The Smell of Astroturf

Or the fumes Wafting from the Coffee Party.

Astroturfing in politics is the process of creating a a fake grassroots effort to sway public opinion or sitting politicians. David Axelrod of the Obama administration is a living legend at doing this and it is what has made him politically powerful. Much of it is centered around unions and isn’t anything close to being grassroots.

So it was interesting to see accusations against the Tea Party movement that they were astroturfed and controlled by sinister Republican interests.  Except when they were controlled by the sinister insurance companies. Or when they were controlled by Fox News.  Sorry, the conspiracy theorists/spin doctors never could make up their mind who really controlled the Tea Party rallies.

Sadly, the left are so far divorced from the people of the land that they are incapable of recognizing a true grassroots movement born of frustration with out of control government growth.  Character assassination and ranting about astroturfing have failed to dent the movement simply because it isn’t astroturfed.  That should scare them as big populist movements tend to change things.

So a change in tactics has happened and the left have formed something called the “coffee party.”  Interestingly, instead of having multiple movements with much in common springing up independently (and fighting with each other a good amount) there is one person behind the formation of this group, Annabel Park.

Ms. Park and her new group instantly received a lot of attention from The Washington Post and The New York Times.  To be expected as they are not fans of the Tea Partiers.  She has stated that they are not the opposite of the Tea Party and may have common ground. But wait, what is that smell in the air?  Smells like artificial grass to me.

Turns out that Ms. Park has a history with The New York Times and also was a big organizer for Obama’s presidential campaign. Over at Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson has presented the details on her activities including Twitter messages that are extremely hostile towards the Tea Party.  I agree with his summation that this is just a continuation of “the perpetual Obama campaign.”  I’d add that it is clear the media want something, anything to derail the Tea Party movement.

I wonder if Axelrod is involved?

 

 

del.icio.us Tags: Coffee Party,Annabel Park,Tea Party,astroturf,politics

Searching for Where the News Can Be Found

Or a Personal Quest for Journalistic Quality

I've always been fascinated by history and current events (which is simply "live" history), seeking out knowledge wherever I could.  This dates to the stone age before the Web, back when we had to read newspapers, magazines, books, and watch Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News. Eventually, as cable finally made its way into our family life, there was the news addict's dream made real by CNN and then the quick fix provided by CNN Headline News.  Heady (or headliney) times, it couldn't get better than this! 

Of course, it wasn't easy to get some of the quality newspapers as The New York Times and The Washington Post were only available at the library. But I did have a subscription to Newsweek for a couple of years that I treasured.  That fell by the wayside due to a lack of money brought on by disability, but in the early 1990's I purchased my first computer, a Packard Bell 486SX-25 with a 2400 baud modem in it.  After perusing bulletin boards on dial-up, I received one of those unavoidable America Online floppies in the mail.  I joined the service and began to find news in virtual print once again.

Watching Less, Reading More

In the meantime, various cable news networks had popped up and while available on satellite TV, I felt there had been a decay in quality slowly becoming evident.  By the mid-90s, format changes were making it all feel more tabloid like, more entertainment and personality driven.  Cable news hit its zenith during 1991 when covering Operation Desert Storm and never quite hit that level again.  I watched it less and less.

So I turned toward content I could find online, though it wasn't easy or convenient to find.  The Web came into being and I dipped my toe in the water via AOL's built in browser.  As internet service became available locally, I signed up to the very primitive connectivity in my rural area.  After giving up on it and returning to AOL, the service finally became reliable and I signed up again using OS/2 Warp's Web Explorer to crawl around the new web.  I remember that new place called Yahoo just starting up, then Netscape taking the web browser to a whole new level.  By that time the OS wars were over and I was stuck with Windows95. At last came a new piece of software that looked like it would fulfill all my dreams of news gathering in one place.

A News Junkie's Dream

That program was called Pointcast and it was wonderful!  I could set it up to download the news from all sorts of sources, including The New York Times and The Washington Post.  It all flowed into the program in the background when I was dialed into the Net and I could read it once disconnected.  That was needed, because even a 56k modem in 1996 took awhile to get any content off the copper wires.  It was bliss, news nirvana, and I couldn't stop extolling it to others I knew.

Of course, it didn't last.  The infrastructure wasn't there yet for so much data being downloaded at once, it was overloading servers in business environments which were the main users of Pointcast.  Missed opportunities and the rise of Yahoo killed the endeavor within a few years.  I mourned that software's passing almost as much as OS/2 Warp's.

Signs of the Times

Thankfully, the newspapers and news cable stations had discovered the value of the Internet by then.  It meant I had to read while online, but the content was still there.  However, I started to see the same symptoms of rot that I'd seen with news TV.  The New York Times in particular was becoming less a journalistic bastion of integrity than a source of polemics.   By 2003, the Jayson Blair scandal broke and I wasn't surprised, as my trips to their website had gone from multiple times a day to once daily. The rot had become visible. At that point, it was a slow road to infrequently visiting the once venerable institution.  These days, articles are written the same way as editorials and there really is no difference.

At least The Washington Post kept it's integrity, I told others. For the most part, it did until the 2004 election drove it over the edge.  While not going into the absolute free fall that has turned the Grey Lady into a very bad joke, it did become more openly partisan.  Of course it was always a left wing newspaper, but a very respectable one.  After John Kerry's loss in the Presidential race, the paper began to go down the same road as it's New York rival.

This was unpleasant to recognize, because I didn't feel like I had much in the way of alternatives.  Oh there was the rising blogosphere, but that wasn't developed enough at the time.  Talk radio never appealed, because it is primarily personality driven with a penchant for theatrics.  NPR is possibly the best antidote for insomnia, between its nonstop leftist slant and gray drones speaking in the academic cadences of those who've never really lived life. 

Signal Degradation

What of cable news?  Infotainment at best, rarely any journalism present these days.  Sensationalism is the main content, with talk radio style theatrics thrown in. Not a surprise as many shows are hosted by talk radio hosts. Most cable news networks are far left, with MSNBC on the lunatic fringe side of the spectrum and CNN catering to the left base.  Fox News is still tabloid in style, which I despise.  At least they report the stories the other networks refuse to, since that is where the ratings and eyeballs are. I feel as if I am praising Fox with faint damning's. The other networks are more concerned with being an active component of the Democratic Party than in being journalists. That includes the tattered remnants of the once proud broadcast network news shows.


A New Media:  Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

These days, the blogs are where to find information that the left wing media suppresses. Still, there is a huge amount of emotionalism to this new media and one has to sift them to get good information.  It reminds me very much of the yellow journalism days of the 1800's.  The idea of journalistic integrity is a late 20th Century idea and I often wonder if there ever has been such a thing.  But trying to obtain that illusion at least keeps things more grounded in reality and honesty.

Currently, society in the United States is fragmenting rather than uniting.  The rise of blogs is a good indication of that, with the constant wars fought between even those claiming to be on the same side.  Just search for LGF or LittleGreenFootballs along with the word 'banning' to see the kind of wars that get fought, as that blog goes further left.  Of course, that is an exaggerated example as that blog has turned into an intolerant, totalitarian cult-like place.  Once upon a time it was in my links on this blog, but hasn't been for some time now.


Looking Across the Pond

So where to find the news?  I suggest reading the full links from various blogs, getting the original articles in case things have been misinterpreted or spun. You have to work to find out the truth, don't expect anyone to deliver it to you on a platter. For traditional news that hasn't totally degraded, check out newspapers from the United Kingdom, such as The Telegraph and The Times. It was a link on Drudge that inspired me to write this post, as I discovered I was part of a trend.  Imagine that, me being trendy!

It appears that there are more than a few of us American news junkies reading the newspapers of Great Britain to get news about our own country we don't get in print here.  What a sad and alarming thing statement that is!  I don't think our newspapers are dying due to a lack of an audience, but due to becoming completely out of touch with the majority of Americans. 

The Death of an Independent Media?

Now there is talk of the government bailing out the liberal newspapers, consolidating the leftist message by turning them into possessions of the government.  Because the majority of the federal government is made up by bureaucrats, it doesn't matter which party is in possession of the Oval Office.  Those faceless feds tend to be very liberal, which means the papers will be semi-official organs of big government no matter what.

Pravda anyone?

Sadly, that question won't mean a thing to many too young to remember the Soviet Union.  When a government controls the news, there can be no freedom.  It is up to us, the American people, to prevent this from happening.  Do we have enough people willing to fight for their freedom in this fragmented society?  It isn't enough to defend the Constitution, we must make sure that a vibrant and independent media exists, otherwise the First Amendment is just words.

Me, I'm wondering if I'll have to keep searching for honest journalism in the future.  The fact I'm looking to British newspapers for news isn't good.

Whither Moderate Islam?

For years, we've been hearing from the media about all the moderate Muslims who only want peace, but are made to look bad by the extremists. As I've delved more into Islam in an effort to understand the current world situation, it became apparent that the more devout the Muslim, the more true to the Koran and the Hadiths, the more likely to be intolerant and violent toward non-Muslims that Muslim will be. So reading this article at The Washinton Post, I felt sorrow because of the fact that American Muslims are not assimilating, but are actually separating themselves from the rest of America. The oft reviled "melting pot" is what made the USA such a strong and vibrant free society, with a marketplace of ideas and beliefs bouncing off of each other in creative fermentation. We can see in Africa and the Middle East how tribalism keeps violence alive in a perpetual cycle with no end in sight. Over in Europe, we have unassimilated Muslims poised to be the majority around the middle of the century, if not earlier. Forced conversion and conquest are integral parts of the religion since its founding, with dreams of the worldwide caliphate still strong. Lately the terrorist threats being stopped have been from "home grown" Muslims in the USA, UK, and Germany, not from Saudi Arabia or Egypt like the hijackers of 9/11. So reading about the Muslims here becoming more like the Muslims in Europe is alarming to say the least.

Most people don't want to face it, but we are in an epic clash of cultures that most likely won't be resolved peacefully unless Islam itself changes radically. Given that change is forbidden by Islam (there are those who bend the rules, but the reality is everything is supposed to be set in stone), I don't see it happening anytime soon. We are seeing the Muslim world grow more fundamentalist thanks to the petrodollars of Saudi Arabia funding madrassas around the globe. Malaysia and Indonesia are getting more intolerant of other religions with the classic blame the Jews meme being repeated over and over. In Thailand, Muslims are killing schoolgirls walking to school and leaving their heads at the roadside, all in the name of Allah.

As time goes on, we either successfully weaken Islamic fundamentalism with democratic ideals or we face what is really coming. It is something that nobody wants to think about, something that most are doing their best to avoid talking about. And what is it? War on a scale that has never before been seen in the modern era. Something that makes WWI and WW2 look like Sunday picnics. It will be a war of survival for the West and it will have to be won. Otherwise, we will be seeing our women in burkas and praying toward Mecca five times a day. Not pleasant thoughts at all, but something that has been brewing since the 6th century. Me, I'd like to avoid it, which is why I support our efforts in Iraq and wish we could stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

If the clash does develop the way I think it will, it won't be the end of the world. It will be catastrophic, but the West has been through that kind of thing before with rampaging hordes of Ghengis Khan and the earlier attempts by Islam to conquer Europe. Even earlier, the Persians (we call them Iranians these days) were turned back by the combined city states of Greece. That war was notable for the famous last stand of a badly outnumbered contingent of 300 Spartans and several thousand supporting troops from other areas against at least 100,000 Persians. They did what had to be done to save all of Greece and I hope that we will be brave enough to do the same for Western culture and Judeo-Christian values when the time comes. Great sacrifice will be required and I fear that we have become terribly weak.

If you want to understand what happened with the Spartans, I have to plug a brilliant novel about the battle of Thermoplyae, Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield.

It's a pity Hollywood will never adapt it, mainly because of the carnage involved and a non-Hollywood ending, but it is a great depiction of honor and duty, two things not taught enough these days. Instead we get The 300 adapted from Frank Miller's graphic novel, complete with gratuitous sex and surreal orc like villains. Ah, well.