Free Republic: glass ant farm for zealots

Globe and Mail ^ | 10/27/06 | IVOR TOSSELL

[conservative in nyc]

The Dixie Chicks have a movie, Shut Up & Sing, coming out today, and, to keep things lively, they're staging a grudge match with the worst site on the Internet, political-rhetoric division.

"The fat chick will only drive traffic to this site," writes one poster to the site.

"The Frenchy Chix can't get a gig in a gay bar in Ithaca," writes another.

Others chime in with more corruptions: Chubby Chicks, Ditsy Twits, Vichy Chicks.

"Yep typical liberals," says someone else. "No character."

This is Free Republic, an exercise in political extremism that, despite being and something of an anthropological train wreck, keeps popping up square in the mainstream.

Most recently, it has resurfaced as a villain in the Dixie Chicks movie, which traces the fallout from lead singer Natalie Maines's infamous 2003 London declaration that she was embarrassed that George W. Bush was, like her, from Texas.

It was a bad time to be anti-war, and Americans are touchy about being criticized on foreign soil at the best of times. The "grassroots" backlash that followed -- orchestrated, in part, by the people at Free Republic, who mobilized their large and largely disgruntled membership -- saw the band savaged in the press and at the box office.

The site is a venerable and storied Web forum for American arch-conservatives. Funded by member donations, it was founded in 1996 as an anti-Clinton grandstand, and soon became a place where members could post news stories and discuss them -- though "discussion" might be the wrong word. More often, it's a kind of pantomime, where the name of the game is to cheer the good guy and boo the bad guy every time he creeps on stage.

Freepers, as the sites denizens are known, are the good guys. The bad guys, according to site founder Jim Robinson, are practitioners of "liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism," and "wacko environmentalism."

So it is that, day in and day out, Freepers attempt to outdo each other in posting the most pungent, juvenile reactions to stories. Articles containing an opposing viewpoint have the words "BARF ALERT" appended to their titles. Slurs are encouraged. When the first same-sex Canadian soldiers were married last year, the story garnered 73 angry responses, ranging from "Disgusting and despicable" to "I'd resign my commission before performing a ceremony to marry a couple of bone-smugglers" to "Let's see what happens when the Canadian military has an AIDS epidemic on its hands."

It's a hateful place that, if the world was working as it should, would be relegated to the Internet's endless fringes, where conspiracy theorists and pyramid-power believers roam the wasteland. But what's interesting about Free Republic is that, despite having attracted a crowd of the most paranoid, xenophobic and reactionary characters the political landscape has to offer, it continues to find itself in the news.

For instance, during the 2004 U.S. presidential election, it was central to the network of websites that uncovered the forged memos about Bush's Vietnam service that appeared on CBS News and ultimately cost Dan Rather his job. (Paranoia, in this instance, paid off.) Later, and less admirably, Jerome Corsi, the co-author of Unfit for Command -- the hatchet job about John Kerry's military service that crippled his campaign -- was found to be posting racist, sexist diatribes on the site.

And then there was the flap about the Dixie Chicks, spurred on by zealous Freepers. Thanks to their movie, Free Republic is getting another moment in the sun. Not helping things was the band's manager publicly calling Robinson "a coward" for refusing to be interviewed for the film. ("I am jealous of you Mr. Robinson," declared one Freeper in response. "You have been singled out and attacked by America's premier Entertraitors.") These, ladies and gentlemen, are grassroots at work. There are a lot of organizations out there that are in the business of whipping their members into a lather and unleashing them on corporations and politicians alike.

But if Free Republic has a virtue, it's that, unlike other pressure groups, it's transparent: You can see the cogs turning, the anger mounting, the members joining the half-baked me-too condemnations that will surface on tomorrow's news agenda. It's like a glass ant farm for zealots. It's a little stomach-turning, but man, they're diligent little things. It's hard not to stare sometimes.

[conservative in nyc]

How do you feel about finding and posting two articles published a year apart, both articles highly critical of Free Republic, and both articles were written by the same writer in the same paper?

In the nearly three years I've been a member here, I've posted 631 threads and 6,822 replies. That two of those articles happened to be critical of Free Republic and written by the same author is irrelevant. We ought to know what the MSM is writing about this website, good or bad.

Sometimes if you seek after the negative, that is the only thing you will find.

Not every mention of this website is negative. Some articles straightforwardly quote things people have posted. Those posters would want to know that they're quasi-famous. And, believe it or not, sometimes the MSM even has something nice to say.

I truly stumbled upon this article by accident. Bob J mentioned that John Robinson used to maintain a traffic website for Free Republic, but he couldn't find it. Since I was trying to see if traffic is truly down here or Alexa (the site that supposedly measures web reach) just stinks, I tried to find that website by doing the following Google search: "Free Republic" traffic. This article was on the second page of the Google results. If you don't believe me, perform the search yourself.

I thought it was dead wrong, but interesting, since it somewhat meshed with things discussed on the other thread. So I posted it.

[saganite]

Don't take it personally. Someone will always question any posters motives if they see any perceived criticism. Frankly, I think Jim Robinson will get a kick out of this writers nonsense.

[Smokin' Joe]

You can see the cogs turning, the anger mounting, the members joining the half-baked me-too condemnations that will surface on tomorrow's news agenda.

Oh, OH! The Glob and Maul has cut me to my core...

Bwahahahahahaha!

Sheeesh!

There are reasons you can see the cogs turning: We do think. We can stand the scrutiny of daylight. We are not posting from a dark corner in our mommy's basement.

As for the ditzy chips, they even went so far as to insult country music fans. That is lousy marketing, at best. Their mouths put them where they are today--they should have just shut up and sang.

[NinoFan]

Figured that's what you were whining about.

[Smokin' Joe]

Did I miss something or did he mention Dan Rather?

[saganite]

Why yes he did! He even acknowledged that Rather was wrong and the documents were forged. He called it paranoia on the part of the folks who tracked down the forgery but what do you expect from a lib. It ain't paranoia if someone's out to get you!

[GOP Poet]

But before this thread descends into Dixie Chick and Canada bashing, is this really how we FReepers want to be perceived - as a crowd of "the most paranoid, xenophobic and reactionary characters the political landscape has to offer" who "attempt to outdo each other in posting the most pungent, juvenile reactions to stories"? Sometimes, we need to remember that anything we post anywhere on the Internet can be read by anyone anywhere in the world - even those in the MSM who want to tarnish this website's name.

oh, I'm sorry shall we shut our mouths so the liberals can all be happy and go on lying to the world? HMMMM. Maybe the FBI, CIA etc should all stop doing anything that may be percieved by liberals as negative too, aye? PALEEZE.

Post and quit trying to police your own thread ahead of time.

[Oztrich Boy]

, is this really how we FReepers want to be perceived - as a crowd of "the most paranoid, xenophobic and reactionary characters the political landscape has to offer" who "attempt to outdo each other in posting the most pungent, juvenile reactions to stories"?

Unfortunately, yes.

[GOP Poet]

Does anyone here really care what some barking moonbat thinks of F.R.?

AMEN TO THAT! The answer--not even a twiddly bit.

[conservative in nyc]

Figured that's what you were whining about.

I'm not whining about anything - just stating my opinion that sometimes people ought to think before hitting the post button.

BTW - To be clear, "This website somewhat backs up that perception." in post 57 should have read "This article somewhat backs up that perception." I should have proofread better.

The question I have is whether the perception is accurate, whether it chases away the more serious posters, and whether we should really care.

[Dallas59]

Foaming at the mouth....excuse me whilst I wipe.....

[Eclectica]

The author was probably upset to hear that the decade-long Canadian ban on FOX News was lifted.

[Eclectica]

Foaming at the mouth....excuse me whilst I wipe.....

You shoulda seen this site after 9/11!

[elcid1970]

"Where's the barf alert?"

Heh, heh!

(Always neat knowing what the enemy thinks of us FReepers)

;^)

[MARTIAL MONK]

John Edwards would hit it.

[conservative in nyc]

So.... you agree with this simple mouse, Tossell? You're punking us, right?

I don't agree with Tossell. I'm raising the issue because of things that have been said on Bob J's post - in particular, that some of the more serious posters we've used to have in the past have been chased off by the supposed lowering of the level of debate this site used to have. In particular, some think there has been a rise of one-issue posters that make over-the-top statements, usually in very short posts. Some may be trolling us to make this site look bad. That allows people like Tossell to cherry pick and smear all of us.

You assume those having fun or are rockin' the truth are not thinking. You know what they say about ASS [out of] U [and] ME? You just assed yourself. Now if you'd only THINK before posting next time . . . see how insane your dearly controlling COMMANDS are? Get over your big self.

I haven't made any COMMANDS on anyone and am not assuming anything. I'm not the thread police and can't stop anyone from posting anything they want.

I don't think those who are "having fun or are rockin' the truth" necessarily aren't thinking. Some of the one-sentence retorts I've seen here require far more thought than even the longest posts.

What I am concerned about are issues that were brought up on Bob J's thread. If this site and other conservative sites are losing traffic (which, if you read my comments there, I'm not convinced of), would you want to try to figure out why? Could articles like this be scaring thoughtful folks away from this and other conservative sites?

We've also seen situations in the past where people's anonymous posts here have come back to haunt them in real life, by the way, including the folks in the 2006 article I posted by this biased author.

[Caipirabob]

COOL! After 7 years I've been promoted from "Acolyte" to "Zealot"! WOO-HOO!!!

[CharlesThe Hammer]

This is just Globe and Mail spewing pure bilge. It's more evidence that the expanding influence of bloggers and internet sources irritates these "progressive", who see themselves as the "real" journalists. Intense market forces are at work erroding the facade of their crediblity...kind of like millions of ants swarming on a carcass.

[Nasty McPhilthy]

Mr. Tossell has cut me to my soul.




Not!