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 Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS