“Astroturf and manipulation of media messages” by Sharyl Attkisson: your thoughts?

I have just been watching a TED talk given in February 2015 by the acclaimed author and TV host Sharyl Attkisson, titled, “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages.” It’s only 10 minutes long, and I would invite readers to watch it and draw their own conclusions.

The following excerpts are some of the highlights from Sharyl Attkisson’s scintillating speech.

What is Astroturf? It’s a perversion of grass roots – as in fake grass roots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves, and publish blogs, Facebook and Twitter accounts, and publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply publish comments online, to try to fool you into thinking that an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. The whole point of Astroturf is to try to give the impression that there’s widespread support for or against an agenda, when there’s not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion, by making you feel as if you are an outlier, when you’re not.

One example is the Washington Redskins’ name. Without taking a position on the controversy, if you simply were looking at news media coverage over the course of the past year, or looking at social media, you’d probably have to conclude that most Americans find that name offensive and think it ought to be changed. But what if I told you 71% of Americans say the name should not be changed? That’s more than two-thirds.

Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. They attack news organizations that publish stories that they don’t like, whistleblowers that tell the truth, politicians that dare to ask the tough questions, and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it. Sometimes Astroturfers simply shove, intentionally, so much confusing and conflicting information into the mix that you’re left to throw up your hands and disregard all of it, including the truth…

And then there’s Wikipedia: Astroturfers’ dream come true, billed as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The reality can’t be more different. Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests. They forbid and reverse edits that go againt their agenda. They skew and delete information in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established with impunity, always superior to the poor schleps who actually believe anyone could edit Wikipedia, only to discover they’re barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies. Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages and “Poof!” Sometimes, within a matter of seconds, you’ll find that your edit is reversed…

So now you may be thinking, “What can I do? I thought I’d done my research. What chance do I have of separating fact from fiction – especially if seasoned journalists, with years of experience, can be so easily fooled?” Well, I have a few strategies that I can tell you about, to help you recognize signs of propaganda and Astroturf. Once you start to know what to look for, you’ll begin to recognize it everywhere. First, hallmarks of Astroturf include use of inflammatory language, such as “crank,” “quack,” “nutty,” “lies,” “paranoid,” “pseudo” and “conspiracy.” Astroturfers often claim to debunk myths that aren’t myths at all. Use of the charged language tests well: people hear something’s a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes, and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it. But what if the whole notion of a myth is itself a myth, and you and Snopes fell for that? Beware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding it, rather than addressing the facts. That could be Astroturf.

And most of all: Astroturfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism for those exposing wrongdoing, rather than the wrongdoers. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority.

You might start to see things a little more clearly. It’s kind of like taking off your glasses and wiping them and putting them back on, and realizing for the first time how foggy they’ve been all along. I can’t resolve these issues but hopefully, I’ve given you some information that will at least motivate you to take off your glasses and wipe them, and become a wiser consumer of information in an increasingly artificial, paid-for reality. Thank you.

Some questions for readers to ponder:

(i) can you think of any online journals or Websites, whose content is largely or entirely made up of Astroturf?

(ii) which news Websites do you place the most trust in, and why?

(iii) what are some particularly outrageous incidents of Astroturfing that you’ve witnessed during the past year or so?

Over to you.

229 thoughts on ““Astroturf and manipulation of media messages” by Sharyl Attkisson: your thoughts?

  1. colewd:
    Flint,

    Are you really trying to claim that atheism and science are the same thing?

    If I wanted to make that claim, I’d have made it. Instead, I said that science is intrinsically atheistic. Maybe that word doesn’t mean the same thing to both of us, so let’s say science is non-theistic.

    Do you think that anyone believes that science can pay attention to anything?What do you think science is?

    I think science is a process of discovery, a method or mechanism for ferreting out facts, cross-referencing them with other facts, testing implications of what is known, and thus slowly and cumulatively constructing a model of a presumed underlying reality. So far, given the resounding (and entirely cross-cultural) success of this method, I’d say it’s on the right track.

    (And I readily admit that I’m using a sort of shorthand here, saying “Science” believes something or observes something or forms theories. By which I mean, these are entailments of using the scientific method properly.)

  2. colewd: An organization pretending to advocate for science but in reality a political organization advocating for humanism, secularism and atheism. I think this should qualify as astroturf.

    It is not pretending to be non political .From The NCSE :

    “NCSE defends the integrity of science education against ideological interference. We work with teachers, parents, scientists, and concerned citizens at the local, state, and national levels to ensure that topics including evolution and climate change are taught accurately, honestly, and confidently.”

    So are you saying theists want interference in science education?

  3. Mung: Seems to me that the cranks and liars who get kicked out over at UD end up here at TSZ. TSZ is like a scum collector for UD.

    You must feel at home.

  4. colewd:
    walto,

    I am wondering if you really know the guys on UD or are you making an assumption of their basic character?

    If I ‘really knew’ them I’d forgive their obvious transgressions against decency? Maybe. You never know.

  5. I love how 10 years ago, Dembski deleted criticism, then 5 years ago, Dave Springer deleted criticism, and now, Barry Arrington deletes criticism. It’s like the one consistent thing ID has is an inability to handle criticism.

    Almost like there’s some kinda religious fundamentalism underneath…..

  6. Mung,
    Why don’t you name some of the people who you think are cranks or liars?

    For once, support something you’ve said why don’t you.

    Or perhaps you are the sort of person that thinks asking a “have you stopped beating your wife yet” style question is actually a clever device because you’ve has never thought beyond the actual question itself.

    So, who are the cranks and who are the liars?

  7. AhmedKiaan: Mung and FMM show us what kind of intellects are on the anti-science side.

    I think even if we discount those individuals words (and that is easy to do) then the real proof of the vacuousness of ID is shown by the total lack of scientific output.

    For example, would any ID supporter care to list for the last 10 years the most significant ID related advance for each year?

    Their usual counter to this sort of question is to note that in fact all scientific research is actually unwitting ID research. But if that’s the case why do they have their own journals?

    So there is the challenge. 10 years, 10 ID milestones.

  8. Seriously, when your “Scientific Revolution” is now in the hands of Gordon, Phillip, and Barry, everybody’s been laughing at you for a while.

  9. newton,

    “NCSE defends the integrity of science education against ideological interference. We work with teachers, parents, scientists, and concerned citizens at the local, state, and national levels to ensure that topics including evolution and climate change are taught accurately, honestly, and confidently.”

    So are you saying theists want interference in science education?

    I don’t think theists have a unified idea here. I don’t think that accuracy and honesty are high priorities for the NCSE and that is why they qualify as astroturf.

  10. walto,

    If I ‘really knew’ them I’d forgive their obvious transgressions against decency? Maybe. You never know.

    Have you ever commented over there?

  11. colewd:
    walto,

    Have you ever commented over there?

    Yes. Arrington basically told me to shut the hell up. Seems like half of the comments are barely sane. Many are nasty. People get banned. Posts get changed. As I said, it’s kind of a toilet.

  12. I mean, there are nasty posts here too. But both sides partake of that sauce here. (In fact, probably the nastiest are by Joe, phoodoo and Gregory.) If an atheist is nasty there, they get banned.

    And all the insane posts here are by theists, I believe.

  13. colewd:

    No, based on the commonly understood meaning of “astroturfing”. If you just want to say that you don’t like the NCSE for some reason, say it. Don’t attempt to smear it with false accusations.

    I don’t dislike the NCSE for any particular reason. I am just calling it out for what it is. An organization pretending to advocate for science but in reality a political organization advocating for humanism, secularism and atheism. I think this should qualify as astroturf.

    Once again, “Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s).”

    You have provided no evidence that the NCSE does any such thing.

    Dude I live 3 miles as the crow flies from their headquarters and been to a meeting they sponsored supporting a local atheist organization.

    I already referenced Jerry Coyne’s comments on the NCSE’s accomodationism. They will partner with any person or organization who will help them achieve their goal of keeping sectarian dogma out of public school science classes. That includes both atheists and theists.

  14. colewd: I don’t think theists have a unified idea here

    So the NSCE might represent some theists?

    I don’t think that accuracy and honesty are high priorities for the NCSE and that is why they qualify as astroturf.

    A little while ago it was because they weren’t forthcoming on being political.

    Sure they qualify as long as you redefine the meaning of astroturf as “things colewd doesn’t agree with”

  15. OMagain: So, who are the cranks and who are the liars?

    Do you want the full list? We could be awhile.

    Or I could just tell you who is on my ignore list.

  16. walto: And all the insane posts here are by theists, I believe.

    That’s only because you lack a term for “beyond insane.”

    And because the anti-theists and anti-IDists are too chickenshit to air their crackpot ideas in public for fear they’ll be put outside the club.

    😀

  17. newton,

    A little while ago it was because they weren’t forthcoming on being political.

    No. It was because they were not forthcoming about their true agenda. If I said it was because they were not forth coming about being political then my mistake.

  18. colewd: No. It was because they were not forthcoming about their true agenda. If I said it was because they were not forth coming about being political then my mistake.

    What would you say the “true agenda” is, that they are not forthcoming about. Yes, we realize that ONE of their objectives is to prevent religious preaching in public schools. And that’s because religious preaching is antithetical to science, where discovered wisdom is honored and received wisdom of the religious sort works against this.

  19. Flint: What would you say the “true agenda” is, that they are not forthcoming about.

    Lying Liars Lie. The agenda is to not be exposed as the Lying Liars that they are.

  20. Mung: Lying Liars Lie. The agenda is to not be exposed as the Lying Liars that they are.

    This explanation is not helpful. Could you provide at least one specific?

  21. colewd: No. It was because they were not forthcoming about their true agenda. If I said it was because they were not forth coming about being political then my mistake.

    No problem, is it the pagan child sacrificing agenda or something else?

  22. Mung: Like Jesus with the tax collectors.

    9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

    13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

    14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Leave a Reply