Talk:Astroturfing

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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

The "throwing shoes" was an example of astroturfing. ChristinaDunigan 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

The link to "wise use movent" under See Also has nothing to do with this article; Im' deleting it. Noclevername 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Blair Witch Project

Aha a name for it...I always wondered about this film but have not devoted the time to looking for references or evidence. If it fit the cirteria it would be a notable subject on the page :)Cas Liber 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

False flag

I have added a link to False flag in the See also list. It's important to not confuse these two different forms of propaganda. dreddnott 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

What about in Iraq, when the Iraqis toppled the Saddam statue? That was astroturfing.

  -- There were many statues toppled by Iraqis, and many more by Coalition troops.

However, you have no evidence, one way or another, that an organization deliberately
started a fake grass-roots movement. Many Iraqis, Shiites in particular (Kurds for sure),
were jubilant at the fall of Saddam's regime. Your opinions about the 2003-(?) Iraq war
aside, you have brought no astroturfing evidence to us.

j.bennion 75.162.169.120 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of content by Nssdfdsfds

Nssdfdsfds (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed content critical of the Center for Consumer Freedom under the claim that it does not present itself as a "grassroots" organization, but a lobby group. This is inaccurate-- lobby groups aim at promoting their positions through governmental influence. Astroturfing groups attempt to change public opinion by presenting themselves as "consumer nonprofits". Numerous sources agree with the assessment that the CCF is such a group:

• "Berman’s efforts might not seem all that remarkable in a city where industry-funded "astroturf" groups are so emboldened that many no longer bother concealing funding sources....

How often do we get such an intimate peek at a major corporation's decision to bankroll an astroturf group? [CCF]" ("Berman's Battle"American Prospect Online, January 3, 2005)

• "The CCF casts itself as a public interest organization with a libertarian commitment to consumer choice, but to those it attacks, it is a classic corporate front group... The CCF’s main activity is the publication of rhetorical blasts on its web site, in letters-to-the-editor, in opinion pieces, in an e-newsletter, and in press releases that are often warped and intemperate." ("Center for Consumer Freedom: Non-Profit or Corporate Shill?", Humane Society of United States, July 1, 2005)
• "CCF and EPI are mere extensions of BCI that conduct grassroots lobbying, public relations, and advertising services directed against the charitable and social welfare organizations that oppose the policies and practices of those industries." ("CREW Files IRS Complaint Against The Center for Consumer Freedom Alleging Violations of Tax Exempt Status", Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics, November 16, 2004)
• "The "Center for Consumer Freedom" placed ads in the NYT attacking PETA, a radical pro-animal group. A little digging reveals that the "Center for Consumer Freedom" is an astroturf organization (fake grassroots) funded by the fast-food companies that PETA opposes." ("Astroturfers attack PETA in the NYT" Boing Boing, January 22, 2007)

Even their own press releases try to make them sound grassrootsy: "The Center for Consumer Freedom, a consumer watchdog group, is running a full-page open letter in Thursday's Hollywood edition of Variety..." ("Open Letter Demands Celebrities Withdraw Support for PETA" Press release, January 24, 2007)

As the PETA issue fell flat and the ad got pulled: "[T]he Center For Consumer Freedom is a front group for the restaurant, junk-food, alcohol and tobacco industries, and they regularly run elaborate media campaigns opposing the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, animal rights and environmental groups." ("Consumers! Beware Corporate Lapdogs Posing As Consumer Watchdogs", American Chronicle, February 4, 2007)

The inclusion of CCF among the users of "astroturfing" is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia standards. --Leflyman^Talk 02:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So, I know very little of astroturffing. I have been watching this page because I was trying to help mediate a COI dispute on Astroturf and FieldTurf, which were (ironically) being edited by representatives of the two companies. As, I understand the definition of astroturfing from the [Astroturfing|article]], it is a campaign that purports to be grassroots but is not. CCF describes themselves on their website as:

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

They seem to be honest about who is paying for it. Doesn't this fail the test above? -Selket ^Talk 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• No; it doesn't -- you've effectively proposed a "strawman argument" and answered it yourself. It doesn't matter how you or I perceive CCF -- it's how the group has been verifiably regarded by others in reliable sources. As the media references point out, the group is described as a faux-grassroots front group. Even the self-description you quote above is disingenuous -- CCF isn't a "coalition" nor is it composed of "consumers working together"; it is simply an PR shill. As noted in a 2005 USA Today editorial, "What's in a Name?" the Center for Consumer Freedom is intended to sound deceptively like a pro-consumer group, rather than a pro-industry special interest:

"Every group is entitled to its opinion, but it would have been nice if readers knew straight off that the center is heavily funded by restaurants and food companies — industries with a huge stake in battling concerns that Americans are eating themselves to death.

