Pro-Net Neutrality Group's Latest Propaganda Piece Hits New Level Of Lameness
from the just-stop-already dept
The biggest problem in the debate over net neutrality is the ridiculous amount of propaganda and disinformation that's being spread -- by groups on both sides of the issue. The "Hands Off The Internet" group has been particularly intellectually dishonest on the telco side, while the pro-net neutrality side has gotten up to plenty of their own tricks. However, the "Save The Internet" group, which is for "internet freedom" (that is, it wants net neutrality enshrined in law), has really taken things to a new low. Ed Whitacre, one of the biggest sources of hot air in this debate, stepped down this week at CEO of AT&T. Save The Internet decided to mark the occasion by making a video of what they imagine Whitacre's final pep talk to AT&T execs was like, with all sorts of inflammatory -- and made-up -- quotes. They then put the quotes in a blog post, as if they'd actually come from Whitacre. While they embed the video in the blog post, there's no indication that the quotes aren't actually real. If you watch the video, it's pretty obvious, but few people seem to be noticing. We're certainly not sad to see Whitacre go, but this hatchet job is completely unhelpful to the overall debate, and not to mention pointless, since there are plenty of real Whitacre quotes that could serve as fodder for the pro-net neutrality crowd. Update: The author of the blog post with the fake quotes, Tim Karr, has popped up in the comments to defend himself, saying it's obvious that it's a spoof. Of course, plenty of people have been suckered by it, including the folks at Slashdot, as well as people like John Battelle.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Did you see?
They have no response to this article, so I have no idea what they are trying to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you see? (Did you see nothing, you mean)
I've made that mistake many a times so not trying to hate on you crono :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is NOT necessary.
Still, I initially fell for it. Glad I didn't help spread it around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality laws are somewhat of a tossup
I really don't trust congress to write and pass good intelligent net-neutrality laws that won't cater to special interests(RIAA, MPAA, Other?), will be effective, and will allow for future growth and changing conditions in the industry. Their track record so far hasn't been good.
I can see that the laws might be needed, especially in light of some of the comments made by big telecoms. But I would rather not put them into place until the issue becomes a real problem. Right now, at least here in the US, it is nothing more than a theoretical and potential problem.
So I'm not really in favor of net-neutrality laws, but I'm also not really against them. I'm more in the lets "wait and see" category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True
When I first read it, it was a quote on a different site, and not the actually flash animation (which then let me know it was a parody). I thought they were real quotes.
The truth alone regarding why net neutrality should be a cornerstone of the internet should be enough to convince people (who should then let their elected representatives know how they feel).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lighten Up Carlo
As you probably know, humor often involves a set up and then a punch line. Any reporter/blogger/etc worth his or her salt will read the post, click to watch the video and (we hope) enjoy the joke.
You have every right to critique the video for its content, but to claim that spoofing Ed Whitacre (who personifies one of the biggest threats to the Internet's democratic nature) constitutes "intellectual dishonesty" falls way off the mark.
Perhaps you should be more concerned about journalists who run with the "Big Ed" quote without double checking their sources. Or, more so, with those who print phone company talking points, or cite phony data from AT&T funded think tanks and Astroturf groups, without disclosing the clear conflicts of interest.
"Big Ed" may be out of the picture but his threat to a more open and accessible Internet is his continuing legacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lighten Up Carlo
Reread what you posted on the Huffington Post -- it's not clear at all to an uninformed reader that this is a "spoof". Whitacre certainly is a valid target for your "spoofing", but you've raced the telcos' shills to the bottom of the barrel with this fabrication. As I noted, Whitacre's made plenty of his own actual, real comments that are worthy of derision, so why do you need to make some up? This sort of activity really makes it appear that you don't want to debate this issue on the facts at hand, but rather simply through propaganda. Is that the case?
And please don't suggest what I should be more concerned with before making the slightest effort to inform yourself. Even a cursory glance of Techdirt will show we've had little tolerance for the telcos' shilling. If what you're suggesting is that we keep a close eye on them, but give you a free pass, that's not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lighten Up Carlo
"Big Ed's" problems with the public are the result of his own dishonesty and indiscretion. Our group has built its case against him and the phone companies on a solid foundation of research and history of public interest advocacy. We receive no corporate money or political party support but are acting on behalf of the more than 800 organizations and 1.5 million people who care enough about this issue to write Congress in defense of Net Neutrality. We have used creative tactics to engage grassroots activists. And been inspired by the imagination of others (Ask A Ninja, Tron Guy, etc.) who have used the Internet to make this cause their own.
