Astroturf vs “AstroTurf”
Paul Krugman’s column on the right-wing’s tea party’s does yeoman’s work in bringing this to the attention of a wider public, but doesn’t contain much news you won’t already know if you’re a consumer of progressive blogs. It does, however, provide fascinating insight into New York Times style:
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
They’ve got that capital “T” in “AstroTurf” because it’s an actual brand name, like Xerox or Kleenex, and not just a generic term for fake grass. But Krugman is using a metaphorical extension of the term that’s common political discourse. An astroturf operation is a fake grassroots operation. It’s not not a brand name, it’s just a word, albeit a word based on the brand. I think the Times has made the wrong call here.
On the other hand, the company that owns the AstroTurf trademark presumably feels compelled to dispute the use of its mark as a generic term for fake stuff. A blog can fly under the radar easily enough, but the NYT might be exposing itself to legal harassment if they let Krugman write “that’s nothing new, and astroturf has worked well for Republicans in the past.”
29 Responses to “Astroturf vs “AstroTurf””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
It’s not not a brand name
That it is. Or isn’t.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Foxnews.com is promoting “LIVE 24 HOUR COVERAGE” of these faux grass roots anti-Obama rallies.
Can we all now officially dispense of any notion whatsoever that Fox News is a “news agency” reporting “fair & balanced” news coverage?
Once a “news station” jumps the shark and actively promotes & hosts rallies against the U.S. president, they have formally bought themselves whatever ugliness comes from these events. I can only assume they will resemble the ugliness from the 2008 campaign rallies hosted by Sarah Palin & John McCain.
BTW, whatever happened to Fox News and their right wing talking heads telling us all that criticizing the president in the time of war is UNPATRIOTIC and UNAMERICAN??
Riiiiight … that must only apply to REPLUBLICAN presidents
April 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Watching Matt discuss the finer points of English usage and orthography is a sight to behold…
April 13th, 2009 at 10:34 am
“On the right-wing’s tea party’s” should be for “on the right-wing’s tea parties.”
“It’s not not a brand name, it’s just a word” should be … I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
In any event these typos in the output of someone whose job is just posting stuff on the internet all day clearly prove that everyone who is not the Moral Panicker and does not share his belief in a society vaguely characterized by equal participation in complementary hierarchies is a fool.
But seriously folks, trademarks are interesting, and I don’t really know anything about them.
And more seriously folks, although saying INAUTHENTIC at everything the other sides does is not really interesting, the Republican reliance on it is an interesting commentary and what happens when the people with a lot to lose feel they are about to lose. Oh well.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:34 am
In my most recent post (blog comments!) that should be “the Republican reliance on inauthenticity.”
April 13th, 2009 at 10:37 am
In post #5 that should say “the Republican reliance on inauthenticity in an interesting commentary on what happens when the people with a lot to lose …”
April 13th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“Spam” is a brand name too. The AstroTurf people will just have to get over it.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I for one am glad that there is some guidance coming in. You know, like a “community activist.” We want our demonstrations to be as good or better than lefty scrums powered by ANSWER. And you’d better hope we don’t get our own version of that media creation Cindy Sheehan, or you’ll really be in trouble. Heh.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
This raises the question of how far one should go to accomodate unusual trade names. Two examples get under my skin: First, intercaps (as with AstroTurf), which I simply won’t do under any circumstances. The second, the all-caps trade names, which I refuse to render in all caps unless they’re acronyms. The worst, I think, is “SERVICEmaster”, a truly wretched combination of intercaps and all-caps. Enough!
April 13th, 2009 at 11:04 am
This raises the question of how far one should go to accomodate unusual trade names.
My personal pet peeve is realtor being rendered as REALTOR®. Yes, real estate agents created and copyrighted their own name for their profession.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I looked at pictures of Bo, the new 1st family dog. He was pictured on Easter Sunday wearing a lei made of vivid rainbow colors. How long before Fox News and others push the question “Was this a signal to the gay community? Are the Obamas pushing a subliminal homosexual message with this ‘Gay Lei’?”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-13/inside-the-white-house-dog-house/#gallery=203;page=1
April 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Ya but the tax law hasn’t changed. Tea baggers are a little late to the party protesting the Bush tax increases.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Good luck with that. There were a half million people protesting the war at on DC rally.
Think any of yours will hit even four figures? I don’t.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Steve Duncan: I have it on good word that “Bo” is actually an acronym for “bend over.”
April 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am
The guy who spells “parties” with an apostrophe is telling the NY Times how to copy-edit… wow.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
And you’d better hope we don’t get our own version of that media creation Cindy Sheehan, or you’ll really be in trouble.
You’ll always have ‘Joe the Plumber’.
April 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Trademark owners are not just being uptight. If a trademark becomes a generic term (like, say, murphy bed) it is no longer protected. (That is, Murphy’s competitors are then allowed to call their fold-down beds “murphy beds.”) This is also why you periodically see otherwise inexplicable ads by Xerox admonishing you not to use the term “xerox” to mean “make a photocopy.”
April 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Did a project in college with a guy who worked for Xerox, he didn’t like us using ‘xerox’ as a verb. It must make for a strange transition for any new hires there.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I seriously doubt that the AstroTurf people would have a legitimate claim against the Times if they had, as Matt suggests, used “astroturf” instead of “Astroturf.”
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/astroturf-vs-astroturf-can-trademark.html
April 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Did a project in college with a guy who worked for Xerox, he didn’t like us using ‘xerox’ as a verb.
That reminds me of how Lego insisted for a long time (not sure if they still do) that they make “Lego bricks or toys” and not “Legos.” I don’t see what the problem is as long as the term is only applied to products made by Lego.
My personal pet peeve is realtor being rendered as REALTOR®.
Another grammatically-challenged profession is chiropractors. They seem to not have a real noun form of their practice, so they get degrees called “Doctor of Chiropractic”.” Chiropractic what? I think maybe this is because they can’t call it “chiropractic medicine.” I’d be more comfortable with them if they called it “Chiropractice.”
April 13th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I am a Tea Bagger. I march in straight lines.
My formation is parading past a growing throng of Grassrooters. They shout derisive things at us. “Astroturfers!” They cry. “FOX NEWS actors.” They scream.
Hauptmann Hinzler orders eyes front, but we can’t help but look at the Grassrooters and notice they are unarmed. Sheep to the slaughter, I think.
Still, I am unsettled. How did they know?
Signed,
Nutbag
April 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I’ve heard the term “chiropracty” badied about.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
MikeKC
You mean “Joe” “the” “Plumber”
Remember – every word is questionable and/or false
McCain’s hero. seriously
April 14th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Are the tea parties more or less astroturf than the ANWF rallies? While both have well-organized sponsors, the tea parties are attracting 10-100x the number of partyers. The numbers mean that it’s impossible for them to be Republican Congressional staffers on a lark. Krugman is spinning like never before.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:56 am
The Obama administration is handed two unwinnable wars, a banking crisis that could possibly dwarf the banking crisis of the early 1930’s, an unemployment rate rising to Depression levels, and Tea Baggers are protesting the marginal tax rates on the wealthiest people on the planet going up a few percentage points.
To me, Krugman understates this behavior by calling it bizarre. I would simply call it insane.
Even more insane, the argument now centers on how these “events” are organized. Who gives a flying f~ck. The question of organization comes down to: organizers manipulating insane people to attend “events” or insane people congregating in the same general area by sheer coincidence.
Take your pick.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:03 am
The tea parties aren’t about marginal tax rates. They’re about insane spending, whose efficacy for ameliorating the crisis is certainly in doubt.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“chiropracticity”