Subject: UCP: Disruption Campaign Backfires at MIT
From: kowan@ai.mit.edu (Rich Cowan)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 94 19:34:54 EDT

[Excerpted from _Guide to Uncovering the Right on Campus_, edited by
Dalya Massachi and Rich Cowan.  ISBN 0-945210-03-05. This article may
be photocopied or distributed electronically at no charge provided
that the article and this notice are included in their entirety.
Copyright 1994 University Conversion Project.

For the full 52-page guidebook which includes 38 graphics and 8
charts, please send $6 plus $1 postage to University Conversion
Project, Box 748, Cambridge, MA 02142.  Outside the USA the cost is
$10.  For info on memberships ($25/20/10) and a complete publications
list, send e-mail to ucp@igc.apc.org or call 617-354-9363.]


Disruption Campaign Backfires at MIT
Madison-funded Counterpoint attempts to smear the Thistle

by Jeff Newbern

        For its first three years, The Thistle, an alternative newspaper
"working to humanize MIT," had struggled and survived.  Editorial
collective members spent hours pounding the pavement in search of
ads to enable the sporadic publication of each issue.  In the fall
of 1990, the Thistle began to break even and obtained a computer,
laser printer, and an office in MIT's student center.  Its
progressive opinion pieces, insight on world events, and exposes
of MIT's financial dealings with corporations and the military
were, at last, published regularly.
        One year after the Thistle become stable, conservative students
began publishing Counterpoint, MIT's journal of "rational
discourse."  Not only was Counterpoint lavishly funded by the
Right-wing Madison Center (see related article, p. ___.), but it
systematically slandered the Thistle to the paper's advertisers in
an attempt to destroy the Thistle's funding base and convince the
advertisers to switch to Counterpoint.  The disruption campaign
began after the July 1992 publication of an article by Banu
Ramachandran on safer sex which used explicit language.
Fortunately for the Thistle, this campaign backfired.
        "They said they were from Counterpoint," said Mr. Kostas, a
worker at Fresco's Deli.  "They thought it wouldn't be good for us
to advertise [in the Thistle] because you were publishing this
kind of thing."  Fresco's had advertised with the Thistle
regularly in the past.  "I didn't see anything wrong with the
article," said Kostas.  "We're a small business; we advertise with
you guys because it's a lot cheaper."
        Another Thistle advertiser - one of its largest - reported that
Counterpoint staffer Han-Young Huang left a note accusing the
Thistle of regularly throwing away "Techs, Counterpoints, and
Tabs."  He said that the Tech, MIT's mainstream student paper,
would back up his accusations, but nothing of the sort ever
happened.  Huang then had second thoughts and attempted to get the
letter back.  At that point, the advertiser called the Thistle,
and assured the staff that such "junior high" tactics had not
injured the advertising relationship.
        "I just couldn't understand what his problem was," said a third
advertiser, Elizabeth Lennox, also known as "mom" of Mom's
Kitchen.  "A young man came in and asked us to boycott the paper.
He asked me not to allow the paper in here anymore and not to
advertise."
        "I read the article," said Lennox, who classified herself as "of
quite another generation.  I found nothing offensive about it. It
was frank and informative.  This young fellow's statement was that
it was `dirty'.  I didn't think it was dirty. I even learned a few
things from it."
        Yet another advertiser said he found the article well written
and that he had asked the self-appointed moralists to leave.
        Advertiser after advertiser said the same thing:  Counterpoint
has been attempting not just to solicit the Thistle's advertisers
(reasonable enough conduct), but actively attempting to discredit
the Thistle among that newspaper's clients and the broader
business community.  This "negative ad campaign" is evidently
designed not just to prevent the Thistle from publishing certain
articles, but to prevent it from publishing.  Counterpoint was
disappointed, however, to discover how ineffective they had been.
        In a letter of "apology" to the Thistle, Huang explained that he
was in a "highly emotional state at the time."  Huang tried to
portray his actions as an isolated incident, however he is not the
only Counterpoint staffer who has lied to the Thistle's
advertisers.  Was he in "violation of Counterpoint's own
advertising policy"?  Or was "the policy" just the cardinal rule
to avoid actions which leave a paper trail?
        The apology did not ring true.  He implied that an apology is
not really called for since the Thistle itself has engaged in the
same practices without apology.  These counter-claims, which had
never been made before, were not supported by the sort of
testimony cited above.  In fact Counterpoint has declined to
provide the name of even one advertiser who will support their
claim.
        In the Spring of 1991, when the Thistle was alleged by Huang to
have made "slanderous accusations," Counterpoint had printed a
total of five ads.  Four of these were from advertisers such as
ROTC who would be unlikely to advertise with the Thistle; nor
would the Thistle run their ads. The Ronkin Group, which is now
bankrupt, is the one exception, and they have run ads in all three
campus publications.  Indeed, the Thistle actually ran their ad
before Counterpoint.
        The October 1992 Counterpoint  contained 11 advertisements.  Of
those 11, two were ads for Counterpoint itself, one was for Army
ROTC, and the other eight were ads from businesses which had
advertised in the Thistle in previous years.
        Huang denied that Counterpoint had targeted Thistle advertisers
but Janice Yoo, a student journalist who was approached by Huang,
told a different story.  Said Yoo, "He wanted me to work for
Counterpoint.  I said that I wanted to talk to him before I
agreed.  In a locked UA conference room he made it clear that he
was attempting to take away the Thistle's advertisers and that a
main objective of Counterpoint was to replace the Thistle."  She
continued, "although they would do this by competing with the
Thistle both for writers and advertisers, much of what Huang told
me led me to believe that `healthy competition' and the
stimulation of `rational discourse' are not the only objectives of
Counterpoint's key members."
        With the outside support they receive from the Madison Center,
Counterpoint could have chosen to woo the Thistle's advertisers
away with below-market prices.  The tactics they ultimately chose
say something about the disparity between their public and private
images, between their stated values and their true agenda.
        Speech is free only to the extent that you can afford to speak.
Counterpoint's smear campaign is a desperate attempt to cripple
the Thistle's ability to publish, based not on the value of the
ideas within its pages, but on the efficiency of simple mud-
slinging.  The facade of rational discourse is gone, revealing the
ruthlessness routinely concealed by free-market rhetoric.
[Jeff Newbern is a Junior in Computer Science and Electrical
Engineering at MIT.  A longer version of this article originally
appeared in the Thistle.]