Your attempt to tar us with the same brush used against the shills and their cohorts is an insult. As I have asked mike more than once, rather than taking pot shots from the sidelines, why not weigh in on the issue? You need to elevate your argument beyond these swipes at supposedly opposing sides, take a look at what's going on and help us build an internet that's more accessible, open and affordable to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lighten Up Carlo
We have elucidated a position plenty of times. But because it doesn't fit perfectly with your ideology, you choose to ignore it.
I'm sorry if you feel insulted, I really do, but I'm afraid that's a risk you're going to run when you start hitting below the belt. I guess you're the expert here, but somehow I fail to see how character assassination helps "build an internet that's more accessible, open and affordable to everyone." Do you not have the confidence in your position, or your ability to craft a coherent argument based on the facts, to not have to resort to such underhanded tactics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While your browsing the internet today, looking for more ways to make an ass of yourself, look into a little case titled:
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Fairly new, so maybe you didn't get the results in your RSS feed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While you're busy trolling Techdirt, perhaps you could explain what a case about parodies being protected speech under the First Amendment has to do with this? Perhaps I'm as stupid as you imply, but I missed the part where I suggested that what Karr's done is illegal or shouldn't be allowed. I guess it was too subtle for you, but I'm not suggesting that Karr shouldn't be allowed to do this sort of thing, rather that it's unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Talk about subtlety, maybe it was me that was being too subtle. My point is that we all have the ability (and right) around these parts to create a parody. It's for the sake of instruction by way of humor. It's how so many armchair Americans have finally learned about what is going on behind the political curtain by hearing it through the "reporters" on the Daily Show or Steven Colbert.
You're way off base in your opinions with regard to the article, and way too passionate to see that. Thankfully, the other readers here and elsewhere have.
Or maybe those with differentiating opinions are just Trolls like me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:bobon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You implying I have no class really hurts. Ow. Nice to see you can contribute some substance (well, sort of), rather than just your usual pointless diatribes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
These statements speak volumes. Your passion is obvious here, but in my opinion (and that of many others) it's misdirected.
I think the Apple commercials are funny. They certainly make some strong accusations against Microsoft, but most people get that it's a joke simply meant to educate (and sell). Just because you don't believe that some people aren't getting this joke doesn't make it any less relevant, funny, or persuasive to the providers point of view (their form of selling). It's not a "hatchet job", and it's certainly not "pointless".
Also, Carlo, I'm truly taken aback by your complete lack of decorum when replying to reader's comments. Remember, you represent TechDirt in everything you write for them. It's difficult for me to think that this is the type of culture and demeanor they want to portray to its readers. Until you want to deal with everyone who comments negatively or sarcastically in the same way Jay and Silent Bob did, it's probably just best to remember this is nothing more than an internet blog and you should have some thicker skin.
And in reference to your comment about my "usual pointless diatribes", just remember that you never know who is behind the keystrokes and what their intentions really are. The planets aligned for me last week when I was able to read this comment from one of your readers:
Maybe Carlo, you should consider people like me more of an ally to your little blog rather than someone who needs to be put down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To get back to the issue at hand, you still aren't making any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, Carlo. I'm sorry that they didn't mention that to you in the interview. But welcome to the Internet.
As far as getting back to the issue, I think it's obvious to everyone who's not making any sense. I don't feel the need to beat a dead horse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because you don't believe that some people aren't getting this joke doesn't make it any less relevant, funny, or persuasive to the providers point of view (their form of selling).
Crystal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is fucking hilarious. So everytime you post you act like a dick, and then when people treat you like a dick you get all offended. How old are you? Twelve? You must be, cause you're drawing parallels with, of all creatures, fictional characters created by Kevin Smith.
Read the fucking article again, moron. This has nothing, absolutely fuckall to do with net neutrality or protection of free speech. It has to do with the badly executed spoof carried out by Karr and Co. and how it shows about as much decorum as a kid eating his own snot in a crowded shopping mall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Carlo never said otherwise. What he said was that it was damaging the way they did so. It's not at all obvious what they did is a parody -- and the evidence of that is quite clear. Slashdot posted it as fact, and all of the comments on Slashdot seem to think it's a fact.
If it's a parody, it's an AWFUL parody -- and it makes the Save The Internet crowd look terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lighten Up
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explanation
I'm over there reading the comments, and so far, I've only found two that quote the spoofed statements.
It's a slashdot tradition. Extremely few people actually read the linked article, some don't even read the summary. The whole page is a discussion on net neutrality and government regulation and such. Nobody has noticed that the article is a spoof becuause nobody cares about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lighten Up Carlo
If you want a cogent argument in favor of Net Neutrality you need go no further than the reams of work we have done to that end. Sadly, you seemed to have missed all of that in favor of hasty judgments and sloppy blog posts. Take the time to read up before you attempt to "elucidate a position" again.
Nor do you seem aware of our history of successful Web activism and grass- and netroots organizing, which involves engaging more than 1.5 million people in our policymaking process. Our successful grassroots organizing has provided a people-powered counterweight to phone and company lobbyists who -- until we arrived -- largely dictated communications policy to Congress.
Many of our successful organizing tactics involve humor and parody. It's difficult to engage people in the arcane issue of Internet legislation. Humor is often a good portal to the issue (Thank god for Sen. Stevens Tubes and the Daily Show).
AT&T is fair target of this humor. They have been acting in bad faith. Their legions of lobbyists have hi-jacked telecom policy in this country to the benefit of no-one except themselves.
I'm sorry you don't get this and instead trot out hackneyed arguments and attempt to stake out high ground by accusing others of underhanded tactics. Did you actually read your own post? Did you read mine?
When we want make fun of the issue we use a cartoon character to play a real person. AT&T uses real people to play cartoon characters. For evidence of that look no further than Mike McCurry, whom they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to stand in front of cameras and parrot their propaganda.
There's a difference.
So you didn't think our spoof was funny. I can accept that. But don't confuse an obvious parody with flat-out lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lighten Up Carlo
Carlo. It must be easy calling a group "propagandists" when you clearly haven't read any of our research or congressional and FCC filings on the issue we advocate.
Both Carlo and I are quite familiar with what you have published. Sometimes we agree with you, sometimes we feel that you are being intellectually dishonest -- as in this case.
If you want a cogent argument in favor of Net Neutrality you need go no further than the reams of work we have done to that end.
Again, you are being intellectually dishonest here. You know that we have done quite a bit to point out what makes sense for net neutrality and what doesn't. We agree that it makes sense for the net to be neutral. Where we disagree is in encoding that in a bad law that will have unintended consequences. Don't make claims that we're somehow ignorant when that's simply not the fact.
Nor do you seem aware of our history of successful Web activism and grass- and netroots organizing, which involves engaging more than 1.5 million people in our policymaking process.
Both Carlo and I are well aware of this. What that has to do with your bit of misleading propaganda is unclear.
Many of our successful organizing tactics involve humor and parody. It's difficult to engage people in the arcane issue of Internet legislation. Humor is often a good portal to the issue (Thank god for Sen. Stevens Tubes and the Daily Show).
Again, no one denies this. What we have a problem with is the fact that what you did is NOT clear parody. Almost every site that has mentioned it (Slashdot, Digg, Crooks&Liars, John Battelle) have taken the quotes YOU MADE UP as if they were fact. That's going to backfire. It makes you look bad. It makes your organization look bad and it takes away from the important debate.
You are HURTING your position with this. It makes it look like you don't have real ammo so you need to make up fake quotes.
AT&T is fair target of this humor. They have been acting in bad faith. Their legions of lobbyists have hi-jacked telecom policy in this country to the benefit of no-one except themselves.
Yes. AT&T is fair target for humor. In fact, we target them with humor all the time. The problem is that this isn't coming off as humor. Everyone seems to believe the quotes are real.
So you didn't think our spoof was funny. I can accept that. But don't confuse an obvious parody with flat-out lying.
It has nothing to do with whether or not we think the spoof was funny. It CLEARLY was not an "obvious" parody, because NO ONE seems to be taking it as a parody. EVERYONE seems to be taking it as actual quotes from Whitacre. You don't realize how bad this makes your organization look?
Tim, making a point by parody is one thing. Your effort here does not do that. It doesn't make a point. It just makes it look like you have to resort to fake Whitacre quotes. If you used actual quotes, we would have been all for it.
But making up quotes, and convincing an awful lot of influential sites that the parody is real is going to backfire in a big way. You just handed a TON of ammo to your opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious?
There's certainly nothing wrong with parody. And as a parody I found it quite funny and amusing. But considering Slashdot, Crooks & Liars, Digg, and several other sites have taken it as if it was legitimate completely negates the claim that it was in any way OBVIOUS. If it was clearly that obvious, the vast majority of sites wouldn't be running with it as if it was real. Your contention of obviousness is completely invalidated by the mere fact that Techdirt is the ONLY site I've seen so far who's clearly and correctly identified it as parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Big Ed' and the Real Whitacre
The blog post in question features three prominent links to the cartoon and graphic all at the top of the page. The source cited "Big Ed" turns out to be a cartoon character. The lead graf teases the "exclusive" video.
