Talk:Astroturfing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] This is a great article

i remember when wal-mart was trying to move into town. only after i had read about their PR company astroturfing did it make sense to me:

hundreds of pro-walmart people showed up at the city council meeting. people out the door were handing out 'i support walmart' stickers.

(written by 199.245.163.1)

a fine article. some historical examples would be nice. High on a tree 02:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Reaction

the minute I saw this page . . .

I thought of WalMart, and I go to talk and what do I see?

Regarding the Historical section of the article, It is a slippery slope to describe ward bosses as astroturf, how do you distinguish between an evil ward boss and a true grassroots community leader?

--LegCircus 03:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Liddy/NYT

Been trying, unsuccessfully, to find documented evidence for the Gordon Liddy/CRP letter campaign to the New York Times. Replaced with a case documented in All the President's Men, but it's weaker. Any help on the Liddy case would be good.

(written by 81.178.79.19) January 14 2005


[edit] Bias?

The examples in this article are exclusively anti-Republican, which introduces POV because astroturfing is well-documented in both US political parties. In the last presidential election, pundits of both persuasions (primarily those leaning left) credited Bush's re-election to the fact that most Republican campaign operatives were volunteers (grassroots), while most Democrat campaign operatives were paid (astroturf), described as follows in a Washington Post article:

Bush's organization may have been the more cohesive and coordinated. It included 85,000 volunteers -- nearly four times the number in 2000 -- that concentrated on what Paduchik called "volunteer to voter" contact. Among other efforts, Bush volunteers held thousands of "parties for the president," in which people were invited by their neighbors to hear about Bush's record and policies.
Kerry's effort was large but balkanized. It included the Democratic Party's own campaign workers, plus labor union members and other nominally independent groups called 527s (named for the portion of the federal tax code they are organized under). One of the largest of these groups was America Coming Together, which organized thousands of paid workers to register voters and knock on doors. ACT, which was started with seed money from billionaire George Soros, spent more money in Ohio than any other state, according to campaign finance records.

To help offset the anti-Republican bias, another good example of Democrat astroturfing would be the seminar caller phenomenon on talk radio, where the same talking points from the DNC fax and email lists are often parroted by callers to radio talk shows. Several alert talk show hosts try to combat them by having a set of all the party memos and begin reading them along with the seminar caller to expose them as plants.

(written by 70.179.158.84)

Well then, don't just tell us about it here--be bold and add it to the page yourself. Be sure to document any claims you make, though, or they will probably be reverted. --Paul 03:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McCain-Feingold

This seems to be a good example, with a confession and some drama: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006449 http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17487 .

This is about the passing of a law that regulates campaign contributions, and that somehows benefits the mainstream media and the liberals.

Since I really don't know much about American politics (not being american), I leave it to someone else to double check it and add it to the article.

[edit] Astroturfing on Talk:Astroturfing?

Probably not, but I don't like to see unsigned contributions on Talk pages. I have refactored this page to include IPs of users not logged in, and to simplify and regularize the page structure.

Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you. — Xiong (talk) 21:31, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Astroturf PR

Hi, I just merged in two examples from another article on the subject. What I didn't bring in was this:

In early 2003, what some people consider to be deceptive form letters emanating from the Republican National Committee caused a scandal. Newspapers from Cape Cod to Hawaii were printing identical letters, all signed by local home-town people. The people signing the letters were real Republicans, but many editors and readers felt it was a sneaky way to publish Republican ads without paying for them or acknowledging where they came from. The Republicans claimed they were just helping their members express themselves.

I wondered if this is documented enough. Actual people signing their own name to a form letter and sending it in does not qualify as astroturfing, does it? Sympleko 12:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not the same incident, but last year ABC's Media Watch had the story of a US national guardsman sending a letter home, which was reprinted in several newspapers. It's apparently been confirmed that he wrote the letter, sent it to many friends and family, and gave instructions to send it on to others. Media Watch does a good job of dissecting the statements. Not quite astroturfing, but it's the closest example I can source at the moment. Imroy 07:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV term?

