Talk:Astroturfing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Content moved here for discussion

The following content from the article has several problems:

• The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has ferried supporters of an expanded government role in healthcare into town hall meetings. SEIU has also financed ads in support of more government involvement in healthcare using money from the drug lobby PhRMA without disclosing the relationship. Health Care for America Now (HCAN) has a budget that, at $80 million, is worth ten times over the budget of FreedomWorks, and the organization has a systemic connection with major labor unions such SEIU. A FreedomWorks spokesperson has accused HCAN of astroturfing, which a HCAN representative has denied. Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for Republican House member John Boehner, has denounced what they see as these astroturfing measures.

First, the KXMC source is a blog, and a disclaimed one at that:

Disclaimer: This article is a blog post and does not represent the views or opinions of Reiten Television, KXNet.com, its staff and associates and is wholly owned by the user who posted this content.

Second, this article is about Astroturf, not openly corporate-sponsored efforts and front-groups. Even the cited sources are questioning what qualifies as astroturf or not, yet the above paragraph conveniently omits that. Third, statements in the above paragraph are written as if factual, when they are merely accusations and opinions of individuals. Deceptive. Fourth, some of the content just plain isn't in the cited source. Take the statement that Ferrier has denounced something; not according to that source. She quoted a memo to House Democrats, and denounced nothing. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, in that, although I believe that what the first sentence alleges is astroturfing, it is cited by a distinctly unreliable source. The subsequent sentences is where the section starts being just one org giving aid to another. And furthermore, I am getting 'URL not found' messages from the latter citations. I support the deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

a disclaimed one I did not see that, my mistake.

this article is about Astroturf, not openly corporate-sponsored efforts and front-groups Which are the same thing according to most people, although some others disagree. You're correct that the paragraph did not mention that, but wouldn't the solution be to mention the debate in a sentence rather than delete the paragraph?

factual But they are factual. They are facts, not opinions. HCAN has a budget that is ten times bigger than FW. This is not controversial. In the article, one person states this fact and the HCAN spokesperson does not dispute it. SEIU partners with big corporations to run ads that don't mention where the money comes from. This is fact. The Squicks (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If the reliable-source makes the statements, we have to assume they may be factual. If the reliable-source claims that So-and-so made the statement, the only assumed fact is that So-and-so said something. We can't assume what he said is factual. Here is what the source said:

HCAN is “supposed to be this grass-roots effort and it’s funded by $80 million, and you look at their members and it’s all unions,” said Brandon. “They have 10 times our yearly budget, and they’re organizing buses with their members — and these guys have the nerve to call us Astroturf?”

As you can see, the journalist didn't say what size HCAN's budget is; Brandon of FreedomWorks did. It may be a fact, of course, but until a reliable source presents it as a fact, it doesn't get represented that way in a Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, whether or not these facts qualify as Astroturf is a matter of opinion- you are completely correct. But the opinions are notable (as are the facts). That's why the paragraph read: A FreedomWorks spokesperson has accused HCAN of astroturfing, which a HCAN representative has denied. It did not state that HCAN 'is astroturf. The Squicks (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

• In August 2009 groups on both sides of the health care debate were accused of astroturfing. Both FreedomWorks and Health Care for America Now were accused of astroturfing though on opposite sides of the issue.[27] Newsweek magazine has stated that FreedomWorks has issued instructions and tactics on "how to make the demonstrations look homegrown".[28]

In my opinion, it does not make sense to leave out what specific actions were argued to be astroturf. It also does not make sense to leave out who made the allegations in the first place. FW stated some things, and HCAN stated some things. This paragraph sould be expanded. The Squicks (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to somewhat agree. When I tried to correct it by putting in who made the allegations, based on the cited source, I discovered those first two sentences were not accurate. I'm fixing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that what you have done is take an NPOV section (details of the astroturfing by both sides) and then you made it completely POV (only attacking the conservatives). Where is all the information about the alleged astroturfing done by the liberal side? The Squicks (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The section currently reads=

• In August 2009, FreedomWorks, a corporate and individual-funded conservative political activist organization, played an instrumental role in organizing health care reform protests at a large number of Democrat legislators' town hall meetings. Health care reform proponents have labeled FreedomWorks' efforts as "astroturf", because they use millions of dollars in corporate funding to support conservative "tea party"-style protests.[7][29] Newsweek has stated that the organization has issued instructions and tactics on "how to make the demonstrations look homegrown".[29] A FreedomWorks representative disputes the classification of this as 'astroturfing', saying, "there always needs to be some kind of organization — we provide the organizational backbone."[7]

• In August 2009, Health Care for America Now, a union and individual-funded liberal political activist organization, organized health care reform proponents in those same town hall meetings. FreedomWorks has labeled their activities as astrofturf, which their representative disputes. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a pro-reform labor union, has been accused by right-wing groups of ferrying paid operatives into town hall meetings. SEIU denies the allegations. SEIU, along with the drug lobby PhRMA, has financed ads in support of more government involvement in healthcare without disclosing their relationship in the ads. The Public Relations Society of America has criticized this as dishonest. The the senior vice president at PhRMA, Ken Johnson, has countered that its publicity effects are completely "transparent".[7]

Either the article should include the criticisms of both sides, or it should avoid criticism. One-sided criticism is simply not acceptable. Note: Both paragraphs are reliable sourced and differentiate between statements by people (such as Health care reform proponents have labeled and FreedomWorks has labeled) verses facts (FreedomWorks, a corporate and individual-funded conservative political activist organization, played an instrumental role in organizing health care reform protests and Health Care for America Now, a union and individual-funded liberal political activist organization, organized health care reform proponents). The Squicks (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I did was return a specific, cited example to the example section, and removed the non-specific "Oh yeah, well the other side does it too!" wording from it, because it did not provide a specific, cited example. I don't think anyone objects to having specific examples of astroturfing done by liberals added to that same section, too, if they are cited properly.

The only source cited for the previous version was the Politico article by Ben Smith. In it, he specifically describes some cases of astroturfing (see Bonner & Associates), but as for the health care debate, he only describes a "he says, she says" between FreedomWorks and HCAN, without confirming specific astroturfing examples -- and then goes on to explore the definition of astroturfing. Also note, I didn't remove the content that states groups all across the spectrum utilize tactics that can be considered astroturf -- I just moved it to the techniques section. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ben Smith article describes a "he says, she says" situation on both sides. Whether or not FW is astroturf is an allegation made by some people. Whether or not HCAN is astroturf is an allegation made by some people. They're both at the same level. Thus, either both claims should be reported or neither of them should be reported. The Squicks (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We can break this down into part by part=

In August 2009, Health Care for America Now, a union and individual-funded liberal political activist organization, organized health care reform proponents in those same town hall meetings. and In August 2009, FreedomWorks, a corporate and individual-funded conservative political activist organization, played an instrumental role in organizing health care reform protests at a large number of Democrat legislators' town hall meetings. These are objective facts noted by Smith.

Health care reform proponents have labeled FreedomWorks' efforts as "astroturf" and FreedomWorks has labeled their activities as astrofturf/a pro-reform labor union, has been accused by right-wing groups of ferrying paid. These allegations are claims and not factual at all, but they are notable (all of them are cited to Smith). The same thing is true for Newsweek's editorial criticism of FW and the Public Relations Company's criticism of HCAN. The Squicks (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Newsweek article specifically says (and they are not quoting someone from one of the involved organizations) FreedomWorks has astroturfed in the past. Please show me an equivalent statement, not an accusation, from a reliable source about HCAN, SEIU, etc. Give me a reason not to remove that entry from the examples section. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What? Editorial criticism by a writer for Newsweek's online network is just another allegation. It's not a statement of fact. The Squicks (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect. It is a news article from a reliable source, written by Daniel Stone, Brian No and Jeremy Herb, and appears in their online news section (not the blogs). My question remains: Please show me an equivalent statement, not an accusation, from a reliable source about HCAN, SEIU, etc. Give me a reason not to remove that entry from the examples section. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And Smith did write= The town is paved with Astroturf. In the health care debate, well-financed conservative groups battle well-financed unions to get their members to the head of the line at the town halls of hapless members of Congress. The Squicks (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "well-financed" does not an astroturf make. MichaelLNorth (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"well-financed" does not an astroturf make But that's exactly the definition of astroturfing according to Smith (which is why he titled the darn article 'Summer of AstroTurf' in the first place). The Squicks (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The title does not convey Smith's definition of astroturf. Please cut & paste "exactly the definition of astroturfing according to Smith" here, please. If you can find one, and if you want to save some time - because this will be my next question - please show where in the article that definition is applied to HCAN, SEIU, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if that article is not good enough than I will find another one. The Squicks (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Health Care for America Now" section

