Slashdot Mirror
PR Firm Behind Al Gore YouTube Spoof?
mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI. From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films."
So, he, uh, flew on a plane all by himself?
By the way, maybe you should go see "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a lot of needless Gore biography, but the major point is that we can reduce a lot of CO2 emissions WITHOUT changing our lifestyles. Instead we need to stop being cheap bastards (and stop glad-handing our corrupt and inefficient industries) and pony up for some simple investments and regulations (like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power).
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
This is a continuation of the oil industry and friends' campaign of "we can't argue the science anymore with out looking like morons, so we'll just call people names". It's like the bully in the school yard who knows he's wrong so he'll just kick and scream.
...no "real" person would've spent the time to make something so dumb.
You must not frequent youtube.
I keep hearing that statistic about his use of air fuel, but should he take a rowboat to China? You didn't see the movie probably- and I'm not saying anyone's "obligated" to do so. The message, however, as far as I can tell was very calm: This is a legit problem (spends a whole bunch of time on that- demonstrating things are a indeed bit amiss) but w/ some adjustments in efficiency and other areas this is a problem that does not need to be a problem. His presentation is not a call to abolish jetliners as we know it or make everyone get out and walk to work. At best, you could call him a hypocrite w/o any other way to get his ideas out yet. You make it personal (I guess as I'm doing w/ you right now) and miss the argument entirely- unable to weigh its merits. That last jab at 'ol Al for making that wacky statement that he invented the internet... check this out: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp But ignore all this, since you seem more interested in information from the "competitive enterprise institute" or the DCI Group- folks who like when they can get others to roll their eyes and dismiss new ideas.
Actually, DCI has ExxonMobil as a client.
The Moo went "Cow!"
The real troubling thing here is that major news outlets including The Wall Street Journal, ABC, and even our beloved Slashdot are playing right into the hands of Exxon, DPI, and whoever else is behind the video.
By reporting about this incident, these outlets are providing the video a vast amount of exposure that it otherwise would not receive.
I'd bet anything that WSJ didn't stumble upon this story randomly - someone at DCI surreptitiously helped them along because DCI knew that they could get media outlets to unwittingly distribute their propaganda.
And at the end of the day, it's still considered good PR for all parties involved - Exxon got their point out to millions of viewers, DCI got paid, and ABC/WSJ/Slashdot did a good job of uncovering the "truth" of the situation, which pleases their readers and viewers just as much as any other story.
All of this is just an elaborate game to get you to view an anti-Gore advertisement.
Sad that this is how the media works today.
I'm aware of the psychological roots of this method, but I still find it detestable. Instead of arguing like an adult, the oil firms reduce themselves to the political equivalent of taunting the guy who gets high grades and/or is knowledgeable about many subjects because he's a "nerd".
Come on, oil companies, argue bravely and responsibly. If you think Gore is wrong, show us the proof. Don't just close your ears and shout "la la la la, I'm not listening!"
My new blog
This is not 'public relations' or not 'lobbying' - this is PAID propaganda. And this particular one, is what is actually lying about some person to demean him/her - the owners of this firm need to be sued, and to hell that is, and should be expelled from public life.
This is NOT democracy. Anyone who tells that this is democracy, are probably other paid propagandists.
Read radical news here
"They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said.
There's an interesting assumption here: that the people criticizing Al Gore believe what he has to say but don't want to admit it - that Big Oil, Big Business, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, etc. are lying when they say that they don't think "global warming" is happening. Or alternately, that only the "little people" can have valid opinions on the subject.,/p>
How does that make sense? If I, as an average citizen, espouse the opinion "Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard", I am being honest, but once I do something like rise to the presidency of my company or amass more than a million dollars in personal net worth, suddenly a statement like "I think Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard" is disingenuous?
The big deal here is the dishonesty.
t m) from soldiers in Iraq, in local newspapers.
w s&id=31418), while it failed and ruined poor farmers (http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6737).
Trying to make it look as if there is a grassroot movement.
It's like the prefab letters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.s
It's like producing thousands of letters-from-the-public to look to be genuinely written by granny's. ("In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)
It's like writing that Indians will be oh so happy with GMO cotton (http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?action=fullne
That's LYING and CHEATING for profit. That's the problem.
