POLITICS JUNE 1, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
On Saturday evening, I opened my work e-mail account to find it inundated with dozens of scathing messages. Apparently, my article about Elizabeth Warren’s devoted followers had been poorly received by the folks who stood at its center. Her peeved supporters had zeroed in on the article’s headline, which labeled them a “cult” and they were responding en masse with vitriolic missives. “Watch out who you call a cult, buster!” read one. “Are you part of the cultish far right?” asked another. Others stuck with a simple, “Shame on you,” “Clean up your act!” or the succinct yet effective, “Cult … my ass.”
For the record, the word “cult” appears nowhere in my article; it’s only in the headline, which I did not write. For that, you can blame my editors. But, if referring to fans of Elizabeth Warren as a cult may not have been my first choice when I wrote the piece, after a weekend of receiving scores of nasty e-mails, I’m no longer certain that the term is such an ill-fitting description.
To begin, cults often connote blind followers, and it seems that many of my critics were blindly following one group’s instructions. Through one of my interviewees (who happened to like the article), I learned that I had fallen prey to the Coffee Party Movement, a grassroots answer to the Tea Party that is supposed to, ironically enough, encourage “civility.” The group has been active in the campaign to support Elizabeth Warren and thus did not take kindly to my headline. An administrator on the “Join the Coffee Party Movement” Facebook page posted my email address, encouraging Warren supporters to tell me they “should not be referred to as a ‘cult.’” This instruction quickly received more than 1,000 “likes” and more than 200 comments. (Three hours later, the page issued an apology post, after several commenters noted the article wasn’t negative at all.) But the damage was already done, and today, my hate mail clocks in at almost 200 and counting.
Of course, it’s not necessarily a bad thing that Warren has a stable of loyal followers ready to leap to her defense. A cult can also simply connote “devotion to a person,” according to Merriam-Webster, and these Warren fans are certainly avid. In some ways, their outpouring of emails represented a form of grassroots democracy in action that I, along with many here at TNR, find heartening. And it’s a great compliment for any journalist when one’s article sparks a discussion. But as for those nasty e-mails, that’s a different story. How should we describe a phenomenon where numerous individuals act in unison, apparently following a set of instructions without getting all the facts? That behavior just seems, well, cultish.
Tiffany Stanley is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.
13 comments
"That behavior just seems, well, cultish." Or, as I noted in the orignal post, a little like organized labour. Allowing for the prols to organise used to be one of liberalism's goals. I also noted that the original article did not justify the "cult" subheading. However while Ms Stanley does point out the real culprits, she does not appear to appreciate how its presence colors the take away impression of anyone anyone who reads it. That is, she does not appear to fully understand the pejorative connoration of the word as exists in general use. Hint: "Devotion to another person" is not comes to mind for most people when they read "cult". That's pretty weak tea in this case and is so broad as to call many functional and happy marriages "cults". Thats not going to impress too many people. Ms Stanley's problem (and mine) is with her editors, not Warren's supporters.
- Nari224
June 1, 2011 at 1:02am
Oh, and it does seem to be a bit rich for a magazine to complain about civility after using the "c" word in such a cavalier fashion.
- Nari224
June 1, 2011 at 1:14am
Perhaps many Americans like Warren because she is that rare thing, a smart and capable individual who has particular knowledge of a crucial area of society (banking and credit) and, moreover, appears to want to place that knowledge at the service of the country rather than making a private fortune from it. That makes a cult?
- ironyroad
June 1, 2011 at 2:14am
How should we describe a phenomenon where numerous individuals act in unison, apparently following a set of instructions without getting all the facts? "internet blog response"
- polijunky
June 1, 2011 at 8:18am
I regret that you were subjected to abusive emails, Ms. Stanley. Welcome to the world of hyperpartisan politics and political coverage. Your use of the term cult still strikes me as unnecessary hyperbole. For a more balanced look at the Warren-McHenry incident, see the Times article on Monday.