• In August 2009, Health Care for America Now, a union and individual-funded liberal political activist organization, organized health care reform proponents in those same town hall meetings. FreedomWorks has labeled their activities as astrofturf, which their representative disputes. TheService Employees International Union (SEIU), a pro-reform labor union, has been accused by right-wing groups of ferrying paid operatives into town hall meetings. SEIU denies the allegations. SEIU, along with the drug lobby PhRMA, has financed ads in support of more government involvement in healthcare without disclosing their relationship in the ads. The Public Relations Society of America has criticized this as dishonest. The the senior vice president at PhRMA, Ken Johnson, has countered that its publicity effects are completely "transparent".

I'm placing this here until proper sources, per the discussion above, can be found. Right now it's a hefty list of facts with one source that simply asserts that HCAN is well funded, and that FreedomWorks has alleged that their counter-protests are astroturf. The freedomworks section needs more sources as well, but at least there you have two sources from two different publications, and the explicit use of the word "astroturf" to describe campaigns and events. One article from one reporter does not warrant the inclusion of the above paragraph. MichaelLNorth (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A hefty list of facts from a credible publication already used as a source for at least one other example is more than adequate; 5 of the 8 examples currently under the same section as well as the majority of examples cited in the entire article have only one source. In regards to your other objections, the source does more than 'simply assert that HCAN is well funded,' noting that the backers consist of parties trying to influence the legislation at issue and that their participation is being concealed. More on point, it contains a statement from a HCAN PR rep asserting that the groups 'are totally grass roots,' which is inconsistent with the facts cited in the article. Finally, it should be noted that these groups are the source of many of the allegations against FW; failing to disclose that they are themselves fronts for special interest groups (and with a much, much higher budget) seems disingenuous at best. Given these facts, I see little reason to excise what appears to be the only listed example of astroturfing by a left-wing group in the US in the entire section; it's imbalanced enough as it is. I'm restoring it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.109.213 (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Find independent, reliable sources. Otherwise we've NPOV and OR problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unions?

Ya Unions. Look at the propaganda that was published in 1970s Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article is very biased against conservative activism. While anything that looks like it might have some measure of organization behind it (tea party protests, Brooks Brothers) there is not a single instance of leftish activism that has that same standard applied to it. The anti-war protests in 2003 were organized and funded by International ANSWER and other groups, who even provided the transportation. Code Pink has been behind a number of protests. MoveOn.org has organized ant-war protests. None of that qualifies as astroturf? When ACORN paid people, bused them in, and gave them pre printed signs to protest in front of banking executives homes earlier this year, that wasn't astroturf? How blatant must it be for something on the left side to be considered astroturf? It seems all it takes is Rachel Maddow's speculation for something on the other side to get that label. I hope this article acquires a little balance.62.150.91.10 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you know, If its pro-democrat it's legitimate, if its pro-republican then its run by Fat Cat politicians and Big Business. It's not possible for people to naturally have opinions favoring those things. Seriously though, I have noticed that all of the examples of Astroturfing that are related to US politics are of Conservative or anti-democrat movements. The left DOES do this sort of thing, and they do it often. Hell, its what "Community Organizing" is all about. I would like to see alot more balance put into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.1.109 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this isn't even remotely balanced. I hope this article hasn't been taken over by a activist the way all the global-warming pages were. 69.129.36.50 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you may have some good examples if you can cite good sources. But I'm a little confused how MoveOn or Code Pink would be examples - aren't they member-funded organizations? I know you can dig up some good examples if you try - for example, look up the role of the Chinese government in getting the Black Panthers started; though that is a curious case where so far as I know the members really took over. You may even want to find a way to link in issues of counterinsurgency in this vein. But I'm not very good at conservativism - someone needs to develop this properly. Wnt (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ellie Light

TW has engaged in repeated vandalism of this article by removing a section about a nationwide astroturfing effort first uncovered by the Cleveland Plain dealer. Collections of links to the 65 newpapers who published pro-healthcare lettters by "Ellie Light" and other operatives linked to PR firms have been provided. The incident has been covered by Politico and several of the affected newspapers have already apologized. There is no reason to exclude this undeniable example of astroturfing other than partisan bias. If you dispute the neutrality of the edit eitther tag it pending resolution of the dispute or rewrite the entry (providing all relevant facts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.4.5 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Astroturfing effort?" Do you have a citation to a reliable source confirming that? Every source I've seen describes it as a "mass-mailing" of letters to many newspapers, but not astroturf (as in conducted by an organization disguising itself as Ellie Light). Of course, there are some theorists that speculate (read: desperately hope) there is astroturfing involved, but then there are folks that claim to have seen Elvis at the local convenience store, too.

If astroturfing is ever shown, and confirmed in a reliable source, then we can add it to this page. Continually adding the speculation to this page isn't going to make it come true. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The astroturf element comes from the claim to live in multiple cities. That makes it a deliberate attempt to deceive the editors into thinking this was local grassroots opinion when it was nothing of the kind. The fact that this happened of course does not mean the party that was being puffed had any connection to the campaign and it may even have been an attempt to discredit them. But unless and until Ellie Light comes forward we will not know the truth of the matter. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Claiming to live in multiple cities is not astroturfing. It's lying, and certainly not nice, but it has nothing to do with astroturf. If she signed each letter to the editor with a different name, then that would have been deliberate deception -- but she didn't. She spammed her opinion across the nation in numerous newspapers, and she claimed local addresses so that newspapers would accept her letters instead of reject them outright. (Many papers require a local address and phone number before publishing letters of opinion or letters to the editor.) As for "Ellie Light coming forward", she may have already - keep an eye on Ellie Light for more developments. Don't get your hopes up on seeing her name in this article, however. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's noteable that nary a single example of left-wing Astroturf is included in the political section. I added two examples yesterday and they were promptly undone claiming that Big Journalism is not a reputable source. There is no standard for sources which would exclude Big Journalism but include similar sites like Huffington Post. More importantly, the truth of the claims is self-evident to anyone who bothers to read the story and follow the links to the 70+ newspapers therein. This is not a matter of opinion or taking someone's word for it. Attacking the source amounts to a genetic fallacy. After going back and forth on this, another user shows up to claim these are not examples of Astroturf at all. Here's the intro to this article "Astroturfing denotes political...campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior." Having Organizing for America members send DNC scripted talking points (verbatim) to newspapers nationwide under their own names certainly fits the definition of fake grassroots. Now, it seems TW (who others were complaining about) is back and trying to remove these additions as well. The presumption of good faith wears thin. And I just noticed that the bullet point immediately following the two I added (Paul Krugman on "Too Big to Fail") is really citing Talking Points Memo. Someone want to explain how TPMuckracker is a credible source but Big Journalism is not? Captainhendry (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The two examples you added were removed because they were cited to the Big Journalism blog, not a reliable source, and because the OfA efforts described in those examples do not constitute astroturf. The BJ blog does not meet Wikipedia's required "reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" described by WP:RS policy; in fact, it has no reputation at all, since it isn't even six months old. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious omission

I thought the first really well-known and widely documented astroturfing campaign was that sponsored by the tobacco industry from the late 70s, under the banner of their "Social Costs/Social Values" project. But the first mention of tobacco is the rather ham-fisted fightback by the health lobby. Anyone know what happened there? Guy (Help!) 13:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment ---- Well sir, as I understand it, astroturfing is not just a claim of doing something for public benefit, but rather providing evidence that the public actually wants the thing you are promoting. This is demonstrated by showing a crowd of people in favor of your proposition when the crowd is paid let's say, or getting a large number of fake signatures in your favor, or getting real signatures but making them appear to represent more people than are for the proposition.

Fictional Examples Not Correct

The fictional examples did not reflect the use of the term as defined here. Delete them. The other examples need scrutiny too. One or two good examples go a long way in explaining the term. Every known occurance does not have to be put into an encyclopedia article.

