EckerNet.Com

Over at Townhall, Dean Barnet makes the argument that on the internet it’s punditry that matters, and activism….well, doesn’t.  And he makes one heck of an argument for his case, pointing out many examples of how punditry has driven public debate, and claiming that “action alerts” hasn’t done squat.

While I’ll agree that liberal “action alerts” haven’t done squat and have become fodder for public ridicule, I have to disagree with the rest.  And I need go no further than my own signature issue….immigration.

In the lead up to the comprehensive immigration fight, before it got “popular” it was action alerts that started the ball moving.  Groups like NumbersUSA, FAIR, Grassfire.Org, CAPS, etc sent out countless action alerts to their members alerting them to new information and asking them to take action.  It was this initial flood of calls and faxes that was the snowflake that started the avalanche.

In a general public debate on issue, sure punditry works just fine.  You care about an issue and occasionally you visit a website and update yourself on the latest arguments for and against.  Great.  Terrific.  It’s works, and it does influence public debate.

However, in legislative battles where tides can change from hour to hour or even minute to minute, action alerts really made their presence felt.  Within hours of an amendment hitting the floor, switchboards and fax machines were burning up.

Eventually talk radio and to a limited extend television finally got around to paying attention to this issue.  But even then I would argue that their impact was not as impressive as one might thing.  Sure they reach a larger audience, but how invested is that audience?  They are passively listening to a radio program.  As opposed to an individual that is interested in an issue, has sought out an organization and signed themselves up for action alerts.  Which do you think is more likely to respond to a plea to call your Senator??

And while a radio program is on once a day for a set timeframe, the Senate doesn’t follow that timeframe.  Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity and Rush Limaugh, all covered the topic, but many of the critical events happened when they were NOT on the air.

And I have to admit that they same is true for blogs.  Even as a blogger, I’m not online all day long seeing what is happening at my favorite blogs.  However, most people, ARE near email for most of the day.  For time critical events, it makes all the difference.

So I’ll agree that on general hypothetical “the jury is still out” issues, punditry trumps action alerts hands down.  However, to say that action alerts really don’t amount to any impact is overreaching by a fair degree.  Granted their arena is limited and infrequent, but they have their place.  And I can personally attest to the fact that many of those action alerts where going out FAR before most* of the punditry began.  In that case, action alerts actually drove the punditry.

* Myself excluded as I am apparently eternally on this topic.