I am a little late to the party on the astroturfing discussion, but Joseph Thornley brought it up, which inspired a post by Paull Young and a whole new discussion page on the NewPR Wiki AntiAstroturfing page.
First, kudos to Joseph. At a time whem people were jumping on the AntiAstroturfing bandwagon at an incredible clip, he took a moment to express a minority opinion (that I had been thinking about too, but had not been brave enough to voice) — to have a deeper discussion of what astroturfing is and if, in all circumstances, it is truly bad.
There seems to be pretty universal agreeement that the big problem with astroturfing is that astroturfers generally are not transparent about their intentions/interests. Also, there is an accepted concern when the astroturfing practice creates a perception that there is a groundswell oposition to something that people really aren’t that concerned with.
But what if a public affairs or lobbying organization uses artificial means to help give a voice to a concern that is out there, but not being articulated in the public square?
In Washington, D.C., there are many organizations that offer tools to help their clients mobilize the grassroots. One of these tools is CapWiz, offered by Capital Advantage. Among other things, CapWiz has a feature that allows, with the click of a button, visitors to a given Web site to send a (pre-written) letter to their member of congress expressing their support or opposition to a bill.
This type of lobbying is definately artificial, so it could be characterized as astroturfing. After all, allowing the public to send out a fabricated form letter to their congressman or congresswoman is not what anyone would consider a groundswell rising over an issue. However, most people don’t know how to write their member of congress. Or how to lobby of a bill. Or how to write a letter to the editor that will get published.
In other words, is it wrong for a public affairs practitioner or lobbyist to do the “grunt work” and make it easier for the public to express grassroots support or opposition to something? Even though it is artificial, I don’t think so.
For those of you who haven’t check out the NewPR wiki page Paull set up. It has some great information there already, and I expect to see some more discussion on this issue.
12 responses so far ↓
1
Alice Marshall
// Aug 7, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I’m surprised at this post, and will have to write a non-flaming post of my own. The short answer is yes, astroturfing is wrong. It is OK, even desirable to offer talking points, even a sample letter, but citizens should be asked to write their own letters.
Astroturf letters to the editor are downright counter productive -
http://www.failureisimpossible.com/dosomething/sod.htm
By contrast, public information officers such as yourself steer wide clear of this sort of stuff. In many respects you and your colleagues set an example for the industry.
The worst astroturf is PR commenters pretending to be ordinary citizens. So sad when a blogger publishes their IP address. You are certain to be caught in blogosphere.
2
Kami Huyse
// Aug 7, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Also, people that are paid to write fake letters that they don’t personally agree with is astroturfing. Firing up the real grassroots about issues that affect them isn’t astroturfing, it’s education and good public affairs practices IMHO. I think there needs to be some more definition about this so that we can have clarity.
3
Steve Field
// Aug 7, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Thanks for pointing me to the link in your comment Alice. It proves your case – pre-written letters can (and have) backfired.
Kami, you are dead on too. And that is the main thrust of my post – when is something classified as astroturf and when is something grassroots mobilization?
So Alice, revisiting the example of letters to the editor: If a public affairs practitioner offers talking points and someone cuts and pastes those talking points, adds transitions and signs her name, is that an acceptable form of grassroots engagement, or is that astroturf? What if the same phrases, in varying orders, end up in newspaper after newspaper?
I’m liking this discussion, but I am beginning to think that our industry’s definition of astroturf will end up like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography – “I know it when I see it.”
4
Alice Marshall
// Aug 7, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Community relations PR, where you take you case to ordinary citizens, or more likely in my case, local software user groups, and try to interest citizens in your client’s product is just what PR should be, in my never-was-humble-opinion. That is true grassroots.
If I write a letter to the editor, and send it to 20 publications under 20 different names, well, I didn’t do right by my client.
5
Paull Young
// Aug 7, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Interesting discussion here. I thought I’d cross post a comment Keith Jackson left at my blog discussing the same issue:
“The line in the sand, in one word, is ‘transparency’. If people know from where information comes, they have a fighting chance of evaluating its credibility. If its provenance is not disclosed, worse, if it is hidden beneath a title such ‘Institute for Life’, people are likely to be misled. Indeed, it is intended they be misled. In the lack of tranpsparency lies the clear intent to deceive.
6
Steve Field
// Aug 7, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Alice, if you send out a letter with talking points and op-ed submission instructions for ten newspapers to your grassroots supporters, then they copy your talking points (in various combinations) to form various letters, is that astroturf?
What if the opinions they are voicing are actually a wide-held belief that has yet to be articulated in the public sphere? Does the wide acceptance of those opinions make the artificial tactic more legitimate?
Paull, good point. I hate the use of euphemism to mask the identity of an organization. This seems especially pervasive in American politics, where groups like “Citizens for the American Way” or “People for U.S. Values” seem to spring up daily. So here is the question on transparency: does a man writing a letter to the editor need to disclose that he obtained some information for his letter from an advocacy organization if he did? And if he were to disclose this, would the newspaper run it?
Justice Stewart’s words seem to be looking more and more real on this issue…
7
Young PR » Blog Archive » Anti-Astroturfing Latest
// Aug 8, 2006 at 4:49 am
[...] This intitiative is still in its infancy, and my friend Steve Field has written an intriguing post on the topic. Judging by the interesting comments at his blog I hope we’ll be seeing more to come on the difference between grassroots mobilisation and astroturfing. [...]
8
Paull Young
// Aug 8, 2006 at 8:11 am
Steve,
In the point you’re making the real people you are sending the letter to have to make the real decision to send the letter on to a news organisation.
Whereas Alice is talking about a situation where an individual is sending letters out under fake names.
I think that ethically a firm should try to ensure that people who pass on their message are transparent about where it comes from. If the person chooses not to, or the newspaper chooses not to run it – we’re talking about personal or journalism ethics.
There is nothing wrong with helping real people voice their real opinions – as long as you are open and transparent about how you do it.
When you start using fake people or fake opinions, and you hide your involvement – you’ve crossed a line.
9
Kami Huyse
// Aug 8, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I am with Paull on this one, and it seems everyone else. I have no problem giving people the tools to contact their congressperson or government offical (or insert proper name depending in which country you live). The whole point of astroturf is that it is fake, or misleading. Sample letters and web pages where you can send a letter are not astroturfing (IMHO), or as Alice says, “not so humble opinion.”
10
Paull Young
// Aug 8, 2006 at 6:42 pm
I’ll point to another Keith Jackson post that deserves a wider airing – “Black PR, White PR“.
Keith classifies three areas of PR – white PR (which is always ethical), grey PR (which is normally ethical – but needs to be analysed carefully on a case by case basis to ensure that it is ethical) and black PR (practices such as astroturfing – never ethical).
I think in the case we’re talking about here would fall into grey PR. It should be ethical to give real people real information and contact details to help them get their voice heard. However, you’d need to look carefully at the ethics of the campaign to ensure that what you are doing, or the end result that your supporters will reach, is ethical and your motivations are transparent.
11
D-Ring PR » Blog Archive » Astroturfing revisited
// Aug 20, 2006 at 7:51 pm
[...] There was a great conversation the other week I had with Alice, Paull and Kami about astroturfing. Unfortunately, I let it drop off without any resolution, so I wanted to take a minute to see if we can agree on some things and find out what questions have yet to be answered. Anyone else who wasn’t involved initially, please feel free to offer your feedback. So to start: [...]
12
Kelly
// Aug 27, 2006 at 4:34 am
I think there should be no place for this artificial behavior in our life. Success gained by such a method can’t last long…
Leave a Comment