Maybe the group should change its Web site from ConsumerFreedom.com to FatforProfit.com....

A rose by any other name may smell as sweet. A special interest group with a deceptive name? That just stinks."--Leflyman^Talk 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Astroturf has a very particular meaning - pretending to be a 'grass roots' organisation when you are not. So if, for example, activistcash.com said "we are a bunch of concerned consumers fighting against the extremists", then that would be fake grass roots. OTOH, it says quite clearly on the front page that is funded by CCF, and has a link to CCF's site.[1] This page clearly defines what astroturfing is. An example would be posting a videos on youtube pretending to be from consumers. They don't. In fact they say who they are from. Even your source above "Berman’s efforts might not seem all that remarkable in a city where industry-funded "astroturf" groups are so emboldened that many no longer bother concealing funding sources" says that they are not concealing who they are, and therefore by this page's own definition cannot be astroturf. The heading is "Recent examples". If you have an example of sourced astroturfing by CCF, go ahead and list them. Otherwise they don't belong here. This page defines a particular term. Nssdfdsfds 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to have some elements of agenda pushing by both sides so I have marked it as such. The article has serious WP:Undue_weight issues. The list of "recent examples" is, I think, way to long and should be severly purged. Remember the purpose of this article is to educate people what astroturfing is; controversal examples fail to do that. It is not a chance to list every astroturfing campaign that has ever occured, or to call attention to the deceptive tactics of groups who's agendas you may not like. The controversal examples should be the first to go. --Selket ^Talk 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed many of them. The ones lacking citations were first to go. There was one about chocolate milk from Nestlé that I couldn't find much about online either, so I deleted that too. As you say, this article should be defining astroturfing, not finger pointing at organisations. If there is an issue with a given organisation astroturfing, it should go on that organisation's own page. Here is not a good dumping ground for criticism. It might be a good idea to remove further allegations from this list. Nssdfdsfds 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Nssdfdsfds. I'd never heard of the CCF before reading this article, and it sounds self-evidant that any industry group that explicitly describes itself as such, however abhorrent I or any one else may think it, should not be presented as such. Far more importantly though, there's no point whatsoever in having an example section. Every instance will inevitably be debated as NPOV, and even if they were all accepted, there'd be hundreds more that some individuals would like to insert. It's an endless POV war, and the only solution is for the whole "examples" section to be deleted. Let the individual pages battle it out. Life is too short... Loxlie 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples section

Two points:

1. We only need enough examples so readers understand what astroturfing is. I don't think we need a comprehensive list of organizations branded as astroturf. Especially if it's a one-sided list, rather than a representative one. If a contributor were to use this list to advance the POV that only (or chiefly) anti-environmentalist groups pull this dodge, that would be a rules violation, wouldn't it?
2. The specific example which follows needs attribution (and could just as well be shortened using the {main} template.

Cut from article:

• In March 2006, a supposed called the Save Our Species Alliance was exposed as a front group that was created by a timber lobbyist to weaken the Endangered Species Act. The campaign director for this group is Tim Wigley, the Executive Director of Pac/West Communications. Wigley was also the campaign director for Project Protect, another front group that spent $2.9 million to help pass President Bush's Healthy Forests legislation which has been criticized for its pro-industry bias. [2] The Save Our Species Alliance web site portrays itself as a grassroots organization against the Endangered Species Act (the word "grassroots" is mentioned no less than five times on their "Take Action Now" page), but is criticized by environmentalists for being a front group for wealthy cattle and timber interests which consider Federal environmental legislation an impediment to profit.

Who says its not really an environmental group?

Who "exposed it as a front group"?

• Note that before it can be "exposed" as one, we must SHOW that it is one.
• Otherwise, it's better to say it was "branded" as one or (if you want to be nice "called" one)

We need to clarify what "weaken" means here. Does that mean to make the legitimate purposes of the Act ineffective? If so, who says so?

I linked Tim Wigley - this was momentarily delinked. Thanks for putting it back. Is there a policy against having red links? There wasn't, 5 years ago, when I first started volunteering here. If so, when did it change?

