Copy and Paste Activism

This is very interesting. The use of blatant form letters for mass mailing politicians is one thing, but here James Dobson's Focus on the Family is urging people to "use their wizard" to copy and paste together letters to the editors of local news media all across the country. This is objectionable because FOTF is attempting to get text written by FOTF published under the guise of individual citizens. When I read a letter to the editor I have faith that the attributed author actually wrote the piece. I wonder how many papers got tricked by Focus and published their copy under the name of individuals? The a la carte methodology employed will ensure that the letter won’t seem like a mass emailing as well.

Full text of the email here:

From a CITIZENLINK ACTION ALERT mass emailed on July 23rd.

***CITIZENLINK ACTION ALERT***
Send a Letter to the Editor on Judge John Roberts

In case you missed your opportunity earlier this week,
you can still use our letter-writing "wizard" to make a
compelling case for "unquestionably qualified" Supreme
Court nominee receiving a fair Senate hearing.

.....

Here's how it works:

1) Look over the four sections below. From each section,
select one paragraph and copy it into a text document --
and feel free to modify the sections in your own words. No
matter which paragraphs you choose, the result will be a
finished letter of no more than 200 words.

2) Print and sign your letter, making sure you include
your name, full address and phone number. You can then
mail it to your local newspaper. For contact information
for your local newspaper, visit the Media section of
CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the
"Local Media" box.

http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/media/

3) You also can e-mail your letter through the CitizenLink
Action Center, via the e-mail link you will find on the
contact information page for your local newspaper. If you
do this, however, you must make sure you add your full
address and phone number to the bottom of the letter --
through the "Message" box itself, not just in the "Your
Information" fields. (Don't worry. If this doesn't make
sense to you at the moment, it will once you visit the Web
site.)

Here, then, are the sections from which you can assemble
your letter.

[UPDATE]
After chatting with Jonathan at FOTF for a while he was nice enough to send me their explanation. Here we see just how morality can be twisted to support just about anything.

via personal email:

We appreciate you asking us to clarify our perspective on writing correspondence to local papers with our letter-writing "wizard." The article we mentioned in our phone conversation that will answer your question appears at the following link to our Web site: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/commentary/a0036452.cfm. We hope this information is useful to you.

May God bless you in the coming days.

Jonathan Bartha
Focus on the Family

Comments

[Sansabelt Savior]

A "marketplace of ideas," implicity assumes free market forces in that market. By flooding that market with cut and paste activism, FOTF becomes a counterfeiter of sorts, the letters their supporters send mere rubber stamp approvals of another writer's work.

Counterfeiting is a problem because it depresses the overall economy, duping the unsuspecting into accepting something that may appear at first glance to be legitimate, but which is, on closer inspection, worthless, the clever deception of a selfish and manipulative mind. One could, I suppose, make a Robin Hood argument about counterfeiting, a redistribution of wealth that helps those that most need it. That seems to be the FOTF argument. That its supporters are simply in need of the intellectual resources to make a cogent argument, so it's okay if that argument is canned by a small group of ideologues.

But this idea undermines the very capitalism of ideas that FOTF claims, undermines the concepts of personal liberty and personal responsibility, undermines the concept of grass roots political movement, and replaces them all with the logical contrivances of a monolithic corporation.

[c]

So once again if a religous group does something everyone else is doing, they are manipulative and currupt. But when the environmentalists send out mass cut and paste mailings to congressmen like they've done for years its ok.

Thanks for exposing those villianous bastards once again.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Sending mailings to congressmen is fundamentally different than sending supposedly original letters to the editor. FOTF is doing something that is unique in its clever dastardliness.

[c]

Those clever dastardly bastards

[Nate]

Yeah, I gotta agree with c on this one. This is not a new tactic - folks on both sides of the aisle have been 'pre-writing' letters that you can email in to your congressman on various issues forever. There has never been a caveat in those things saying 'I didn't write this but -me too!' - Lets not be hypocritical here. What makes this news? Just 'cuz its FOTF? The fact remains that you can do the same exact thing: create a copy and paste activist form on your own site and host it. No one is stopping you. I would be glad to support you by clicking the mouse a few times (but I use one with only one button so please be gentle). This assumes that people are lazy and will not take the time to craft a well written piece on their own - which is usually quite true. As a friend of mine once wrote in his personal 'manifesto' (perhaps NP will remember the quote): "REMEMBER THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS. The worst thing you can require of most people is to think. Use it to your advantage. Offer to do their thinking for them."

[Sansabelt Savior]

I'm sorry, but lobbying of congressmen is different. Sheer numbers make a difference when a lobbying effort is being made in a purely political environment. Mass lobbying techniques shouldn't be used to deceive newspapers or the editors of other publications. It is the element of intended deception that makes this different. In email lobbying campaigns, so far as I'm aware, no effort is made to suggest the sentiment is original, only that it is supported. This is fundamentally different.

[Sansabelt Savior]

The issue is that newspapers aren't going to publish copy and paste compositions if they're aware of them. FOTF necessarily relies on the element of deception in attempting to get them published. In email campaigns to congressmen, the intent is to impress elected officials with the sheer volume of support or resistance; deception is therefore not necessary to accomplish the intended goal.

Deception is unethical.

[meg]

Deception is also addressed in the Ten Commandments.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness"

I can't believe FOTF would have to be reminded of one of the goddamned ten commandments.

[Grinth]

Well I tend to agree more with Sansabelt in that sending a copy/past letter as a lobby effort to a congressmen is essentially equivalent to signing a petition. If you are sending something to a magazine there should be some acknowledgement that the words are not your own but that you agree with the position.

If you can't write a response intelligent enough to be published on your own, than you shouldn't be taking others words for your own.

[RedWolf]

It seems that some of you don't think so highly of newspaper editors and their ability to see through such things. Personally I don't see what the big deal is. If there are lots of people creating and sending these cut-and-paste letters to the editors of newspapers, then one would think the editors would catch on pretty quickly. I assume it would be similar to when one receives mass form emails from people. After the first three, you start to think, "Hmmm...this is all looking strangely familiar." Since editors are not required to publish the editorial, one would think that, after realizing that this is some sort of form editorial, they would simply choose not to publish it. I don't think that editors are going to be duped into printing these, and they will likely only publish them if they fall within their own agendas of what they are looking to put into the editorial section. And several of you are right, this is a not a new "tactic." I've seen it used on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Sansabelt Savior]

RW, so, it's okay to intentionally dupe someone if they're foolish enough to fall for it? That doesn't strike me as a strong ethical position. And I guarantee that some editors will fall for it--this is the same media that people on the right always complain about. Many mainstream journalists, and editors, are just not that bright.

FOTF is complaining about their efforts being (correctly, IMO) labeled "plagiarism". They're mad because these things aren't being published. Check out the above link, if you haven't already. And really, what's worse than when a giant, politically connected organization isn't able to monopolize debate in this country?

I don't care who is using this tactic, it's wrong. And an organization that claims principle shouldn't be doing the wrong thing. Or shouldn't Focus be held to their own standards? Or does Focus have any ethical standards?

[Non-Prophet]

I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to point out the reasons that I found this different from a form letter to a politician. A letter to the editor is intended to be from an actual reader of a newspaper or magazine and is a personal feedback mechanism. We're all living under our elected officials but we're not all readers of a particular newspaper.

Additionally, I believe that a ministry has a special moral responsibility to not try to trick or deceive people -- far more than a secular special interest group that stands for some single issue and not ultimate infallible righteousness -- and therefore we should be more critical of them.

[Nate]

I'm sorry, but as much as I don't like the idea of a newspaper publishing any paragraph 'pre-penned' by FOTF, I still don't think this is as awful as you make it out to be. Perhaps it's because part of my job involves technical writing where copy/paste is not only OK - it's the correct and accepted method of composition. I won't attempt to argue the ethics of the matter as I'm leaning on Sansabelt's side on that, but I don't think it's illegal. So, if it's not illegal - perhaps NP and the rest of the gang can start a little campaign of their own to help expose this 'unethical' tactic (I mean beyond what we're doing here) by joining forces to pen *original* letters to the editors of all our local papers to inform them of the practice.

[c]

I would say that it is worse to copy/paste to a politician. This is something that could potentially affect legislation.

The public who reads newspaper editorials is probably more interested in what's going on on 'West Wing' than real politics.