"The term astroturfing pejoratively describes ..."
I am wondering if there is a non-pejorative term to describe such organizations in a factual way. An example is the Center for Consumer Freedom, which has been tagged as POV by some editors who don't like the term front group. I actually believe that the term "astroturfing" describes the reality better, but if it is only or primarily used pejoratively then it will even face bigger opposition from the (astroturfing?) "Consumer Freedom" lobby. Common Man 09:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Astroturfing" and "front group" are both pejorative terms, with separate meanings. Astroturfing refers specifically to activities of "fake grassroots" groups. Since CCF doesn't take part in these activities (as far as we know), it would be opinionated and inaccurate to accuse them of astroturfing. Astroturfing is a specific activity - organizing meetings, sending letters to local newspapers, setting up surreptitious web sites, participating in message boards.
The use of either term, "astroturfing" or "front group", requires a qualifier in this encyclopedia. You could say something like "Group X has been accused of astroturfing by Group Y", assuming that this accusation has in fact been made. But it is a violation of NPOV to state that "Group X is an astroturfing group". Wikipedia does not make value judgments.
I also resent your suggestion that anyone who opposes the term "front group" must be working for CCF. Please maintain a certain level of maturity, and recognize that many of us simply want to write neutral encyclopedia articles, as opposed to attack pieces. I am currently defending Council on American-Islamic Relations from a similar type of bias on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Before you accuse me of bias you may want to check that dispute out. Rhobite 19:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


The merits of your example aside, I don't think there's any way to refer to astroturfing groups without the suspicion of POV rearing its ugly head. Astroturfing is inherently a Bad Thing, after all. Pointing out that, say, Tech Central Station or the "Alexis de Tocqueville Institute" (golly!) are really astroturf-for-hire fronts will not irritate people beause you used the word "astroturf"; rather, the problem is that you accused them of being such in the first place. Sometimes POV/NPOV disputes resemble the "truth vs balance" argument in journalism.--fuddlemark 06:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justify astroturf in Canada section

I just temporarily removed the "Astroturfing in Canada" section. Someone needs to put in specific examples from Canadian politics and back it up with references. It was just a blanket statement that "astroturfing also occurs in Canada at federal and provincial level..." --220.245.178.132 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the point of astroturf is that it shouldn't be documented. However, I have worked on provincial campaigns in Canada and we did astroturf. Jared s 22 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swift Boat Veterans etc...

I was surprised to see the Swift Boat campaign not mentioned here. I supposed it might have been put in and then removed by US partisans for its slant. But in retrospect it was one of the most successful astroturfing campaigns ever, and deserves mention. Karl Rove fans who don't want it mentioned should simply add in an appropriate example of Dem astroturfing to counterbalance. Right?

Unsigned comment by 213.80.84.98 19:01, 20 February 2006
please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end. Do you have an example of someone calling this Astroturfing? Are there any good records of fake letters in the media? Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it was a supposedly "grassroots" group that was actually organized and funded by political operatives of the President makes it the definition of astroturfing. 71.203.209.0 14:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristallnacht

The Nazi Germany Kristallnacht riots sound like astroturfing to me. The spontaneous rioters were actually Nazi SS officers

Unsigned comment by 70.58.87.142 03:23, 25 March 2006
please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end.
I don't think all cases where the cause of an event are hidden as in Kristallnacht are astroturfing. It is specifically related to media manipulation. I'm going to remove this from the examples, though it might be appropriate in a section on associated and similar phenomena. Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional Hijacking

People are very suggestible, but marketers and propagandists have found that when a central core emotion is touched, creating a link between the person and the message, they accept it very readily. A figure in a crowd, whispering "We're both Christians, and he's right, you know!" I call it emotional hijacking. Not being a marketer, and frankly, suspicious of atroturfing, hijacking of people's herd mentality, etc., is there a more formal description of this with respect to astroturfing of true grassroots movements? --UB.

Uncle Bucky

[edit] Wag the Dog

Wouldn't Wag the Dog be more propaganda than astroturfing? Andjam 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

yes at least from the reviews I have seen.Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

Also questioning about bias, as any astroturfing group would deny the charge. Linking to specific groups is tantamount to a charge that the group would deny. A better method may be to name a few contemporary organizations that have been charged with astroturfing, both on the Left and Right, and sketch the arguments for and against.

I think this should be tagged for POV.