There's a point at which a parody becomes too obvious to have any value as such. Had we given away too much up front we would have lost the hook -- which was to get people to watch the video in question and say "a ha."
No one who watched the video could possibly be fooled beyond that. That was the goal. Get people to watch a funny video. Set them up with a faux news story. Deliver the punch line and hope they 1.enjoy the joke and 2. become more engaged with the issue.
You may call that "intellectual dishonesty." I disagree wholeheartedly. Others may think the video wasn't funny. That's their prerogative. While others still may enjoy it.
That some picked this up and fed it out as legitimate news was a surprise to me. In comment threads on C&L and Slashdot others quickly pointed it out as parody. After it got 'Slashdotted' as legitimate, I posted a comment on my blog to clarify further.
The "Big Ed" quotes are so ludicrous of themselves; and the cartoon proves beyond a doubt that we're dealing in farce.
Do these tactics damage our case for Net Neutrality? Not at all. Our campaign work ranges from the research, scholarship and advocacy work we do at the highest levels of government and academia to “grasstops” and grassroots organizing to viral web tactics involving YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and other popular social networks.
These are aimed to engage more people with the issue and hope that they become the best and most informed champions of Net Neutrality.
Our campaign is built upon intellectual rigor and public passion for a better, more open and democratic Internet.
Some campaign tactics have succeeded others have failed. But in none do we seek to deceive people about this important issue.
My beef with Techdirt is your tendency to suggest that the lack of honesty in the land of phone and cable Astroturf is somehow equaled by deception among supporters of Net Neutrality.
Carlo uses this spoof as an example. I think he overstated the case to take a couple of cheap shots. I have tried in the past to engage you in a constructive conversation about making the Internet more open and affordable to all.
Instead I get this broadside. I think you guys can do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Big Ed' and the Real Whitacre
Which Carlo admitted in his post. However, you seem to be totally blind to the fact that EVERY SINGLE other site that posted the link to your site did so as if it were factual.
In other words, NO ONE watched the video.
That was the goal. Get people to watch a funny video. Set them up with a faux news story. Deliver the punch line and hope they 1.enjoy the joke and 2. become more engaged with the issue.
The problem was you didn't get people to watch the video. You got people to think that Ed Whitacre made a bunch of quotes he didn't.
You keep thinking you were doing something you didn't. The response shows you clearly failed, and in doing so gave a ton of ammo to those who oppose you. Most people are reading the story and not watching the video. It makes you guys look really bad.
I'm not sure how many times it needs to be repeated that you FAILED in a major way here. Everyone thinks those quotes were real. What does that mean? It means that the telcos and their shills will turn around and point out how the best you can do is make up quotes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Big Ed' and the Real Whitacre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061128/080742.shtml
As with that story, the problem here is that Whitacre is such a buffoon that the quotes are actually a little too believable to some people. Still, while some people were taken by the MPAA story, the vast majority of posters (like on Slashdot) clearly realized it was parody (especially given it was on an established "parody" site).
While the author of this particular parody notes many of the postings were quickly pointed out for what by commenters, many of those commenters got that information from here on Techdirt. The simple fact is the attempt at humor was done just a little bit too "cleverly".
Rather than wasting time defending his actions or intention, my opinion is Mr. Karr would be better served merely putting up a disclaimer that it was a joked that flopped. Sometimes jokes fail in the delivery, and this is one of those times. Trying to defend the attempt at humor when 90% of the net seems to have missed the punch line will most likely be a very bad move. Too many people have bought this as authentic, and I think it's far better just to admit you botched an attempt at humor rather than risk the ire of internet community. If either Diggers or Slashdotters feel they've been duped this will likely turn into a very bad PR fiasco.
Personally I think the best course of action would be to admit the delivery was botched, apologize for any misunderstanding this botched joke caused, and just chalk it up to experience. Being a hardhead is probably not going to benefit you too well in the long run on this matter.
But that's just my advice. You are certainly free to ignore it as your leisure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally missed the boat
Stick to real, honest activism and leave the comedy to professionals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Totally missed the boat
ITA.
It's like Karr threw a cream pie that landed on his own head while he argues about how great his aim was with that pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]