There are wierder online PR things. See the Megaphone Desktop Toolbar. This is a piece of software designed to pump up pro-Israel responses in online polls and blogs. The toolbar pops up "alerts" when some central site sends them out. Nothing new there. But when it tells the user about a poll, the options are to vote their way, automatically, or not to vote at all. Site-specific scripts do the voting for you. Cute.
It is supposedly distributed on behalf of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That's a new development - government sponsored adware. But that may be a fake endorsement. The "gyius.org" site itself has a "cloaked domain", and the "standwithus.org" site with the endorsement has phony domain registration info. There's no real contact info for either. There's an EULA with no real company name, and mention of a remote update capability. So this may be some clever scheme to get people to install adware/spyware.
Somebody in the security business or the press really should chase this down. There's been an article in The Globe and Mail, but it's not about the technology.
If the article was just a link to the video, your post would be true. Someone would click the link, see the video and think that it was funny and (at a subconscient level) see Gore as a political who cannot be trusted (because the depiction of the video gets to the mind, even if realizing it is a joke, because it shows that people does not like him and are very vocal about it).
But if you link to this video while telling the whole story, then the user does not see a video mocking Gore, he/she sees a video created to deceive them, created by a firm and falsely posted as Jhon Doe... as the receptiveness of the people changes, the thing that they see differs completely.
Why can't
What's new here is whether we let them get away with it. "It" being the use of negative campaigning as a means to deceive the uninformed audience.
There is opportunity here to inform the cow-like public that they are being manipulated by assholes. US elections have become a race among liars and crooks. Time to demand better, partly by taking responsibility for one's own role in the process.
If enough of us take the time to care about the social quality of the candidate, we can have a system of honest, compassionate, competent people who are in it because they want us all to do well. A rising tide floats all boats: the greater the common good (ocean), the greater the individual good (your boat).
The only way to have long-term generational success is to ensure we make sure everyone has the opportunity for good health, good education, good standards, and good safety.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Try googling carbon-neutral gore, and hang your carbon filled head in shame. The man is more consistant and does more to act on his convictions than probably anyone here. (Of course if you still are buying the "invented the internet" misquote there's not much chance you're looking for real information.)
One thing I'm curious about though. What do you people who spout this non-sense think Gore's motivation is? Trying to drum up business for his fat-cat environmentalist friends that he's in the pocket of? Surreptitiously trying to destroy the United States, covert operative for The Terrorists that he is? Ah no, i remember now. Sorry, I'd forgotten the 2000 election smear campaign. He's just simply a raving lunatic (raving in a wooden, personality-less sort of way, that is, of course).
Sigh. Go see the movie. At least you'll have some idea what you're talking about then. (Of course it will do no good to mention that scientists, all except the one prominently being funded by the oil companies, seem to think the movie was pretty much, with just a few quibbles, completely accurate.)
Well, sorry to have bothered you. I'll let you get back to your stem-cell research now.
To make matters even more decetful, these rapist advertise everywhere, then argue that if we don't like it we can walk to work.
The oil companies aren't forcibly raping us. We're bending over, spreading our cheeks, and taking it without lube from them!
We drive unnecessarily huge, inefficient cars. We live in comparatively big houses which are often poorly designed (read: no passive solar heat in winter, no convection ventilation in summer) even if well insulated. We oppose the construction of new nuke and hydro power plants: not in my backyard! We commute to work by car from 40 or 50 miles away. We don't complain when our employers put up a new headquarters in the middle of nowhere. We haven't electrified our railroads in order to move freight without using oil.
This isn't rape. This is a consensual masochistic activity on the part of the US.
-b.
There are many people out there who 'walk the walk'. However, you are never going to hear from them because they live frugally on their farms and don't have access to the media that Gore does.
Yes, Gore is a politically active member of the American upper class. Like most other members of the American upper class, he uses lots of energy. Unlike them, however, he also works to get the message out about global warming. In return for his hard work, he gets called a hypocrite, while his equally energy-using do-nothing peers all skate by without a second look. No good deed goes unpunished, of course... but I for one am glad that someone with the resources to make a real difference also has to balls to do so -- even if it does mean taking flack from the peanut gallery.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I agree. The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general. This has been profusely documented.
What's surprising is if this can be linked directly to the Republican Party. After all, we know they worked many ways to undermine the last two national elections, but a direct link to dirty tricks like this would be hitting an all-new low. (As if cooking elections isn't low enough.)
These people pretend to be someone else while they snipe at Gore and his movie. They don't debate or argue his claims, they don't find fault with his methods or supporters-- it's pure assassination, and they do it from hiding.
If you're sure you want to draw a lesson here, please do. I suspect you're too busy cheerleading to do so.
I love the head-in-the-sand morons who deny reality. Just keep repeating the Big Lie, like our moron-led government does now about so many things, like the WMD idiocy. And "9/11" has gone from a tragedy for a few thousand people, to an excuse to bankrupt the country, discard the US Constitution and Amendments, and move the USA from the most-admired to the most-loathed country on Earth. This is not just bombast, I travel overseas about half the time, if you go around starting wars for no reason, and deny obvious facts like manmade global warming, people tend to mistrust/hate you. What a surprise!
War is Peace. Hate is Love. Oil Companies are a LOT richer than they were 5 years ago. All is well.
I dislike arguing against a position unless I completely understand that point of view (Hell, if I don't completely understand a point of view, how do I know it's not correct?).
_ Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png for one example). This rising is far above the usual cyclic fluctations due to ice age cycles (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbon _Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png).
u mental_Temperature_Record.png).
So can one of the climate change skeptics around here tell me exactly which stage of the following logical chain it is you disagree with? Who knows, you might even convert me if your argument is convincing.
One. It is fact that burning fossil fuels gives out carbon dioxide. The amount can be calculated from the amount of fossil fuels burned. This goes into the atmosphere, and since the rate at which the World's fauna is converting this back into Oxygen is reasonably static (or even decreasing, since we're cutting down vast amounts of the rainforest every year), the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will rise.
Independant confirmation of this is given by...
Alternative One. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are rising has been measured many times by laboratories around the globe (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/88/Mauna
Two. It is fact that greater levels of carbon dioxide lead to greater trapping of the Sun's energy. This is settled science, and can be independantly confirmed by anyone with a cylinder of carbon dioxide, a temperature probe, and an inquiring mind.
Three. Greater trapping of the Sun's energy will lead to a reasonably predictable rise in global average temperature. The calculation is not hard once you know the relevant specific heat capacities. Again, should the logical chain not be enough, there is independant confirmation of this from temperature stations around the globe, which fairly closely matches predictions made using the previous links in the chain (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/f/f4/Instr
Four. It is fact that water expands when heated. The calculation is, again, easily performed, and will lead to a rise in sea level, which will cover predictable parts of the world, especially affecting places like Bangladesh (where large areas of the country are less than one meter above sea level). The rise in temperature will also lead to the glaciers receding, and higher sea temperatures will also increase the number and severity of hurricanes. Ocean currents will also be affected, severely changing the climate in parts of the world which depend on them.
Climate change sceptics are happy to look at the predictions of that last point and say that it's rubbish. But when I look at the points, I see a reasonably watertight chain of logic. So which point are you disputing?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
>I for one find the whining about fossil fuel burning and climate change to be the same sort of sad, illogical drone as that emanating from Kansas on the topic of evolution.
n _Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png). Ice age CO2 fluctuations are historically between 180 and 270 ppmv; it is now 385. As you'd have known if you'd read my original post and at least attempted to answer it, which you clearly haven't.
8 57240
In this, I entirely agree with you. However, you seem to be a bit confused as to which way round the analogy works. In Kansas, all the scientists are united on one side (evolution) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the Bible doesn't support it). With the climate change debate, all the scientists are united on one side (climate change exists) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the oil companies will make less profit if people start to try and combat it).
Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to. Pick up ANY scientific journal -- Nature or Science are rather dense for non-scientists, so try New Scientist or Scientific American or any one of countless others. Attend scientific conferences. Go to lectures. Look at the graphs. Read the reports produced by any of the major scientific bodies, either US-based or international. Or the G8. Or the UN. They all say the same thing.
>The inability for the reader to understand the science means that magical forces must be at play.
The ability of someone to igonore all debate, evidence, and logic in favour of mechanically asserting that they are right certainly exists, but is more psycological than magical.
The simple fact is the sun is a variable star. The earth has been both hotter and colder than it is currently, all without the intervention of man.
True, it's called the ice ages (incidentally, it's not yet considered settled that the cause of them is the variability of the sun). However, the problem is that the current changes are far above the usual cyclic fluctations due to ice age cycles (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbo
Lets remember that you get what you pay for. Pay for a bunch of yes men academics to produce papers saying what you want isn't the same as real science.
Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? No-one stands to benefit in the least. Are these strange people paying the entire, vast scientific community around the world? Is this some sort of global consipracy?
Don't be ridiculous. The academic papers are being produced by scientists trying to bring the issue into the wider understanding. If you want an example of people paying to produce material on a side of the issue, I suggest you consult TFA.
The one thing you still seemingly refuse to do is answer my original post. In case you can't find it, it's still at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193278&cid=15
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
"Political TV ads always have to say who paid for them. I don't see how a video posted to youtube would be any different."
"The best PR goes unnoticed" is apt in this case. PR firms wouldnt survive if you knew who paid them.
Read this for more information about how PR companies shape America.
In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83
Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84
At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Absolutely. Amen to that.
While republican pundits and gop congressmen were tearing their own shirts in self-righteous indignation over the result of an $80 million investigation over real estate deals (a stained blue dress), the rest of the world didn't snicker at Clinton's peccadilloes, they in fact snickered at "the ridiculousness of those american prudes, so hung up about sex".
And then, the ringleader of the impeachment movement, Newt Gingrich, resigned his post on the eve of Larry Flynt publishing in Hustler the nine extramarital affairs Gingrich had been involved in during the previous twenty years.
And then, Gingrich's replacement, Robert Livingstone, who promised to continue the good fight for morals, integrity and decency, withdrew when Mr. Flynt uncovered one of his extramarital affairs.
And then, the largest mouthpiece against Clinton's sins, thrice-divorced comedian Rush Limbaugh, is caught with industrial quantities of OxyContin and, later, unprescribed Viagra while returning from a caribbean vacation.
These hypocritical imbeciles are seen as 'martyrs' and/or 'heroes' in republican twisted family values circles, while Clinton is viewed as The Devil Himself. Yeah, right.
What many people do not get is that Clinton did not parade a stained blue dress in front of all the american public, children included, republicans did. Clinton did not flaunt and wave the image of a soaked cigar in front of the american public, republicans did. And then they tore their shirts in moral indignation at how the minds of children are being poisoned with decadence and depravity.
Under republican so-called standards of decency:
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and that would be Bill Clinton.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
First of all you are mixing modern "liberal" phrases with a time in our country that jsut does nto add up. You analogy is not very good.
Slavery was never a very good way of doing business. I wrote a paper in college breaking down the economics of slavery and let me tell you it was not that profitable. Depending on the era the slave was bought (import of new slaves was outlawed before slavery was abolished but smugglers still got them into the country) a young male slave would often cost from $40,000-50,000 in 2006 dollars.
Over the course of their lifetime they would produce enough goods to make it worth their original expensive but there were complications. Slaves would run away, get sick, die early, or be injured. Also minor sabotage was very common such as slaves intentionally using their hand tools incorrectly in order to break them (one example is while they were turning soil if they found a rock with their hoe they might break their tool over the rock and claim it was just an accident). Very few people ever afforded to buy slaves with cash and almost 100% of slave owners were in debt due to the loans for buying slaves.
So why did the south want slaves so much if it not only did not produce a good profit and also put them into debt? The answer is that the slave owners were building a way of life. They did not only care about their bottom line which is a business is run today. The slave owners were setting up and maintaining a society where the whites where at the top and even if they were not technically rich on paper they had a comfortable lifestyle living off the work of slaves. Even if someone was never able to pay off their debt they were trying to enter the plantation class which was actually a very small number of people. The poor whites defended the slave owners because it was the dream of many people to eventually become a plantation owner.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep