Given the recent storm of words, charges, counter-charges, and insults over mandated contraceptive coverage under the provisions of the ACA it’s not surprising that this has moved into the realm of action and boycotting. Naturally the boycotts against talk show personality Rush Limbaugh has been called righteous and also villainous based purely upon which political party you self identify with. Boycotts, like rebellions, are only treasonous and wrong in the third person, in the first person it’s noble, heroic and patriotic. There were precious few voices on the right speaking out against boycotts when country music radio stations were throwing the Dixie Chicks off the air because of their political stand. Some, like Andrew Sullivan, have called the boycotts wrong even if they don’t share the opinions of Mr. Limbaugh. I can understand his point of view, that it is regrettable when voices are hounded out of public discourse, but I do not agree. Certainly Mr. Limbaugh has the right to speak his mind and say what he thinks is the truth, within the bounds of slander and libel of course. That right does not extend so far that I must respect his, or anyone else’s, opinion. Whom I listen to, associates with, and support with my coin is a function of my own free speech. I rarely refuse to purchase goods or services based upon advertising choices, Id be much more inclined to walk away from a company’s direct action. In fact if I make a political statement with my consumer habits it tends to b buying a product or service from someone I feel is doing the right thing. Now, Mr. Limbaugh has been making incendiary statements for a long time, but this is the first time it has really hit him hard with strong effective blow-back. This I think is because of social media and the internet. Each passing year it becomes easier and easier for people to band together, pass information, and organize responses. There was a time that this sort of campaign would have taken weeks and months to put together, with people physically copying letter and stuffing thousands of envelopes, all at considerable cost. Now with the nearly free internet, activist can perform tremendous feats of organization while holding down job, going to school, and in general having a real lift. This brings grows the pool of activists, further lowering the bar and initiating, in my opinion an exponential growth in activism and effect. The Tea Party is an early example of this, one that is sending serious shocks through the Republican party. The ‘Occupay’ movement is an example from the left, but one that has failed to have the same sort of influence, that doesn’t however preclude another movement rising on the left. I expect to see more of this as time goes on. Our political, cultural, and business systems are about to be remade.
So here’s the conclusion paragraph of the post you linked to..
Angelo Carusone of Media Matters was the band leader of the Stop Rush and Boycott Rush efforts. While Media Matters did not “control” the Boycott Rush group, there was meaningful coordination. Note that control is in scare quotes, because he did not prove control by Media Matters. In the first few days of the boycott effort there were multiple public and private communications Assumption he does not know thee subject of the private communications between Carusone of MMFA and Boycott Beck regarding boycott strategy.
Carusone’s Beck boycott background and access to Media Matters databases of Limbaugh advertisers and resources made him an invaluable part of the anti-Limbaugh effort nationwide. If the argument is that any coordination or assistance from an existing partisan outfit proves ‘astroturf’ then that makes nearly everything ‘astroturf.’
This also shows the power of social media, and how a relatively small number of people can create the appearance of a mass movement. Here’s where he slips it in, the totally unsupported conclusion. No where in his post did he supply any evidence that there was not mass support. No evidence that email and calls to sponsors were all coming from a small group of accounts. Nothing is dispel that many many people were part of this movement. And for me that is the critical different between a grass roots movements and an astroturf movement, with an astroturf when you dig down there are no vast number of supporters. The questions to me is not was there assistance and or coordination, but are there people behind it. When those efforts are stoked and coordinated by experienced boycott operatives with the resources of an organization like Media Matters behind them, the effect can be powerful and can scare away advertisers. Yes, if you have the numbers behind you to scare the advertisers.
Nope. The Rush job is primarily astroturf.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/independent-rush-boycott-group-coordinated-with-media-matters/
The internet is a wonderful tool for organizing and collecting information. But like most tools it can also aid abuse.
The advertisers who were pressured to boycott Rush are victims of an internet scam. Some of those advertisers have realized too late which side their bread is really buttered on.
Certainly that part of the issue is important and I can understand why you feeling it so strongly, but the topic of the post was primarily about the costs of organizing and how the internet and social media have changed the game.
So they are actually still on topic for the post, though I find their arguments and supporting evidence that this is somehow not representative of broad ground support that organized easily via social media tho be frankly, rather thin and unconvincing.
I read the links.
What I am really, really disgusted about with all of you gentlemen is that you have derailed the important part of this discussion – that birth control MUST be an available part of health care for ALL women regardless of who your employer is – to discuss who is behind it and social media. Brad and Bear, shame on you! I’ll tell you right now that this issue is MAJOR!!! Let’s stick to the thing that really matters!! Do you want your employer to be able to decide what kind of health care you get??? For example, the “pro-life” stance of the Catholic Church is based on not intervening with God’s will. The extension of this (and, remember, there are religious groups out there, large, well-funded, who believe that all mental health medicine are wrong and unneccessary and even some that believe that all medical care by a doctor is wrong – and theorhetically would try to pray-away all illnesses) would allow any business to decide what is an is not acceptable health care. This is not being fought because right now it is “only” women – and apparantly we are not important to the Republican party. Guys, the extension of this is SCARY!!!!! Quite aside from the legitimate women’s issues of birth control, which I will limit myself on for the moment, imagine not being allowed to take your child to a doctor for, say, encephalitis, because you work for a church that says illness must be prayed away. Why are you guys not screaming about this??? This has great potential to impact ALL Americans who receive health care. Just as lawyers need to be darned careful when they write laws about health care (and this is good example!!), so too businesses must be careful about involving themselves between a patient and a doctor. This is wrong-headedness in the extreme.
Regarding Rush – I don’t buy anything from his sponsors anyway, so my actions will have no impact there. The man is doing what he’s always done. He is speaking like a pig and he has a whole bunch of piglets running after him squealing the same squeal. Birth control is prescription medicine and it should be covered if Viagra and Cialis are covered – or blood pressure meds, or cholesterol meds, or whatever. We are asking for equity of coverage, just as we had to fight for Pap smears to be covered and mammograms to be covered and now we must fight for Guardasil to be covered. He should have stayed quiet and REALLY not become disgusting by demanding published videotapes. Eeww. What a pervert. Additionally, this is the same man who calls single moms welfare cheats (regardless of their circumstances) and Feminists, “Feminazis” (as if we Feminists have ever caused anything like genocide – again, disgusting.) I’ve never understood why anyone listens to him. He generalizes too much, is not rational, and regularly spouts hate. I have a feeling that his going off-air, if it comes to that, and it probably won’t because it is too much to hope for, it is more because his show has run its course.
Ah I thought it was that story. I had read it week ago after I saw this reply to it Daily caller and Media Matters and I find the expose rather underwhelming. There’s a lot of ‘unnamed’ sources but the heart of the story seems to be, Liberal Activist feed information to liberal journalist who use it. There’s no evidence that any false or untrue or distorted has happened. This is how a lot of reporters get their stories. It happens on the conservative side too. I don’t see how this in any way invalidate my premise that the social media has allowed people to respond quickly, effectively, and at low cost in ways that has not been possible before. It is likely I am working from a somewhat different view of ‘astroturff’ than you yours. IN my opinion you have asturff when you have a ‘movement’ that has no wide general support and only exist because money is being pumped into it from outside. Simply because moneyed interests may have started a ball rolling doesn’t mean the rolling isn’t happening. At the start of the Tea Party money came in from outside, but there was and is a wide spread support for the idea and goals. Some of the left have tried to pain the Tea PArty as astroturff because of that seed money start, but that’s as overly narrow definition in opinion as is your application to this case. The response to Limbaugh has been wide spread by lots of people.
And even more “grass roots” protest!
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/-women-of-the-99-percent.html
Here you go:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/?print=1
link it
You should read the expose’ that the DC Caller has been doing on Media Matters.
The fact that Media Matters is involved hardly proves that this is some sort of top-down directed results rather than a bottom-up protest that has proven effective. I find your objection about as convincing as those on the left who point to high powered conservative groups that help fund early tea party movements as ‘proof’ that the Tea Party is illegitimate.
Beware of astro-turf.
It is one thing when people object to something, and spontaneously rise up to boycott in protest. Hooray for the spirit of protest and free-speech. It is quite another when high powered money soaked organizations scheme to deliberately drive certain voices from the public space, because those voices are perceived as effective and an enemy.
The campaign against Rush fits into the latter category. And the group behind the campaign is Media Matters. In fact Media Matters has a whole hit list of voices they want to destroy, and they are proud to claim a scalp or two already. Promoting boycotts of advertisers has proven to be one of the few successful tactics Media Matters has come up with. The Rush boycott is far from the first advertiser boycott Media Matters has tried to promote.