Slashdot Mirror
The Software Big Oil's PR Firm Uses To "Convert Average Citizens"
merbs writes The CEO of the world's largest PR firm has a policy when it comes to campaigns that focus on the environment. "We do not work with astroturf groups and we have never created a website for a client with the intent to deny climate change," Richard Edelman wrote in a blog post in August. That may actually turn out to be true. Technically. Edelman may not work with astroturf groups. Instead, it appears to prefer to build them itself, from the ground up, using sophisticated proprietary software platform designed to "convert" advocates and then "track" their behavior.
Their job is to lie by saying things that may be true, technically. (At least when they're dealing with entrenched interests working against the public good to maximize profit.)
Ah yes, and the conspiracy theorists come out to play. Last week it was evil scientists trying to hurt poor ol' Big Tobacco. The week before it was evil scientists trying to kill God with evolution and old EArth geology. The week before that it was evil old scientists trying to move the Earth from its lauded position at the center of the Universe.
Evil scientists one and all! We should fucking kill all of them, and promote views that square exactly with your ideological leanings. Science is evil and must be destroyed!
Does that sum up your position?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is the same thing that every company big enough to do public relations at all does, except it's being described using inflammatory terminology.
Does the same. They hire the same sort of people, pay the same sort of money, and use the same tactics (and many worse ones).
Except they're getting all whiny because it's not working for them on the Keystone XL thing, so they're trying the old "those evil, mind-controlling oil companies" story on a different class of public relations targets.
I recall reading something a few years back (but I can't find a link, so take this with a grain of salt) where Amazon was reported to have or at least claimed to have very high employee satisfaction and/or safety. However, the only reason they do so is because the vast majority of their warehouses are staffed and managed by third parties, who work their employees quite hard for low wages. Because it's the third parties that do the hiring and management, technically they aren't Amazon employees, and so aren't included in metrics (internal or external.)
I'm sure other companies have spouted the truthy line of "We do not astroturf" (because we hire third party marketing companies, tell them simply to "improve our image", and they astroturf for us.) This seems like another type of that shell game, where they say "We do not astroturf (the software we buy from companies to improve our image astroturfs for us.)"
How long until they start hiring botnets to generate pseudo-random favorable posts? "We do not astroturf (the hackers we found on craigslist get the internet to astroturf for us.)"
While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue...guess how many renewable energy companies are on that list). The other side does a lot of it's work with token research budgets. There is absolutely an underdog in this fight.
I think you'll fined it's technology A (dirty fossil fuels that seriously kill people) versus technology B (only slightly more expensive clean, healthy renewables that kill far fewer), not technology versus no technology.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science. Skepticism has its place, but only if it is informed. What Forbes publishes is hardly informed skepticism, and even its toy climatologists like Roy Spencer are notable for the fact that their bought-and-paid for skepticism never actually enters the published literature. Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his (microbiology). They make a very loud skeptical sound in the press, but when it comes to actually doing science, oddly their published record is in the mainstream.
Maybe the problem here is that you're too bloody infantile to accept that the universe doesn't give a fuck about your political and economic ideology.
And before you accuse me of being some commie greenie, well let me educate you. I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative. What I'm not is a pathetic man-child who stomps his feet and declares "that science makes things difficult, it must be wrong!!!!!"
Grow the fuck up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And yet there are crises that only governments can solve. War is an awfully good example.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Um, since when was skepticism the foundation of science? Repeatability of observations and utility of prediction are the foundations of science.
Hmmm... Why do we repeat and VERIFY findings by others? Why don't we just take the word of anyone who claims anything? It's called "skepticism". The whole core of the scientific method is to not simply take a person's word at face value, but to see if you can repeat what they claim independently before accepting the claim. That's scientific skepticism and is really expected of anyone in any research/scientific/engineering role. Show your work, show your data, allow others the opportunity to examine and repeat as needed to quell their own skepticism.
Grow the fuck up.
Given the nature and non-sequitur nature of the rest of your screed, I might suggest you try it yourself...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his
There may be more similarities between the two: Spencer concluded that the "theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution". He also claimed that science had "hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer". - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
He is signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that dismisses climate change because “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”
"So now convincing people of your point of view is astroturfing? Nice try.
.. Computer viruses or other destructive programs may also be inadvertently downloaded from the web site.'
No, using false front organizations to promote fake grassroutes movements, then accusing the other fella of doing same - now that is astroturfing!
--
'Due to technical difficulties inherent in the Internet
There's another effect. That is that the one side is already doing something pretty evil, and they know it. That makes it easier for them to be evil in their PR activity too. If you've decided to root for the bad guys for some reason, you're probably not going to worry about fighting clean.
It's no coincidence that astroturfing really took off with the tobacco industry.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.