Slashdot Mirror
Google vs. Boilerplate Activism
ArmorFiend writes with this NYTimes article which "details the efforts of journalists to discern real reader-written letters from boilerplate form letters. Seems like there should be a centralized searchable DB of letters to the editor."
"Editors say some readers simply do not understand the ethical issues of sending a letter written by someone else. "They had no idea that they were bending any sort of rules whatsoever or that they were trying to put one over on us," Ms. Clotfelter said. "I e-mailed back and forth with one woman who was distressed that we wouldn't print her letter because it was really how she felt."
OK, that is how the lady felt, but it wasn't her letter. If she really felt that strongly about something, she should put her own words down. Even if a boilerplate version is thrust under her nose, write about it in her own words. I don't care how carefully crafted a letter someone else has written for you, it isn't your letter. It may express the same thoughts, but not in just the way you would express them.
"Others defend their use of form letters. "I've seen the same thing from the other side," said Trevor D. Carlson, who signed one of the pro-Bush form letters to The Press Democrat."
ROFL! Oh, so then it's OK. After all, we all know that if the other side does it it must be OK to do it too.
Moral thinking? Perish the thought!
-------
The issue isn't about sending email to support a cause, but specifically letters to the editor of a newspaper. Newspapers excercise editorial control over the letters they choose to print, and wish only to print the original work of the author. "AstroTurf"ing involves passing off the work of another as your own, violating this guideline.
You'll note in the article that one thing editors are concerned about is actually _printing_ these form letters. They're not taking polls, they're actually publishing content, and there's something at least vaguely dishonest about sending a "letter to the editor" that you didn't write.
A lot of organizations love to get drones to mail the same letter to the same person, so that it appears that the letter is coming from a different address and the senator/editor/whatever might actually open it. I see the point, then, in making sure that time is not wasted opening these. However, on the flipside, sure, it is the opinion that counts. And he who speaks the loudest wins, right? There's two different ballgames being played here.
j!
For the same reason we don't allow students to hand in boilerplate exam papers just because they agree with everything in the boilerplate: You want to see what the student actually knows and thinks.
So too in this situation. If you get a letter to the editor written by the speechwriter, how can you know if that really expresses the opinion of the person emailing it? It could be that the person doesn't really agree, but was sent it by an organization he or she trusts and just passed it on to cooperate.
On the other hand, if public servants had their incoming mail reduced by 97%, perhaps they'd have time to read and give weight to the letters that people actually do write, rather than having some office worker reduce it to a tick in the "supports" or "doesn't support" column.
Folks, we all learned (or should have learned) in Economics 101 that scarcity leads to value. I'm sure that deluging a public servant with mailbags was a good way to make a point once upon a time, but now that everyone on either side of an issue does it regularly, those same public servants have grown accustomed to it and the impact is no longer as great.