All the extra stuff about Wigley: what does this have to do with the claim that SOSA (1) is a "front group" or that it engaged in astroturfing? Is the point merely to link SOSA with Bush and/or industry? And who criticized it for such bias?

• Is is the point to make the article imply that SOSA is pro-industry? If so, why not just say it up front, in the SOSA article, like this:
  • SOSA is a pro-industry organization which campaigns for X (or against Y). A called it a "front group". B attacked it for astroturfing.

But it's not a good example for an article about astroturfing in general, if we only report charges against it. (Don't tell us, show us, eh?)

Whether it's used as an example which supports the Astroturfing article, or simply gets merged into the Save Our Species Alliance article, it still needs a lot of work.

I'm spending much more time talking about how to fix it, than fixing it myself because there are dozens of articles with similar weaknesses. I'd like us to work together to fix them up the same way. Well, it's getting late here, so, "Cheers!" --Uncle Ed 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All the information you ask for is in the article linked in the text. Unless you have a denial from Wigley or similar, there's no dispute about the facts. Please check this kind of thing before blanking/tagging. If you have problems with the link, raise it. In the meantime, I've restored the deleted section.JQ 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the answers to my questions are only in the externally-linked article, then just put SOSA in a list of groups "considered by some" as engaging in astroturfing. Like this:

Other examples:

• Save Our Species Alliance [3]

The way it is now, the passage raises more questions than it answers. It it contains weasel words, which is against the Wikipedia:Avoid using weasel words guideline. Please shorten it as suggested, or fix the weasel-worded parts as requested above. Simply putting it back in, warts and all, is hardly a service to our readers. --Uncle Ed 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation

Cut from article:

Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach," "awareness," etc.) and covert (disinformation) means.

The inclusion of "disinformation" goes beyond knocking its claim to represent the surging masses and accuses the campaign of lying - presumably about something more serious about whether it represents a groundswell. And what does "orchestrate" mean here? What are they trying to orchestrate, if not just their own hot air?

By the way, is it only anti-environmentalists who do astroturfing? How about anti-Bush riots overseas, which are government sponsored? Do those qualify as "fake grassroots" demonstrations of public opinion too? --Uncle Ed 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pot and kettle

Despite the impression given by this article, corporate groups aren't the only ones who indulge in astroturfing. Sorry this is only a blog entry, but I'm not as good at research as I'd like to be:

• Fenton practically invented "astroturfing". You might try a google search on fenton and Alar. You might remember the Alar apple scare where Fenton built a grassroots network of "concerned environmentalist" groups nationwide practically overnight. The finale was a 60 minutes piece on the dangers of Alar on apples. Nevermind that not a single person had ever been harmed.
• THANK YOU for shining light on this. I tried over a year ago to point out how Fenton Communications was orchestrating all of these antiwar groups/individuals and how people such as Dana Priest of the Washington Post had connections with many of these groups (Dana Priest through her husband connected to the Wilson/Plame issue and a Fenton client).
• Fenton Communications has been the driving force. One of their tactics is simple ... hijack an event, cause a spectacle, and become the focus to get the message out ... such as when Larry Johnson heckled Rumsfeld at a press conference (VIPS ... Fenton client) or when Sheehan disrupted a Democratic press conference. The idea is to steal the media eye and use it to get the message out. [4]

I like this passage because of the vivid phrase 'Fenton built a grassroots network of "concerned environmentalist" groups nationwide practically overnight.' Also, the link from the supposed groundswell to the 60 Minutes piece. Didn't this turn out to be a classic case of junk science? (Remind me to reread the Alar article tomorrow.) --Uncle Ed 03:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

In July 2006, an article by Vladimir Socor, a veteran analyst of east European affairs for the Jamestown Foundation, claimed that a report on Transdniestria issued by the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty, "State Sovereignty of Pridnestrovie (PMR) under international law", was a Russian-sponsored attempt at disinformation. A spokesperson for the organization, Megan Stephenson, has denied these charges.[6] Shortly afterwards The Economist published two articles highlighting the ICDISS's lack of a physical presence and its disinclination to provide independent verification of its activities and previous existence.[7] The Economist also reported that prominent academics cited as sources in the ICDISS report on Transdniestria disclaimed any connection with the organization. The Economist noted the Wikipedia entry for ICDISS created as part of the apparent disinformation exercise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.169.133 (talk)