its train systems called the short range transit plan.
To spare you some of the in-depth details, several cyclist groups are angry about this and are astroturfing a huge campaign of letter writing and other methods of advocacy. Monday, out of 14 letters I proofed 10 were from cyclists, not obviously form letters but sharing several statistics and requests of Caltrain.
In the end, I think that both arguments for and against this method of advocacy have validity. I'm more for the astroturf, generally, though, because I think that people are able to tell the difference between a small, passionate group and when an issue is a big deal. And, as with all free speech, any overrepresentations are corrected, with checks and balances. Check out the second-to-last letter in today's selection in the SM Daily Journal as evidence of this: Letters 12/2/09.
Post a Comment