Unsigned comment by OctaviusIII 07:05, 14 May 2006
please sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end.
POV doesn't mean that someone would disagree with this article it's more like the article presents only one pont of view and fails to make that clear. It's typically something that should only be applied to an article where a) the POV parts have been identified and b) attempts to fix that have failed. If an article clearly identifies who holds what view (e.g. with clear attribution) then it probably doesn't fall under POV. If you feel that there is POV here, please clearly state where, propose changes (on this talk page), try to carry them out (or whatever the consensus is) and then, if that fails a POV tag may be approporiate whilst some kind of dispute resolution is carried on (this may take a long time).
For now I have put in citation requests. Later you can move the comments to the talk page. Mozzerati 09:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rigorousness of definition and examples

I don't believe that something such as Milosevic reading letters by 'concerned citizens' on radio qualifies as astroturfing, for two reasons:

a) there is no evidence one way or t'other if they were genuine letters. Given that your average president receives thousands of letters a week, it's more likely to have been cherry-picking; and

b) the president, unabashedly in the guise of the president, was reading them and then basking in the glory of them.

The weakness in the Soviet Union example is also apparent: if you tell the public what to think (not covertly, just through the normal processes of government), enough of them will think it to write letters to the editor saying what you want to hear. You then publish those absolutely genuine letters for your own ends. This is not astroturfing. The story of one of the last of these (anti-Gorbachev) letters, the publication of which became a flashpoint for fighting between the pro- and anti-reform factions in the Soviet administration, is detailed in David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb. Remnick went to the trouble of meeting the letter-writer, who was a non-nomenklatura member of the public and actually held the views she expressed.

The point is that without rigorousness in selecting examples, astroturfing spreads beyond its definition, and simply becomes a synonym for 'propaganda' or (worse) 'politicking'. The thing that distinguishes it from any propaganda, or any politician looking to bolster their decisions by saying 'many concerned citizens have contacted me/there is a large swell of community feeling on this issue', is (in my view) that it is material presented directly to the uninformed consumer as coming from an uninterested member of the public at large, when it is not. It is the (to use a loaded term) fraud on the public as to the identity of the origin of the material, that is the essence of astroturfing.

On a slightly different topic, I think that things like iDon't, while a related phenomena, are better described as 'viral marketing' than astroturfing. Viral marketing (lazy definition: marketing that doesn't appear to be marketing) sites and campaigns are a dime a dozen at the moment. iDon't may be slightly different in that it purports to be against something rather than just (as is common) saying 'we established this site to let kids express themselves and be free'; but absent an overtly political message, I still doubt if it's astroturfing.

I've not been presumptuous enough to delete from the article, but I think that for the reasons I've set out, existing examples need to be culled, and future examples need to be selected carefully.203.3.176.10 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reports of foreign riots

Many anti-Western (non-democratic) countries have "riots" or demonstrations against US or UK policies, which are cited uncritically in articles which hint or insinuate that these are grassroots, spontaneous expressions of public opinion. But do we in the West report ALL such demonstrations, or just the anti-Western ones? Or do we only notice anti-Western ones because those are the only ones allowed in such countries? --Wing Nut 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PCRM

The PCRM are a PETA front group and are hardly a grassroots organization.--Rotten 03:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a forum for you to vent your frustrations on groups you disagree with. Find a reliable third party making those accusation of astrosurfings. Until then, you're breaking no original research, reliable sources and obviously, neutral point of view. Jean-Philippe 01:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I did. You are venting your frustrations, sir.--Rotten 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You just re-inserted the same press release by the Consumer for Consumer Freedom, a lobby group for the junkfood industry, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article. Take your smear campaign elsewhere. Jean-Philippe 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The CCF isn't even an astroturfing organization if it purports to be a coalition comprised of industries. The PCRM is a phoney organization comprised of looneytoons rather than actual physicians and anyone with any brains knows this. I'll take both paragraphs out of there, but not one or the other. Wikipedia doesn't need phoney, illiterate animal rights groups cramming their agendas down the throats of it's readers. I'm deleting both paragraphs (it's either both or none).--Rotten 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Now you're going to try and argue the Washington Post isn't a reliable reference? You'll save us both from wasting our time if you stop that nonsense. Jean-Philippe 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
How can it be an astroturfing org when it admits it's comprised of industry groups?--Rotten 01:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How would MoveOn fit in here?

