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.
All my experience with you suggests otherwise.
Liberals hate freedom, oil is freedom, therefore liberals hate oil
You’re much nicer than the experts, and as a non-expert you’re no doubt more likely to admit making a bone-headed error when you make one. (Rather than, say, putting the other party on ignore when they point it out.)
This is a inaccurate accusation.
First its not SCIENTISTS but only a tiny minority who study origins of biology. A minority of biologists. in fact having one disagree is rocking the boat a little.
Its more then one.
Its not presented in percentages of how many researchers disagree but that enough do to justify the claim LOTS disagree.
Its not a deception or conspiracy or anything to do with real astroturfing.
Anyways origins issues is about intelligent people, regardless of profession, putting their mind to the merits of it and then one getrs great opposition to hypothesis made in obscure small circles that affect everyone’s understanding of origins.
Lots of informed sharp steves disagree with a unlikely hypiothesis of a fish becoming all creatures on dry land.
Astroturfing complaints iS INDEED about suspicion of authority behind conclusions.
Something is wrong with the message.
No, you’re not. If you were, you could have easily researched the subject during the past 10 years. (Assuming you know how to use Google or how to read the “lying” mainstream media.)
Why waste your time here? Get going on your education!.
Conspiracy options is options.
they do accuse big energy of conspiracy but it teaches to accuse conspiracy.
Its not a conspiracy but rather error plus a desire to makle a cleaner greener world. plus a fear of third world nations getting cars. like china /India.
How can you tell there is global warming/ Tempatures a plenty! if so everyone does the same thing. The numbers is irrelevant to the actual options for investigation.
the same simple errors are made.
i don’t thing the world was ever warming from mans impact. too big and glorious for our puffs of smoke.
in the future they will laugh, or say they beat by the remedy’s.
walto,
He is Catholic and conservative but not religious right. It was Spitzers book that he wanted an opinion on.
Pedant,
Sounds like you might understand this well. Can you make an argument or is the scientific consensus enough for you too?
Our resident theologians might want to take the PISA test that teenagers take world-wide to test their ability to think critically:
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/
Or not.
Here are the facts:
1. Industrial society has been burning more and more carbon since the early 19th century as a source of energy.
2. When you burn carbon, you get CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.
3. Greenhouse gases in our higher atmosphere don’t dissipate fast enough to keep up with the levels of CO2 production that’s been going on for more than a century.
4. So solar radiation keeps coming in, but the heat isn’t getting out. Consequently the temperature of our planet keeps rising.
5. The only way to prevent the consequences of that warming is to reduce CO2 production.
Check out every one of those statements. In particular, educate yourself on the science behind the term “greenhouse gas.”
Mung,
So can anyone really cite the consensus opinion.
Not is the globe warming but what is the prediction of warming over the next 50 years?
What is the statistical confidence in that prediction?
Have the climate models been tested and what are the results?
Does everyone agree with Harshman that the data I provided showed a statistically significant rise in weather?
The truth of the matter is Walto, if you would look into the detail I would be very interested in your opinion. Saying that 97% of the scientists support this when we really don’t know what this is, is meaningless.
What kind of fool comes to a blog to learn science, when there are so many other sources of information?
At least you understand that theology involves critical thinking, which sort of sets you apart from the typical ignorant rabble here at TSZ.
Not at all. I want you to take the test to learn your limitations…
Sadly, I was raised in the modern educational system.
walto,
A minority scientists opinion.
Marc Morano isn’t a scientist. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and a long history of being a right wing shill for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe. His website ClimateDepot offers nothing but AGW denier anti-science political propaganda.
Sadly we get too many scientifically illiterate goobers like you swallowing the AGW denier bullshit by the shovelful instead of reading and researching the primary scientific literature yourself for the actual data. It’s the same approach you take to attacking evolution – puking up anti-science Creationist dog turds you can’t explain and can’t defend.
Colewd, do you not see that you’re simply searching for views that are congenial to you? Are you in utter denial about that? I get that those heterodox papers exist, but they’re in the tiny minority. if you look for confirmations you will find them, no doubt, but why not settle for truth instead? Is being comfortable so important?
Charlie only reads Goethe and Steiner followers. Patrick only reads libertarians. Do you want to be like that?
Prison?
There is a trend of higher global temp which correlates to a trend of higher concentrations of a known greenhouse gas. A major source of this gas is human activity.
Google ipcc six graphs
Google ipcc graphs error bars
They are being tested with climate observation, increase in trend of Co2 correlates with increase in trend of global temperatures. Human have an increasing trend of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
What is your graph measuring exactly? Is it correct the baseline (0) is the year 2000, why was this chosen?
What are the sources for these measurements ? You seem to be demanding standards in data you are not adhering to. Answer the same questions please, that way we can compare
I agree, he is credit to his gender.
Bet you would be saying 97% of scientists support this if they agreed with you.
Sorry for answering Walto’s questions
Mung,
It’s a shame your critical thinking facilities have not realized that theology is simply pointless navel gazing that has never and never will contribute anything of worth to human society.
I think colewd just likes being contrary. Most biologists think ID is bunk – then ID is not bunk. Most scientists think climate change is a thing, colewd thinks it’s not a thing.
Colewd, if you have the ability to be right when almost all experts are wrong presumably you are a billionaire?
I think it’s easier to call others wrong then think about how your own position is right (or not). Easier to tear down then create.
Colewd, as you are such an expert as to know better then people who have spent significant time studying these matters, do you have a better model of how the earth warms then existing models?
If so, could you share it?
If not, will you be publishing a paper regarding current models and your replacement, better model?
No, you won’t be doing any of that will you…
Here is the same argument we’re having here, only on a much bigger screen, and the influence of the moolah (and its directional flow) is made quite clear.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/weather-channel-slaps-back-at-breitbart_us_58472455e4b016eb81d89944
However, as we know, some people just want to get their climate (and biology) information from places like Breitbart. Then they come here and ridicule the actual science.
I appreciate it!
If any biology professors are using IDCist materials as anything other than demonstrations of pseudoscience they are doing their students a gross disservice.
Intelligent design creationism is a political movement with no science whatsoever backing it up. It is not “fair” to include nonsense in a class on well-supported science.
That’s not far off, by what I’ve observed. I don’t think it’s the facts of anthropomorphic climate change per se that get the religious right’s hackles up, it’s the proposed solutions to the problem from the political left who never saw an increase in government power they didn’t like (until someone other than them is wielding it).
If Al Gore is for it, they’re against it. Identity politics across the political spectrum.
Give us your evidence.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of conservatives and “wackos” who are either doubtful of AWG or outright deny it are reacting to the implication of policy enactment, which they see as curbing their perceived freedoms and limit their rights. I’ve heard that pretty consistently. What I’m curious about is how this (or at least some of this) attitude and perspective morphed into “THERE’S A BIG MONEY CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE RESEARCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!111”. I mean, I don’t expect most of the folks to be rational and I get that it’s a great rally cry and PR move to deflect attention away from the actual BIG MONEY conspiracy against climate change research. I’m just wondering why anyone with half a brain giving it more than 30-seconds of thought buys into it.
Robin,
Robin, keep in mind that if Al Gore is for it, Patrick is against it, too. He thinks he’s above this fray, but he’s not.
“What I’m curious about is how this (or at least some of this) attitude and perspective morphed into “THERE’S A BIG MONEY CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE RESEARCH OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!!!111””
Have you met many Americans?
😉
I guess it’s a bit much to blame it on the scientists’ desires for orgies and to keep the divine foot away from the door for this one. Evolution is just about hating God and any chance of living forever, you know.
Must be all of those rich hippies behind this one, out to sell them hemp sandals to replace their cars.
Glen Davidson
walto,
You are accusing me of something you don’t know and is not how I posted it. This was posted as an opposing view and nothing more.
Did you read it?
Are you really practicing critical thinking or are you hiding behind a world view that is comfortable to you.
I have no vested interest in either view here. Do you?
Do you believe what you do about AGW simply because it is so strongly supported by liberal thought?
If the science is so strong why does in need a political advocacy group like the NCSE to support it with astroturf?
OMagain,
Not quite there but I do ok 🙂
Just by coincidence both these theories have astroturf support by the NCSE. Does that even give you pause for thought?
newton,
First, thanks for answering the questions 🙂
I would support that statement if it was not astroturf and the data supported the claim.
We live in a time when absurdity makes more sense than reality. In the name of liberty for some and fucking up liberals conservatives are willing the screw over future generations. Instead of the sacrifice of the greatest generation , they will be celebrated for their pettiness and greed. And they picked the perfect guy to represent them.
You need to get out more, around here people are sure there is a conspiracy against Christmas.
I don’t know “how you posted it.” I know only that you posted it.
Yeah.
Neither. As I’ve explained to you several times, I don’t think I’m in a position to substitute my judgement here. And I don’t think you are either. I don’t have any axe to grind or money to be made one way or the other on this issue. Like many in New England, I have oil heat, so, if anything, I could end up paying more for my heat if there are stringent regulations. But I’m not engaging in “critical thinking”: I do that where I think it might be useful or I’m particularly interested in the subject–and when I do, I still try not imagine that I know more than the experts do.
No. But do I think your denials may be correlated with conservative thought. Why? Because I believe that it’s more than a coincidence that you find your way to the same gang time after time.
FWIW, my own political views don’t match terribly well with those of American liberals. I don’t believe in taxes on capital or labor for example. And I don’t believe in private ownership of things like land and spectrum. I’m more of a free trader than either Republicans or Democrats, and I don’t think Clinton should have been embarrassed to support the free movement of labor across national borders (I think she lied about this matter in the last debate.) I’m skeptical of representative government, generally, although I don’t really have a better idea for large territories. I prefer Rousseau to Locke.
Just because I recognize (as all sane adults should) that Donald Trump is a dishonest, dangerous, stupid, narcissistic incompetent doesn’t mean I’m a “liberal.” I’m a geoist.
So, in general, your speculation about me seems as bad as your speculations about weather and evolution.
To be honest, I think it’s because you and your brethren make that kind of behavior necessary.
walto,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In general I believe we have a messy political system yet I don’t know of an obvious better answer since it must be patricianly credited with generating the largest economy on the planet. I believe that having a 2 or more party system is good and both parties have there strengths and weaknesses. Although I consider myself a moderate conservative, I think Bill Clinton was our best president over the last 24 years and GWB was our worst.
As far as Trump goes I think it will take a couple of years to have a clue how effective he will be.
So do you agree with lying as long as the end justifies the means?
Ha. Depends on the ends, I guess. I’d lie to save my family for example. Wouldn’t you?
walto,
You bet 🙂
“After months of unseasonably warm temperatures, scientists have confirmed that this autumn was the hottest ever recorded in the United States.
During the September-November period, the contiguous US was an average 4.1°F above the 20th century average, making it the second consecutive year to shatter the temperature records.
The analysis from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is based on 122 years of data, stretching back to January 1895.”
Coincidences just keep mounting up
Do you?
A man’s got to know his limitations.
– Dirty Harry
You haven’t heard then. We’re all doomed. It’s all pointless.
Yes, I’d lie to save your family too walto. 🙂
Have you taken the test and discovered yours?
The data support the claim.
Cite the data and show how they fail to support the claim. See
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for recent atmospheric CO2 levels and trends.
I think you underestimate Donald, I think we will have a clue way before that.