6

Astroturf: PR’s Dirty Battleground

astroturf

If social media is the PR industry’s shiny new object, then fake-grassroots activities – known as “astroturfing” is its dirtiest open secret.

I’m embarrassed to say that I haven’t followed the policy details of the healthcare debate, yet. it’s driving me crazy. Not just the ballooning price of coverage for my employees. Or even the $4500 I spent on dental work…though I’m grinding my teeth just thinking about it. It’s the coverage and counter-coverage of massive fake-grassroots protests, and the fact that it’s routinely referred to as PR.

Of course, I mean the eruptions of emotion, even rage, by supposedly ordinary Americans at the Town Hall meetings about healthcare reform. Democracy in action, right? Free speech getting a workout? Maybe. But, connect the dots, and the outbursts seem a little staged. Often they’re managed by political operatives with a corporate or legislative agenda. Those innocuous-sounding citizen groups are nearly always funded by partisan organizations or corporate interests. Which is fine, as long as they’re legitimate, and we know exactly who’s getting their hands dirty down in the faux weeds. But too often, we don’t.

And, though it may seem minor in this context, the reputational impact on public relations makes me cringe. In MSNBC’s 10-minute segment about the firms and groups involved in the healthcare protests, they were dismissed over and over as “pure PR.”  If so, it’s the dark underbelly… huge, hidden, and when it pops up, really, really ugly.

There’s a big difference between legitimate grassroots mobilizing, and the synthetic stuff, I know.  And, I’ve worked with many lobbying and public affairs professionals who counsel their clients wisely and with integrity.  More importantly, this isn’t a partisan problem. No political party – or industry – has a monopoly on deception.  But, that’s precisely what bothers me. Faking it is so ubiquitous that even the watchdogs seem pretty powerless to do much about it.  The PRSA explicitly prohibits deceptive practices in its code of ethics, but how is the code enforced? Violators are subject to expulsion from PRSA. Does anyone think that’s a deterrent?

Call me naive, but I think it’s ironic that our industry obssesses about transparency, and regulators worry about Mommy bloggers who accept gifts, while millions are spent on subterranean tactics to change public opinion.  The only remedy I can think of, and the best reason for political and corporate interests not to engage in fakery, is that it’s so easily exposed….at least, I hope so.

The erosion of public trust in big media (and big government) that we blogged about so passionately following the death of Walter Cronkite may have a positive flipside. Everyone’s skeptical of just about everything today. I mean, even my 89-year-old mother knows a staged photo op when she sees one.

Still, it’s got to be someone’s job to try to unearth the truth, and that brings me back to the mainstream press. We need them, warts and all. We’d all better hope that those nonpartisan – or openly partisan, but skilled and honest – working journalists can keep on rooting out the real story, while those who engage in fakery will just dig themselves into a hole.

« | »
SHARE

Comments

  1. Evan B

    I think your point that regulators are focusing in the wrong areas is valid…why isn’t there a law against this kind of fake-grassroots marketing?

  2. Edward Bruce Williams

    Rachel Maddow has made announcing whom astroturf organizations are created for and funded by, even going through a level of lobbyist firms fronting for their clients, an almost regular segment of her show. This not only discredits the supposedly grass roots organizations but also anything touched by those lobbyist. When the ‘real people’ on the websites are shown on national TV to be images bought for $13.47 from an image service any credibility any organization involved may of had is gone, gone, gone.

  3. Dorothy Crenshaw

    Yes, but I wonder about those in the middle, who don’t watch Maddow or Fox. Propagating untruths (e.g., birther movement, death panels, etc.) isn’t new, particularly in politics. But, the Internet’s ability to perpetuate and grow those “myths” (to use a kind word) is deeply disturbing. I just read a piece in the New Yorker, “Rumor in the Age of Unreason” that touches on this, but the main point is that people with extremist opinions tend to feed off one another, resulting in a more polarized society. It’s here -http://tinyurl.com/yg3avpe
    Anyway, thanks for the comments.

Leave A Reply

  • (will not be published)

* Indicates required field

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>