What do healthcare reform, climate change and financial regulation have in common? The answer is that they are all issues covered by astroturf, the practice of creating fake grassroots movements, usually by lobbyists and public relations (PR) experts. These attempts to manipulate the media and public opinion seem to be on the rise — spurred on in part by the political mood and the reach of the internet.
“Astroturf front groups have been everywhere this summer, spreading misinformation about healthcare reform, carbon emission caps and financial regulation,” says Timothy Karr, the campaign director for the US Web site freepress.net. “A healthy 21st century democracy doesn’t need phoney front groups. We need openness, accountability and real debate.”
Just a couple of weeks ago, Greenpeace uncovered a campaign in which US oil industry workers paraded as part of a supposedly spontaneous movement opposed to climate change regulations being considered by US legislators.
Thanks to a leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute (API), Greenpeace learned that the “Energy Citizens” protest group was founded by the oil industry trade association and therefore indirectly funded by ExxonMobil, Shell and others. At the same time, a congressional inquiry found that letters to lawmakers attacking the proposed legislation — letters purporting to be from concerned members of the public — were also backed by energy groups.
The API said the Energy Citizens meetings were an attempt to lift the morale of oil industry workers, not to influence politicians.
“There’s a lot of folks out there that would like to suggest that anybody that doesn’t agree with their views somehow doesn’t play by the rules,” said Jack Gerard, the API president and author of the memo. “We disagree strongly with that.”
The Energy Citizens example is not a one-off, however. While the term astroturfing goes back to the mid-1980s, the practice began long ago. Unscrupulous marketers and lobbyists have long found ways to advance their paymasters’ agendas — including manufactured mail campaigns, fake crowd protests and, increasingly, use of the Web.
A “sock puppet” is a fake online identity created to support an argument — and, in many cases, they are untraceable.
Richard Levangie, who writes about climate change astroturfing at the One Blue Marble Web site, says he first came across it in the mid-1990s.
“I was passionate about slowing the rise of teenage smoking in my home province, and thought about starting an advocacy group that would work with teenagers ... that’s where I first came up against astroturfing, in the form of smokers’ rights groups who were ignoring the science about secondhand smoke, and who were trying to reframe the issue as freedom of choice.”
Astroturfing can range from a few forum posts or a comment praising a company to something closer to harassment, and from genuine disagreement and independent troublemakers to organized “trolls” all the way to the entirely fake campaigner.
News organizations are increasingly finding themselves pawns in this game. While political tit-for-tat is common in Web forums and on sites, the proliferation of certain comments around certain topics often leads to the suspicion that somebody else may be pulling the strings.
“It’s frustrating. They should have zero credibility, but they’re still around, still peddling misinformation,” Levangie said.
Not that all dissenters are puppets, of course. Climate change is just one area where strong feelings are common and run deep enough to encourage a hard core of protesters to spread views that exist at the fringe of scientific thinking.
Justl ast week, one comment on the Guardian Web site said: “There is no concrete evidence that man is responsible for climate change.”
In some cases, however, commenters offer fake credentials or pose as disinterested parties when the opposite is the case — and from time to time they are caught red-handed.
Several authors have been found leaving glowing reviews of their own books on Amazon, while a bizarre case emerged in 2007 involving John Mackey, the chief executive of high-end US supermarket chain Whole Foods, who used a pseudonym to disparage competitors on message boards. More recently, a US PR company was found to have been writing fake positive reviews of a client’s iPhone software.
The question of astroturfing comes up regularly in the world of public relations, says Jon Silk, the creative director of Lewis PR in London.
“Clients new to online PR will often ask the question: ‘Can’t we just anonymously post positive comments?’” he said. “It takes time to explain how influence works — that it should start with a good product or service, and have a clear message that must be communicated to the right people in the right way.”
Ann Bartow, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, believes the most straightforward way to combat astroturfing is to force commenters to use real names.
“The obvious solution is to require some transparency and not accept anonymous comments — but there’s also this idea that anonymity is important — that you can get certain information if people’s identities aren’t tied to it,” she said.
At the very least, this would allow publishers to trace suspected astroturfers. However, it can be difficult to expose those who cover their tracks — and may only be possible by comparing personal details across a number of Web sites to spot patterns of behavior. This opens up privacy concerns — though, as Bartow points out, few outlets that publish comments would run letters from readers they suspected of being mouthpieces for an organized smear campaign.
Fortunately, while the Web lets astroturfers spread their message, it can also be used as a means of trapping them. Last month, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, sued a cosmetic surgery chain that had been caught leaving fake testimonials online.
The company, Lifestyle Lift, had been encouraging employees to post fictional reviews, and after e-mails emerged in which managers told staff: “I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the Web as a satisfied client,” their days were numbered.
The outcome was a US$300,000 fine for the firm.
Silk says that while the rise of social media means a planted message on Facebook can reach people very quickly, it can also backfire when the truth is discovered.
“The one thing that many companies don’t understand is that the desire for a quick hit often ends in failure,” he said. “Positive sentiment takes time to build. You wouldn’t try to make friends at a party by going up to strangers and telling them how great you are.”
However, whatever checks and balances are put in place, some people remain concerned that the power remains firmly with the astroturfers: As soon as they convince somebody to buy the wrong product, drown out other voices or torpedo important policy debates, the damage is done.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS