1) Do you think that is all that is behind the current protest movement? If so, why?
2) Do you think that it is solely the purview of the right and of corporations? If so, why?
3) Do you think that it is inherently wrong for corporations to partner with citizens who have like minded ideas? If so, why?
4) Do you think that it is more acceptable for non-profit groups such as unions, the NRA, ACORN, ANSWER, etc to coordinate protests?
5) Do you think that organizational support from outside organizations makes the concerns of individual protesters any less valid?

8/19/2009 1:02:17 PM

1. Absolutely not.

2. No.

3. No.

4. It's more acceptable to the mainstream media and leftists because they're convinced that their worldview is the correct one--and that corporations are evil or have bad intentions, at least.

5. No. "Organizations" are made up of people--they're not the shapeless, faceless entities operating out of a void that some here and elsewhere make them out to be.

8/19/2009 1:07:55 PM

*will come back to this thread, leaving for class now. thought i'd share this since it addressing the astroturf issue.

8/19/2009 1:09:12 PM

Quote :

"All the outward appearances of grassroots outrage, but it is fueled by corporate-funded beltway PR."

Right.

I get the fact that the left is upset that corporations are pushing their interests and using citizens to do it. My problems are:

1) This doesn't address the legitimacy of either position.
2) Again, why is this inherently wrong?

Non-profit organizations can still be extremely well funded by private donors whose names do not have to be disclosed. Does this mean that their positions are inherently more "valid" because they don't produce a product for the purpose of consumption?

8/19/2009 1:18:09 PM

1.) No, but there is a prominent 'astroturf' backing. Why? Because we've seen the memos and the fact that all of the people arguing against "death panels" are arguing against problems that don't exist.
2.) No, but it's obviously happening more on the right because large corporations typically benefit from right wing views.
3.) No.
4.) Not inherently. That's the point of those non-profits, however, while the corporations backing protests are specifically trying to increase profits by lying to people.
5.) No, but I think they'd have less of those "concerns" if they weren't being lied to by those corporations.

8/19/2009 2:14:06 PM

#1-5 summed up: "do you find astroturfing to be inherently wrong?"

Not "wrong," but certainly disingenuous. "Grassroots" clearly carries cache with people, and by definition it can't be facilitated by the establishment, regardless of whether it's a non-profit or a corporation.

#5 specifically-- you asked the wrong question. Does it diminish individual credibility? No. Does it diminish their collective credibility? Yes.

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 2:40:00 PM

I personally have no clue how to define "grassroots".

The other night, Steven Colbert described Woodstock as a grassroots event.

Yet, Woodstock started out as an explicit business venture. It was organized by 3 white dudes looking to make some money. It did not become a "free" concert until hundreds of thousands of hippies stormed the place.

What does grassroots really mean?

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ``]

8/19/2009 2:53:07 PM

1) Do you think that is all that is behind the current protest movement? If so, why?
I think it is what started it. But I do think a lot of the anger & confusion based on death panels & other misconceptions is very real, combined with some people who are showing up with the facts & don't like it, but I can't hear that second group over the shouting so to me it sounds like it is more the first group.

2) Do you think that it is solely the purview of the right and of corporations? If so, why?
They certainly can, even if it isn't completely honest. I hope the media will report it for what it is though.

3) Do you think that it is inherently wrong for corporations to partner with citizens who have like minded ideas? If so, why?
No, but I think they should be forthright about the corporation being the sponsor of the events & taking the lead.

4) Do you think that it is more acceptable for non-profit groups such as unions, the NRA, ACORN, ANSWER, etc to coordinate protests?
I think not having profit as your goal does make it a little more acceptable, yes.

5) Do you think that organizational support from outside organizations makes the concerns of individual protesters any less valid?
Depends. If a corporation gets me to realize some new tax could negatively affect me, then all the better. If a corporation gets me to falsely think that a new tax could negatively affect me, then it is a less valid concern.

In the end I guess I'd just saw I don't think astroturfing is all that great & I hope that journalists & th media can point it out when it happens, but I think as a matter of free speech it should be 100% allowed.*


*all thoughts expressed here are subject to revision on the basis of a good counter argument.

8/19/2009 9:37:41 PM

Quote :

"1.) No, but there is a prominent 'astroturf' backing. Why? Because we've seen the memos and the fact that all of the people arguing against "death panels" are arguing against problems that don't exist. 2.) No, but it's obviously happening more on the right because large corporations typically benefit from right wing views. 3.) No. 4.) Not inherently. That's the point of those non-profits, however, while the corporations backing protests are specifically trying to increase profits by lying to people. 5.) No, but I think they'd have less of those "concerns" if they weren't being lied to by those corporations"

This is practically exactly how I feel about it.

8/19/2009 10:10:17 PM

1) No. The silent majority has finally decided to wake up.

2) No. A) "Corporations" are designed to make money. Employee insurance costs money. I'd bet most "corporations" would love a full public option.

3) No. If you say yes, you are suggesting that business' from the private sector cannot do what they will with their OWN RESOURCES (assuming its legal!) ?? Thats absurd.

4) No. It's equally acceptable IMO.

5) No. People dont show up to protest because they are TOLD to go and they feel like the HAVE TO ATTEND. They protest because they have real concerns.

I have a new question.....6) "Astroturf" is a recent term coined by Pelosi. Do you think the term could be used to desribe the Bush protestors? If no, why not?

8/19/2009 10:36:54 PM

^ "astroturfing" has been around for a couple of years now, it wasn't coined by pelosi. It was first used, IIRC, to apply to campaigns from companies to make it seem like people were spontaneously supporting their product (they would pay people to post on message boards about their product, etc.). In many cases, it is blatant lying, but it is by definition an intent to deceive.

Quote :

"3) No. If you say yes, you are suggesting that business' from the private sector cannot do what they will with their OWN RESOURCES (assuming its legal!) ?? Thats absurd. "

So you're saying it's okay for businesses to intentionally deceive people? What would happen if a company as large and powerful as walmart tried to do this?

How is it you fear gov. control more than private corporation control? Are not both forces equally prone to megalomania and corruption?

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 10:41:25 PM

[Edited on August 19, 2009 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2009 10:41:25 PM

"What you call 'love', men like me invented to sell nylons."

Its like no one in this thread has ever heard of Vince Packard.

8/19/2009 11:44:24 PM

[Edited on August 20, 2009 at 6:53 AM. Reason : wrong pic]

8/20/2009 6:52:30 AM

pic bombing

8/20/2009 8:10:51 AM

Quote :

"They certainly can, even if it isn't completely honest. I hope the media will report it for what it is though."

Agreed. What is bothering me, however, is all the attention being paid to the protesters, the supposed astroturfing, their supposed latent racism, and the imminent and violent threat posed by these protesters.

What practically no one is covering right now is the actual bill and it's potential impacts.

8/20/2009 8:40:32 AM

Quote :

"1) Do you think that is all that is behind the current protest movement? If so, why? 2) Do you think that it is solely the purview of the right and of corporations? If so, why? 3) Do you think that it is inherently wrong for corporations to partner with citizens who have like minded ideas? If so, why? 4) Do you think that it is more acceptable for non-profit groups such as unions, the NRA, ACORN, ANSWER, etc to coordinate protests? 5) Do you think that organizational support from outside organizations makes the concerns of individual protesters any less valid?"

1. What is "that" exactly? And which "current protest movement"?
2. No, I'm sure the left is equally capable of astroturfing.
3. Is a business inherently wrong for wanting to protect it's profit margin? No. Do the interests of a business conflict with the best interests of the voters? Not always, but more often than not.
4. Yes
5. Sometimes, yes.

8/20/2009 9:23:25 AM