MoveOn, as an organization founded and funded by George Soros, follows the political philosophy of it's founder. Given Mr. Soros' similar activities to dictate public policy in Europe (e.g. freely available abortions in Russia), I believe it's safe to say that members/followers/subscribers to MoveOn may be as relevant to the parent organization as teats on a boar; it's merely convenient that people ally themselves with MoveOn. One man's opinion and his billions still rule the day. Call it astroturfing with expendable disciples.

Ten-seven 19:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this qualifies as astroturfing?

I appended the following aseveration to the article: The Autoridad del Canal de Panama, ACP, which administrates the Panama Canal on behalf of the panamanian goverment, contracted the services of Edelman, an american PR firm to "correct inconsistencies" that may be posted on public forums. As this "corrections" are done without specifically referencing this relationship, this qualifies as astroturfing, IMO. So, I ask the editors: yes or not? Thanks

What's your source regarding this claim? The problem here is that we cannot accuse groups of astroturfing without it being verifiable from a reliable source. Otherwise we open ourselves up to legal accusations. --tjstrf 01:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astroturfing or... psyops ?

I just discovered this article and I'm quite surprised. I'm pretty sure "astroturfing" is simply slang for "psychological operations". I'm only one voice in the hive but maybe I wont be the only one to think that... Bragador 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The UFCW and Wake Up Wal-Mart

One anonymous user recently added the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union's Wake Up Wal-Mart project to the Recent Examples section. Even if that poster may strongly dislike the UFCW and/or Wake Up Wal-Mart, that does not necessarily mean that one can accurately classify Wake Up Wal-Mart as an act of astroturfing. In fact, I can think of two reasons why Wake Up Wal-Mart may not be astroturfing after all:

1. The UFCW seems to be far more honest about being the driving force behind Wake Up Wal-Mart than Wal-Mart apparently has been about its own influence over Working Families for Wal-Mart.

2. Labor unions, by their nature, are (or at least tend to be) grassroots organizations anyway -- which definitely cannot be said about Wal-Mart and other large business corporations.

Thus, for the time being, I have removed the Wake Up Wal-Mart references, although I am open to compelling arguments for restoring the information.--TwoTone 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly anonymous - all of Wake Up Wal-Mart's press releases claim that they are "grass roots" when they are in fact not and hide their union affiliation whenever possible. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what they are doing. In the "about" setion on their web site, they fail to disclose that they are funded and run by the union.[1] User:davidwiz 10:09:00 28 September 2006 (EST)

As of Nov. 2, the About page of Working Families for Wal-Mart fails entirely to disclose their connection to Wal-Mart, although though the news that Wal-Mart founded and funded them, but intended more "transparency" in the future came out on October 20. The Wake Up Wal Mart website acknowledges the connection to United Food and Commercial Workers International Union on every page in their copyright notice. Walmart Watch lists its board of directors and their affiliations on its About page. But face it, all three of these groups are basically astroturf groups, no matter which of them you or I might or might not agree with. betsythedevine 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the information I wrote about Wake Up WalMart which user Betsy Devine had deleted. I also reverted information about Wal Mart Watch which had also been deleted.--Davidwiz 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, David, I thought that the information about Wake Up Wal Mart was adequately integrated into the information I'd added about Working Families for Wal Mart, which made it clear that WUWM was an astroturf group. betsythedevine 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Astroturfing

I removed the paragraph on Microsoft being accused of Astroturfing. It wasn't particularly NPOV because it left out some facts regarding original LA Times article the Newsfactor article was based upon (What is it with news sites reporting about other reports anyways? Attempts to Spin the article their own way?). For example, the original LA Times news story (which doesn't appear to be accessible anymore) said that the letters from deceased individuals had had the names of the deceased crossed off and family members wrote in their own and mailed them in, which is somewhat different that what the wikipedia paragraph portrayed. See other articles which shed more light: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/871631

It's hard to do this sort of topic without bias, but we shouldn't be misrepresenting things just because a biased article claims it. 12.207.87.61 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the paragraph you removed as the basic case that they were 'astroturfing' seems as sound as that against any other organisation mentioned in this article. If you think text is incorrect, you should edit it rather than simply remove it. Nunquam Dormio 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

As this article now redirects here, I'd like to point out that its historical revisoons still may contain info that can be used, and that it's talk page is pretty extensive.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/t/Talk%7EAstroturfing_aee7.html"