- wamba1
June 1, 2011 at 8:35am
There's some context here that seems to me relevant. The "devotion" to Elisabeth Warren isn't just some out-of-the-blue infatuation, but a response to the fact that she is under considerable attack by the defenders of the financial status quo. Vilifying a person's supporters is part of any political attack; so when I read the headline here in TNR calling her supporters cultists, I initially thought - "so TNR is on the anti-Warren side?" I'm sure it would be more pleasant if we could all just have a disengaged theoretical discussion about the abstract virtues and vices of this woman, but that would be to ignore that she's an element in a larger conflict that is being waged around her. It's that conflict that makes the word "cult" here inflammatory. Particularly since there is no objective criterion that distinguishes a "cult" in this sense from a "grass-roots organization" except that we all feel superior to cultists.
- rmutt
June 1, 2011 at 9:31am
"How should we describe a phenomenon where numerous individuals act in unison, apparently following a set of instructions without getting all the facts?" Ms. Stanley tries to apply the historical notion of the 'Cult of Personality' to the facebook friends of Elizabeth Warren by implying they're getting a set of instructions without all of the facts. I'm not sure Ms. Warren is sending out radio signals commanding her minions...I mean supporters, to take to the streets and cause civil unrest or mass suicides in the name of defending her from poorly written sub-headlines for a TNR blog post. Would seem to me, instead of taking umbrage with the people who, while rightly deny being called cult members, write nasty emails to the contrary, Ms. Stanley could explain why such a subheading was appropriate in the first place. I'm certainly not a facebook friend of Ms. Warren, I do like her though and think the GOPs witch-hunting of her is crass and unprofessional but then, when is the GOP not like that. If anything, maybe Ms. Stanley could write a follow-up regarding the cultish takedown methods of the GOP regarding Ms. Warren.
- singlspeed
June 1, 2011 at 11:14am
Ms. Stanley, regardless of the content of your article (or who picked the headline), you threw the first punch. As a journalist, are you not aware of the purpose and power of headlines? And you ducked responsibility by throwing your editors under the bus. Very mature! Ms Warren's supporters did not deserve to be called a cult by any definition of the word. It was a cheap shot, and I'm glad they responded so forcefully to you. If this serves as a notice to use your forum in a more objective way, I say more power to them.
- wkwami
June 1, 2011 at 11:55am
"TNR engaged in tabloid journalism, then defended itself by acting like a tabloid." Seriously, apologize and retract the "cult" label. Very stupid editorial decision, and even stupider follow-up.
- polcereal
June 1, 2011 at 4:04pm
". . . apparently following a set of instructions without getting all the facts?" What facts did they not get? It's my impression that the headline to an article is not a separate, unconnected text from that article, irrespective of whether it was the writer or the editor who chose it. It seems a little unconvincing to complain that a headline which contained a slur against a large number of people provoked those who were the target of that slur into reacting with some vehemence and in large numbers. The snooty implication that readers are of course so dumb that they don't realize of course that it's THE EDITOR who writes the headline really annoys me.
- ironyroad
June 1, 2011 at 5:49pm
Conspiracy and cult are tow proven winners to grab attention and make the reputation of a writer. Given the wholly understandable pressures to make a name for one's self in the magazine world, I think another commenter had it right in calling the use of the word "cult" far too cavalier. I do not know a great deal about Ms Warren, and yes I did get a couple e-mnils alerting me to this issue, but none of them told "what to say" or to whom a message should be sent -- although I did send one. No, in fact I was compelled by the generally shabby treatment she has been given by the Right in general and did not need a Cult Leader to waken me from the dead so as to deliver my voodoo message. She has an important role in a history-making set of concern developments traceable back to the mid 1930s and not to view this nastiness with alarm is concern, not cultishness (at lest for most of us middle-age drones in the everyday world). Please watch the language.
- Atlas-Q
June 1, 2011 at 6:28pm
Seriously unneccessary post.
- NR409654
June 1, 2011 at 6:31pm
These are really all excellent comments!
- Curran1
June 1, 2011 at 10:17pm