[RedWolf]

I don't see how this is tricking or deceiving people. The idea seems to imply that the person sending in the editorial doesn't actually believe what they're submitting. I hardly think this would be the case. The people who would actually take the time to copy and paste together their editorial, make a few tweaks here and there, and send it to the editor -- a great deal of work given that most Americans couldn't give a care about writing to the editor of their newspaper -- would be those who actually stand behind the words they are submitting. They are merely getting help piecing their editorial together to reflect their own views. I'm still not sure how this is deceiving anyone. What would you like them to do? Write some to the effect of "oh, and by the way, I copied and pasted this from the Citizenlink letter wizard"? As for the point by NP that "A letter to the editor is intended to be from an actual reader of a newspaper or magazine and is a personal feedback mechanism," who's to say that the person submitting the editorial is not a reader of said paper or magazine? The editorial section is meant to show the viewpoints of the readers and the people within the community. If this editorial reflects the actual views of the person sending in the editorial, then how is that not showing the viewpoint of a reader or person within the community? If this is wrong, then perhaps we should also ban politicians from using speech writers because in the end they are speaking someone else's words. And ultimately, the politician has a much greater influence than the editorial page of a newspaper. Let's be honest. How many people actually read the editorial page anyway?

[Curious Stranger]

Bring on Jim Lehrer!

[Andrew Mondy]

Dead on, RedWolf. Aside from the charge of plagiarism, there is nothing deceptive about it if a person's feelings are acurately reflected. Most people are lousy writers, so a little help putting their thoughts together can make their ideas understood more clearly. So drop in a "with help from..." and you're all set...

[Non-Prophet]

The comments here were broken for a while. My apologies. I think it is fixed now.

[Curious Stranger]

And my Lehrer comment ended up over here for some reason.

[Sansabelt Savior]

I'm gonna go counterfeit some money, now. Just enough to accurately reflect my worth. There's nothing wrong with it, because people will only accept the fakes if they want to. Besides, I need the help. Working is just so hard. Maybe FOTF will help me with some templates, since they care about the struggle of the individual so much.

I mean, I'm stupid. I can't be expected to be responsible for my own existence on this planet. Besides, God really wants me to have the money, so any discussion of ethics is really misplaced. I'll deflect ethical criticism by pointing out how much I really BELIEVE in my new net worth. It's not really wrong because my intent isn't to deceive (even if deception is necessary to accomplish this thing), my intent is only to reflect my real feelings of wealth and importance. Right?

***Reality***
Listen, this isn't the worst thing in the world. But it isn't right, either. I can't believe you guys don't have an immediate response to this that something about it is wrong. And if something about it is even a little bit wrong, shouldn't ethical people avoid it?

[Non-Prophet]

With permission I'm going to assemble a post entirely made up of other people's writing that is very clever and insightful. Then I'm going to attribute it to myself and publish it. Just kidding.

I find it amazing that Focus is getting support here on this. It's refreshing!

Andrew: If there was any indication in the letter that they got help writing it then I'm fine with all of this. I agree with your assertion that if they drop in a "with help from..." and you're all set...

[Andrew Mondy]

NP - I think Focus is getting support because no one thinks it's a big deal, and are slightly shocked by your strength in condemning such a minor offense. I mean, every special interest group encourages letters to the editor. Most will even offer samples (which are rarely ever rewritten, if you know what I mean). So FOTF made it a step easier, you can copy parts of a statement, put 'em together in your own order, and, voila! It just not that big a deal... I tell you what, we'll let Greenpeace in on it and they can make their own, too :)

SS - I find the counterfeit-currency-plagiarism analogy most humorous. You have to know there are major inconsistencies there, right?

[Sansabelt Savior]

Sure. LOTS of them. But I'd argue there are inconsistencies in FOTF's position, too. The analogy is intended more in terms of the basic logic of the position, I'm not actually trying to compare the two. I'm not a complete idiot. Although I could seriously use some help in the wealth department--why won't Focus give me the help that I need? Woe is me.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Also, the "everybody else is doing it" argument just isn't going to convince me that the practice is wrong. If Focus is going to start basing their positions on the consensus, they've got a lot of revising to do to those templates. Focus seems only to support the consensus position if it gives them permission to widen their own influence. It appears their influence is much more important to them than doing what is right, this is just the latest example.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Whoops. Above it should say, "...just isn't going to convince me that the practice isn't wrong". And it should probably read, "...fails to convince me that the practice is ethical."

My proofreading isn't so strong.