Whose grass roots are showing?
When I telephoned a man named "Alex" in Los Angeles last week, I wondered who might answer. A Michael Moore operative? A media whore posing as a grassroots blogger named "Martini Republic?" Someone paid by George Soros to oppose the war? Or simply an angry deconstructionist with some mixed feelings about the American presence in North America? Until he picked up the phone, he was just a ghost on the Internet.

-- Classical Values Parody Progression, inspired by Rand Simberg, in turn shamelessly linked by that notorious cultivator of grassroots blogs, InstaPundit.

For some background, a "grassroots" blog named Martini Republic (which previously upset my dog by using abusive anti-pit bull insults) has now launched a vicious ad hominem attack on Jeff Jarvis:

I just can't decide whether to marvel at Jarvis's stupidity, or wonder at his hypocrisy in making this accusation. That's a race which goes down to the wire.

If Jarvis's sanity isn't already drawn into question by this weird assertion, Jarvis then posits that dullard-octagenarian Cathy Seipp's lame hatchet job piece on Martini Republic -- an NROnline article reprinted, in all places, in Free Republic — should have been googled and should settle all issues! As if positing the authoritativeness and infallibility of an unholy trinity of Snipe, NRO and Freeper isn't enough, Jarvis then he adds a comment from Jim Hake. Oh my! If the Martini Republic had a flag, we'd have no choice but to strike our colors and beg for quarter!

In short, Jarvis gives a cyber hummer to the people on the right who many believe are exploiting the Model bloggers to promote the war, only he isn't bright enough to realize just how painfully obvious he is, kneeling there under the cyber-table with his legs sticking out from under the cyber-tablecloth.

Of course, since Jarvis himself is one of the bigger stooges and dupes for Bush's pro-war hysteria, it is not a huge surprise that he is over-sensitive about this issue of exploitation.

Wow. It used to be that if someone disagreed, they merely accused you of being stupid and/or evil. Or out of touch with "reality." Now, you're a stooge, a dupe, or have vast unknown forces behind you.

(Um, don't they realize that "stooge and dupe" Jarvis supported Kerry?)

Not being much of a war blogger myself, I'll leave it to others to decipher the merits of the Iraqi bloggers (who stand accused of the serious crime of having met Satan George Bush himself). It stands to reason, of course, that if the good guys (meaning we Americans) support or help them, well, they must really bad, right?

I mean, like, how dare they be on our side?

What most fascinates me about this dispute is the use of a new term to bash blogs: "astroturfed."

Astroturfing occurs when a supposedly grass-roots operation actually is getting help from a powerful think tank, governmental agency or any outside source with an agenda. Why else, Martini Republic asked, would the brothers have been feted in Washington?
If your blog is noticed, and is eventually "helped" by "any outside source with an agenda," is it then to be discredited? Because of who liked it?

What does that suggest about Martini Republic being featured in the New York Times?

posted by Eric on 01.18.05 at 11:36 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1924






Comments

Hmmm.... "...a stooge, a dupe..." ("...running dogs of the imperialist warmongers...") "...or have vast unknown forces behind you..." (the Insiders? the Secret Chiefs? Force X? the 9 Evil Lesbian Invaders From Another Galaxy?) Hmmm....

That description of "astroturfing" sounds like many Communist fronts....

"Whose grass roots are showing?" "Abominable souls for sale!" "Seeing is not writing" "The Devil is always in the details!" "Here's proof of the impossible!"

The _styles_ of the titles of your posts! The _style_ of the way you write!

Wow, that's about the most incoherent post I've ever seen, even when I count the loony-left blogsphere!

This post raises far more questions than it even attempts to answer...

Your use of quotation-marks implies that you don't consider Martini Republic "grassroots;" so what do you label it? And what do you label Jeff Jarvis' blog?

To what specific assertion by Jarvis was Martini Republic originally responding?

You seem to have taken the extremist's standard response in a debate: making extreme responses to your opponent's most extreme statements, and completely abandoning the original topic of discussion. Martini or Jarvis may be doing the same thing, of course, but that's no excuse if you're not willing to drag us back to the original topic.

Raging Bee   ·  January 19, 2005 11:31 AM

Original topic of discussion? I must have missed that.

There's an assumption that I should know or care what "grassroots" means..... (Or "astroturf" for that matter.)

I can state confidently that I write my own posts. I'm not the one assigning these ridiculous labels. And I don't have to define them.

My point is simply that I find it remarkably laughable that anyone would try to judge or discredit a blog on the basis of who likes it or helps it.

Might as well judge it based on whether the blogger dyes his hair.

Eric Scheie   ·  January 19, 2005 12:40 PM

When did hypocrisy become a "Classical Value?"

Surely you didn't miss the ad hominems Jarvis tossed in his little hissy fit.

Or did you?

Anonymous   ·  January 19, 2005 03:06 PM

I doubt if trolling and insulting the blogger on his own blog is a Classical Value either. Myself, I make it a rule that if I can't show proper respect for a blogger on his or her own property, I don't comment there.

I just can't decide whether to marvel at Jarvis's stupidity, or wonder at his hypocrisy in making this accusation. That's a race which goes down to the wire.

The portion of the Martini Republic blog which preceded this points out that Jarvis accuses the despicable Times and Martini Republic of endangering the lives of the ITM bloggers by publicizing them and through the Times use of their real names, while the Right Wing pro-War bloggers arranged a highly-publicized meeting between the Fadhils and Bush without complaint from Jarvis, and Jarvis himself has named the bloggers in pro-war posts on his own blog. Hence the comment about not knowing whether to marvel at Jarvis's stupidity or his hypocriscy.

Sounds a bit different when you put it in context.

Anonymous   ·  January 26, 2005 10:51 AM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits