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.
Good, it does not fit the definition of astroturf and is supported by the data as evidenced by the citations to studies already provided.
How does the NCSE support it with astroturf groups?
I heard (the retiring) Harry Reid on the radio this morning. He pointed out that Trump held a fundraiser for him not very long ago and had a note from The Donald telling him how awesome he is. He mentioned that stuff to indicate that he’s no life-long enemy of the President-Elect.
Reid said he’s been encouraged by the turnarounds that Trump has made since the election–not on appointments, but on deportations, ACA, the wall, prosecuting Clinton, etc. So, to the extent that Trump was lying about his intentions during the campaign, he might not be too terrible. To the extent that he was telling the truth, of course he will be terrible. That is, the better President he turns out to be, the bigger liar he is.
I don’t know how his supporters will take this: “But we want him to be awful!!” maybe?
In other words everything he has actually done is awful, but because he tells different lies to different audiences we should be encouraged that maybe he won’t destroy everything on the first day.
Get ready to be disappointed,he has surrounded himself with crazy people The only true thing about Trump so far he is a petty bully who needs to be loved and is willing to say whatever accomplishes that,
The non crazy Republicans will be afraid to go against him for fear he will smack them around. Corporations the same. The next two years will see full scale voter suppression. But that is just the domestic side.
We have not yet even gotten the damage he can do to foreign affairs ,his refusal to believe our intelligence experts that the Russians are meddling in our political system. Already has began trying to bully China. His national security advisors are terrifying ideologues.
I think the truth is this , Trump thinks anyone who believes what he says is a fool and deserves whatever they get.
newton,
You don’t need to convince me, Newton. I’m just grasping at glass vermicelli….
Trump supporters are not monolithic, some just want to get their jobs back. Lower taxes.
Then there are those who are a little more demanding
The bad thing is that was the glass half full
newton,
The NCSE is an astroturf generator. Many of the claims for AGW are filled with astroturf. The 97% claim is astroturf, the word denialist is astroturf. There is also astroturf on the skeptics side also. Astroturf is what political organizations manufacture as a means to convince people of their position.
The NCSE is pro-Satan, too.
Why not? It has as much evidence as your typical claim.
Glen Davidson
While Wikipedia can be suspect, the current description of astroturfing there seems to reflect the consensus usage of the term: “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). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source’s financial connection.”
The activities of the NCSE do not meet that criteria.
How were you able to confirm this?
For a claim to be filled with austroturf it would need to be filled a fake grassroots organizations. Claims can be false,biased,true,accurate,stupid, these are not synonymous with astroturf. You inability to make this simple distinction is dazzling.
I provided a citation of the foundation of that claim,just show it wrong. Simple.
Define astroturf so that statement is true, please. It is what is known as a loaded term
Closer, an organization can produced data to convince people of their position without being a member of an astroturfed organization.Astroturfing is a specific thing, it is misrepresents the origins of the organization in order to misrepresent public support for whatever.
By definition
Hi everyone,
Just a few quick comments on global warming and Trump.
Pedant writes:
All true. However, the greenhouse gas that people are arguing about isn’t CO2: that’s the least controversial one. It’s H2O. If all global warming were CO2-related, then it would be easy to predict the results of a doubling in CO2 levels: a fairly modest 1.1 degrees Celsius increase. The real controversy is whether and to what extent water vapor magnifies that.
The 97 per cent consensus figure is correct, but it supports AGW, not CAGW. Claims of an impending catastrophe are overblown.
Regarding Trump, I strongly suggest that people take a deep breath, calm down, and read the following blog posts by Scott Adams:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152734465316/unhypnotizing-a-clinton-supporter
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152955248046/i-answer-your-questions-about-predicting-president
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153301874416/reprogram-an-anti-trumper-with-this-article
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153990140846/trump-and-the-taiwan-call
Scott Adams was not fooled by Pizzagate. Right away, he called it as almost certainly false:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153821538056/about-pizzagate
Why stop with Scott Adams? There’s also Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood and Sylvester Stallone. (Also sometimes Azealea Banks.) I mean, hell, there are a lot of authorities to depend on when it comes to Trump being a “master persuader” rather than a bellicose, megalomaniacal doofus with ADD (as the author of “Art of the Deal”–a guy who basically lived with him for a good chunk of time–believes).
Phoodoo, where are you? Talk to these guys!
Oh yeah, Mike Tyson too. Does he blog, I wonder?
Wow. Wouldn’t it be just terrible if the dire predictions of the anti-Trump doom and gloom crowd failed to materialize? Eight years of Trump anyone?
It would be awesome. It would mean that he never really intended to do any of the terrible things he promised he’d do during the campaign, but I could live with that. I mean I already know he’s a big liar, so to find out he’s not a dangerous one, just a big blowhard, would be great.
newton,
Did your citation show the origin of this spin? Since when did voting part of the scientific method?
Patrick,
The words they use to promote movements are the ones that VJT cited as being evidence of astroturf.
Simply using the terms “crank,” “quack,” “nutty,” “lies,” “paranoid,” “pseudo” and “conspiracy” is does not mean astroturfing is taking place. Some movements actually are supported by cranks and quacks with nutty, paranoid conspiracy theories using lies to support their pseudo-science. Intelligent design creationism is among them. As evidence, I offer any given week’s worth of posts and comments by the regulars at Uncommon Descent.
The essence of astroturfing is described in the OP of this thread:
The NCSE does not do that.
Patrick,
What do they do? Do you really put them in a different category as the discovery institute?
Patrick,
They are disguising themselves as pro science when in reality they are pro ideology. Humanist, Atheist,Secular. The discovery institute does the same thing. They are disguising themselves as pro science but are pro christian ideology. Both are classic astroturf.
“Some movements actually are supported by cranks and quacks with nutty, paranoid conspiracy theories using lies to support their pseudo-science. Intelligent design creationism is among them. As evidence, I offer any given week’s worth of posts and comments by the regulars at Uncommon Descent.”
Yeah, within the last few days BatShit77 said this:
“And yet when the Agent causality, i.e. God, of Theists is rightly let ‘back’ into the picture of physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and Planck among others), then an empirically backed unification between Quantum Theory and General Relativity is readily achieved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death”
Too bad ‘the resurrection’ didn’t mention any equations…..
The only people left in ID are cranks and liars.
Haha. And I’m guessing that, as whacked as that is, not a single theist there spoke up to say, “Are you nuts? What the hell are you talking about?” All the critical responses by the regulars there are to the heretical postings of non-theists.
It’s kind of a toilet.
OT: Is there a list anywhere of all the biological things for which the CSI has been calculated?
From their About page:
“What we do:
NCSE’s programs support teachers, engage scientists and organize local communities to ensure that evolution and climate change are taught without compromise. We are vigilant in monitoring for anti-science legislation, inaccurate textbooks, and compromised science standards, and effectively organize local responses whenever problems arise.”
Of course. The NCSE works to ensure that sectarian dogma is not allowed to destroy quality science education. The Discovery Institute attempts to represent a set of theological and political views as objective science.
Not true. Jerry Coyne has taken them to task for their accomodationism.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what astroturfing involves.
From the citation: Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
Now you might argue that since not all papers expressed a position with regards to AGW 97% could be inflated. You might check what percentage of papers expressed an opinion, if it was very low that would increase the uncertainity.
However, you have not. You have merely asserted it is spin and I assume wrong. My question is based on what?
Not sure why you think climate scientists vote when writing papers.
The Republicans don’t seem too unhappy that the gloom and doom they predicted did not happen under Obama. Just predicting it was sufficient
newton,
20 trillion in debt has a little dark side to it 🙂
newton,
So what is it about this theory that requires a vote vs a tested hypothesis?
What is it exactly that 97% of the scientists agree to. That there is some level of warming attributable to CO2 and man?
Patrick,
Based on a Wikipedia definition, a listed astroturfing organization?
If the group that listed Wikipedia is listed as an astroturfing organization, then what?
Too bad they didn’t do better during the Bush years, it would be less dark.
Who voted? What theory?
If only someone had quoted that info recently like in the post you are quoting. I know,now I am just being ridiculous.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/7/1608385/-The-Earth-Itself-Is-Now-Accelerating-The-Demise-Of-The-Human-Species?detail=email&link_id=13&can_id=063eaf378e84c2fb696430365716301b&source=email-rachel-maddow-poll-reveals-trump-voters-live-in-alternate-state-of-reality-2&email_referrer=rachel-maddow-poll-reveals-trump-voters-live-in-alternate-state-of-reality-2&email_subject=rachel-maddow-poll-reveals-trump-voters-live-in-alternate-state-of-reality
newton,
Didn’t we used to call something like that the twilight zone 🙂
Also the liar’s paradox.
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.
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.
The Cowboys are going to astroturf the Giants tonight. Go Cowboys!
If everybody they kicked out were a crank or a liar, that might be true. But (a) they kick out a lot of others; and (b) they keep most of the cranks and liars right there.
Patrick,
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. Dude I live 3 miles as the crow flies from their headquarters and been to a meeting they sponsored supporting a local atheist organization.
walto,
Do you have any examples to support this claim?
I can’t believe that’s a serious request. Sorry.
These things strike me as intertwined to some extent. Science is in fact atheistic, although it is not ANTI-theistic. Science is also humanistic (scientists study humans, sociology, etc.) and certainly secular (the supernatural lies beyond the competence of science to even consider).
I have to wonder about “atheist organizations”. As a rule of thumb, there really isn’t any such thing (despite what it might call itself) because LACK of any particular belief isn’t a “thing” people have in common. It’s like an organization of people whose common trait is they don’t collect stamps. Not much glue there.
Accusing science of not being religious seems unnecessary. Hardly a “pretense”. But I see you belong to the “if you’re not FOR my god, you must be AGAINST my god”, and you can entertain no other idea. And if science pays no attention to your god and does not care about it, they are AGAINST it as far as you are concerned.
walto,
I am wondering if you really know the guys on UD or are you making an assumption of their basic character?
Flint,
Are you really trying to claim that atheism and science are the same thing? Do you think that anyone believes that science can pay attention to anything? What do you think science is?