June 08, 2005
Deceiving Us Has Become an Industrial Process
The post title is a quote from this Making Light post from the end of 2004. It concerns an organization called Common Good, who purport to be a grassroots organization "dedicated to changing what it calls the lawsuit culture." But in actuality they're a corporate front group - they're astroturf.
Josh Marshall is currently beating the drum against Koch Industries and their various outfits, who are staging some protests around the Rock the Vote awards ceremony tonight. And reading his comments I was bowled over by the number of astroturf groups involved in this little network. You've got Social Security for All, who are actually Americans for Prosperity, who are actually the Independent Women's Forum (Do the math yourself, really)
Then there's Citizens for a Sound Economy (now merged with Empower America to become Freedom Works, flaming sword sold separately). They share a good deal with all the above groups. Interestingly, they also had a hand in my last post's topic, lobbying for the tobacco companies going back to 1994.
And that's just the groups involved with this Social Security protest shindig today. The bizarre advocacy network the government has worked up for No Child Left Behind is probably more famous, if only for it's eventual involvement with Armstrong Williams and the illegal fake-news blocks the Bush administration put out promoting its Medicare, drug control and NCLB initiatives. (The administration shows every sign of continuing these practices.)
The Medicare and Armstrong parts of this saga are run through a PR and marketing firm named Ketchum, Inc.. An internet campaign was also mounted through Democracy, Data & Communications, a company with a breathtaking record in the astroturf world. A quick WHOIS/nslookup investigation turned up oodles of DDC fronts. [detailed list to follow] Their client list is also pretty impressive.
Harking back to Common Good for a moment, it seems tort reform, as a movement, is entirely concocted from corporate lobbying fronts. All those stories about wacky lawsuits and outrageous settlements? Lies. (Really, read the whole Making Light article.)
Social Security, tort reform, the drug war... looking through all this, I have to wonder - how many of my opinions about my world are bought and paid for?
As the name implies, one of my original purposes in creating this blog was epistemological. I want to find and promote the best means of determining fact from fiction. Astroturf groups are going to come up pretty frequently, I think. Stay tuned next time for, "When is an astroturf group not astroturf?"
Posted by ben at June 8, 2005 09:39 PM
Comments
If you're not already familiar with Phil Agre, and his Red Rock Eater News Service, I think you'll find his work interesting. He's been on this same beat for years now, and he keeps track of massive amounts of data.
Start here: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/
Posted by: Teresa Nielsen Hayden at June 10, 2005 11:59 AM
This subject fascinates me. A while back while browsing through the SourceWatch wiki (www.sourcewatch.org) and decided to start tracking a front group using Google News.
I chose the Heartland Institute more or less at random. It's not really an "astroturf" group per se. But it does hold itself out to be independent and "academic" when in reality it's sole purpose is to launder money from big corporations into "objective" analysis. It's hardly a coincidence, for example, that it's positions on such subjects as municipal-owned wireless networks and global warming coincide with those of primary funders Verizon and ExxonMobil.
I was astonished to see how pervasively this relatively small and obscure organization has inserted itself into the public debate. Heartland "fellows" have turned up as sources in dozens of stories across the country, from the New Haven Register to the Chicago Tribune. It's fellows have authored dozens of white papers on everything from school vouchers to health care.
Heartland is usually referred to as a "think tank" or, rarely, as a "libertarian think tank." But in all the stories I've read not once has there been mention of its funding sources (Heartland is very touchy about the subject, and refuses to disclose precisely who its funders are and how much they give - most of what's known comes from corporate tax reports).
While I haven't conducted an exhaustive review of the content produced by Heartland, I think it's safe to say a good deal if it is ideologically driven and factually challenged - as one expert descovered here: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_sock_puppets.html
Recently I began e-mailing reporters, curious as to how they came to use Heartland as a source of information and whether they're aware of its conflicts of interest and factual sloppiness. This response was typical:
"I'm aware of the Heartland Institute's reactionary take on environmental and other issues. This is why I called them. I needed someone who would question global warming to add an opposing view point, however silly. If I'd had more time I could probably have found a intelligent bona fide expert who doubts climate change, or that it is caused by humans. This would have been difficult, however, because not many people still believe that. So you can chalk it up to deadline pressure and/or laziness."
That's from a "science" reporter. I learned subsequently that Heartland mails newsletters on a range of topics to thousands of reporters, as well as every state legislator in the Midwest (it's based in Chicago).
Sigh.
Posted by: Grant at June 11, 2005 03:50 PM