On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Chip Berlet wrote:
> The TP was originally astroturf, and everything in the numbered
> conclusions below seems accurate.
>
> But the leap of logic is then to conclude it is still astroturf, which
> is demonstrably false, as half a dozen major polls prove.
Certainly one cannot conclude one from the other. I'm not sure how one can conclude this (or the opposite) from polls, though. Can you explain?
BTW, out of curiosity, did you read the article, or just my summary? On the astroturf question, the authors' point is that the organizational structure is the same today that it was in the beginning -- the key personnel who organize their most effective demonstrations are exactly the same. Surely that must count for something?
Admittedly, it may not be key. To take a differente example, large left demonstrations are almost always organized by grouplets whose views have little in common with most demonstrators. But if the grouplets decide for their own reasons to stop organizing them, the demonstrations drastically fall off, even if the number of people holding those views has increased.
All of which makes me wonder if this astroturf/authentic movement question is really best thought of as an either/or thing.
Thailand is another recent example that comes to mind.
It seems at first as if a bipartite model of social movements, of organizers and organized -- whose origins and interests both diverge and overlap -- is more the rule than the exception.
This is something you've probably thought about for many years and
have many cites on. And I'm sure I won't have to goad you to share them
:-)
Michael