In some of the examples that are cited, it is not clear the "astroturfing" took place. Mere alligations should be put into the Wiki. I also think that there isn't a sharp line when "astroturfing" is occurring and when it is not, but the opposition can always make allegations. To claim something is "astroturfing" is should be shown that propaganda has been carried out - that is some small truth has been made to appear much bigger than it is (that's propaganda) - not merely outright lies.

that is some small truth has been made to appear much bigger than it is (that's propaganda) - sorry but it isn't. It does not have to be a truth. But there is more here Propaganda if you are interested ;-)

By the way please sign your comments and it would be nice to propose it here before you delete whole sections without prior discussion. Thank you.Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion: Awful Term

I think this is an awful term - like jargon is in some techincal areas that is frowned upon. I see that in this article the authors are expanding it to all kinds of cases where it may apply tangentially or not at all. Please, let's not spread the nonsense word. Let it lie in the place where it came from. It would be even better to expunge it from the language. It is unncessary as we already have terms for what it represents, including "propaganda".

Hi, if it is an awful term or not is rather unimportant in wheter or not to have an article about it. The term is definitly used a lot. And yes it is a subform of hidden propaganda - and no it is not the same thing as propaganda. Just because there is an article about fruit does not imply to have no additional seperate articles about apples and bananas.

By the way please sign your comments and it would be nice to propose it here before you delete whole sections without prior discussion. Thank you. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity was added to the Political subsection of Recent examples [1]. While I see the connection, would it be better elsewhere? More refs would help, of course. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, here's the latest version of what no one else seems willing to defend:

• With the passage of health care reform, the organizational backing for anti-reform protests has largely evaporated, but Americans for Prosperity, founded in part by Koch Industries's Executive Vice President, David Koch, continues to seek issues. As of April 2010, Koch was chairman of the board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. AFP's North Carolina branch has a Web site called www.nctaxdayteaparty.com that encourages supporters to "contact Americans for Prosperity-NC with questions about throwing a Tea Party in your town! We are here to help (fund) you (to) have a great success!"

12.7.202.2 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

LULAC

(Also posted at Talk:League of United Latin American Citizens.) Various sources (examples) claim that LULAC is campaigning against net neutrality after receiving funds from AT&T (in other words, AT&T is allegedly using LULAC as part of an astroturf campaign). However, looking at these various sources, I'm not sure any of them could/should be cited (WP:V etc.). Has anyone seen a source for this that is (for example) an actual newspaper, news agency, etc.? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Organizing for America

Anon IP adds material about Organizing for America with sources that I, nor two other editors who have reverted the addition, believe are reliable. The sources cited are editorials, not reliable sources. If different wording is used, such as "According to blah blah," I wouldn't mind if it is included. Different sources would help as well. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I received a message telling me Im disrupting this article and pointed me to this talk page. Im not disrupting, I am fixing it. I checked the SOURCES given and I also agree they are not reliable except maybe the New York paper, but that source doesnt say anything about Astroturfing. The other sources link to some website Ive never heard of called Big journalism. This wiki has never heard of it either and directs me to some guys wikipage. OFA openly encourages citizens to engage in politics through letter writing to government people and papers, so there is no Astroturfing. Its not as if they were providing money or secretly paying people to push political memes. If the very active OFA was Astroturfing it would be in the news and not just on some guys blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readersclub37 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch the edit-warring, please.

From the edit summaries, there appears to be a strong concern that the blogger is not a reliable source for determining if this is indeed astroturfing. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Journalism is one of four sites owned and operated by new media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart is a former editor at Drudge and one of the founders of the Huffington Post. All of his sites including Big Journalism are run by full time editors. The editor at Big Journalism is Michael Walsh, a former writer for Time Magazine (16 years) who has also worked at the San Francisco Examiner and the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle. He has published 9 books, the last of which was on the NY Times bestseller list. This is not "some guy's blog." Other items in the same section are sourced to Talking Points Muckracker. If that is a credible source why isn't this? I would be happy to rewrite the additions using "according to..." if that would quell the controversy, but the facts in this case are not in question. The DNC talking points did appear verbatim in more than 70 newspapers (including Salon and the Boston Globe). As in the Ellie Light case, editors did not know they were publishing talking points from a single source. Captainhendry (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The content was removed for two reasons. First, the content added to the article doesn't qualify as examples of astroturfing, and second, because the content was cited to the non-reliable-source Big Journalism blog, as noted above. Yes, as described above, it is just "some guy's blog." It hasn't even been around for six months, so it certainly hasn't developed the required "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Wikipedia policy demands. As I noted in my edit summaries, additional sourcing would be required for such contentious content additions. If the content is accurate, then reliable sources should be plentiful. I'm not buying the distorted sales-pitch (above) that Michael Walsh, a music critic posing as an editor, lends any reputability to the blog.

The fact that supporters of the administration's policies sent letters to the editors, including various facts and talking points, does not indicate astroturfing. That is nothing more than tried and true letter-writing campaigning, and is just one of the several methods used openly and effectively by Organizing for America. Incorrectly calling it astroturf on a blog doesn't make it so. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know why the content was removed. Have a look at this long discussion page and it's obvious that the Astroturfing page has a bias problem. Many have noted the problem but nothing has been done to rectify it. Michael Walsh was a music critic and before that he was a reporter. He has a lifetime of experience in the business of professional journalism which qualifies him to be editor of an online news blog. The fact that the site is relatively new is a red herring. Politically liberal editors are always going to claim that conservative leaning sources aren't reliable. Their opinion is not grounds to exclude them any more than my low estimation of Talking Points Memo is grounds to remove that source. As mentioned twice already now, the facts are self evident. No one has been able to deny the facts so they attack the source instead. This is the genetic fallacy.

As for it not being Astroturf, here again is how the Wikipedia definition from the top of this very page reads "Astroturfing denotes political...campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular "grassroots" behavior." Question: Does this represent a formal campagin? A: Yes, it was announced by the President in the first case and the Vice President in the latter. Q: Was it planned by an organization? A: Yes, by the DNC. Q: Is it disguised as grassroots behavior? A: Yes. Editors at local papers aren't aware they are publishing scripted talking points written by the DNC as spontaneous, personal letters to the editor. As a rule, editors do not publish pre-scripted letters and would not publish the letters in question if they knew they were cut and pasted from DNC talking points. They don't know, which is the disguise element. This is why 70+ papers wound up publishing these. They were talking points disguised as personal letters. Now if all OFA did was encourage people to write letters, that wouldn't be Astroturf, just old fashion organizing. But by providing scripted talking points which then get published verbatim as personally written letters (in at least 72 cases), that is Astroturf. Here is a journalist at PBS discussing this practice on the right and left in 2006. This is Astroturf.

I will attempt to rewrite the additions as suggested above. I hope other users can see, as several editors have already suggest, that there is a bias problem plaguing this page. This is just the lastest iteration. Captainhendry (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The BJ source doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source, as noted by at least four different editors that have removed citations to it. There is no "red herring" about it. If you still disagree, I'd recommend posting a brief note at the Reliable Sources Notice Board asking for further input on the matter.

As for your assertion that the actions of OfA are "astroturf", the facts do not support your assertion. Your Q & A proof above falls apart when you suggest that newspaper editors are not aware that they receive letters containing talking points. Of course they do, and they have known it for decades since the advent of mass-media campaigning. Not just newspapers, but local and state representatives also are aware that they receive letters, emails, faxes and phone messages containing the facts and talking points espoused by the campaign machines of one particular political stripe or another. That isn't astroturf -- not even close. The "fact" that some lazy supporters cut&pasted some of those facts and talking points into their letters to the editors isn't an attempt to "disguise" anything as "grassroots". There is no astroturfing here. If there was, actual real journalists would be all over it. This is just a simple attempt to misapply a perjorative ("Astroturfing") to the routine campaign actions of the OfA. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I provided a link to a reliable outside source (PBS) which shows two "actual real journalists" repeatedly describing these cut and paste letter campaigns as "Astroturf." Note that this is precisely the sort of activity I cited in my edits on the main page. Also, the PBS piece directly contradicts the claim that editors know. In fact, most of the discussion in the piece is about how to better inform editors they are being used for Astroturf by these campaigns. Over and against the word of two professional journalists who have written about this problem we have...an unsupported opinion to the contrary? I think it should be clear which side of this argument has better support. Captainhendry (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You did add in an article link to PBS' MediaShift, with this edit, after I had started editing my response to you. While the discussion at that link does not specifically address the actions of OfA, the journalist in that discussion (Glaser) did give his opinion that "automatic letter generators on the sites of political advocacy groups" were a form of astroturf, "because it is a fake grassroots campaign orchestrated by political professionals who want the appearance of a groundswell of public opinion." The OfA doesn't use an automatic letter generator, doesn't automatically send the letters like the examples link in that article, and doesn't want "an appearance of a groundswell of public opinion" -- they want supporters to express their opinions, preferably in their own words (they even advise to that effect). Mastio, in that same article, gives his opinion that any influence by a political advocacy group on a letter-writer is too much, and he is welcome to his opinion -- but it is not widely held, even less so a half-decade later. I also see he has scrapped his "AstroTurf Project" that was based on his opinion. There is no indication that OfA's actions in any qualify as astroturfing. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First, there are two journalists in the discussion at the link above. Glaser has worked for PBS and Mastio is a former letter page editor for USA Today, which is where he became aware of the problem. Contrary to your description, the article discusses web based letter generators exactly like the one OFA uses:

Glaser: What about letters like the ones via MoveOn that mix the canned Talking Points with original commentary from the letter writers?

Mastio: Beyond the plagiarism, the fundamental issue is the hiding of the role of MoveOn or Focus on the Family. That is what deceives readers. It doesn't matter if the astroturf is 40% of the letter or all of it.

Note that, contrary to your characterization, Mastio does not say that any political influence is too much. In fact he uses a gun-owner analogy to say that PR firm involvement is fine so long as it is not handled in a deceptive way. What Mastio says is that any amount of deception is unacceptable. That is precisely what took place in the 72 cases documented at Big Journalism. I intend to rewrite my edits to the recent politics section and point to some of the specific letters at sites like Salon and the Boston Globe as sources. I will still reference the Big J piece, but will add the suggested "according to..." Captainhendry (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the the OfA web-based letter utility as far as being able to send a letter; I had to track it down on the website to confirm that it does indeed have a function to email a copy of your letter to the newspaper, but as I correctly stated it does not automatically generate a letter. Professionally crafted form letters requiring only a signature before sending seem to be what Glaser was complaining about. MoveOn now uses a utility that is very similar to the one that OfA uses, but I can't tell what was in use back in 2004, or if "canned talking points" were inserted into letters as part of their process. It certainly isn't a part of the OfA's process.

I did not mischaracterize what Mastio said; that is how I understood his comment: "...the fundamental issue is the hiding of the role of MoveOn or Focus on the Family. That is what deceives readers. It doesn't matter if the astroturf is 40% of the letter or all of it." His gun-owner analogy, by the way, does not indicate "PR firm involvement is fine so long as it is not handled in a deceptive way" -- his opinion is that it is okay to use a PR firm as long as the firm doesn't utilize the technology that enables ease of letter writing. He calls it unethical. A case could possibly be made against professionally-crafted form letters being signed and sent en mass without mentioning who wrote the letter, but that is not what OfA has done.

As I stated above, if the activities of OfA are to be included in this article, the content will need to be cited to reliable sources. The reason you are having trouble finding reliable sources claiming OfA is astroturfing is because they aren't. You, and your BJ article, fail to show any attempt at deception, the hallmark of astroturfing, by OfA. Just out of curiousity, I decided to follow some of the links from your BJ article that allegedly illustrate astroturfing or deception. The Herald Mail link doesn't show any. The letter to Salon doesn't show any, neither does the letter to Sioux City Journal. I see mention of the statistics on health care spending from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report, but there are only so many ways you can phrase simple numbers and dates while still maintaining accuracy -- and raising those facts certainly doesn't indicate astroturfing. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the discussion between Glaser and Mastio that, in 2004, the MoveOn.org letter generator was similar to the one used by OFA today. Hence Glaser's question: "What about letters like the ones via MoveOn that mix the canned Talking Points with original commentary from the letter writers?" Whether that is automatically added to a text field or cut and pasted from talking points in the sidebar, the result is the same. Local editors get letters full of talking points without being made aware of the source. Both Glaser and Mastio call this Astroturf and say it is deceptive. Mastio's comment was clearly aimed at deception as the problem not letter campaigns.

• It's quite clear from from the discussion that the issue was the appearance of, in 2004, identical letters, provided and written by MoveOn as several "sample letters", in various newspapers. The OfA does not provide pre-written letters, and recently MoveOn no longer does either, as far as I know. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please quote the section where they discuss "identical letters" from MoveOn.org. In fact, the word "identical" does not appear in the article, nor is the the gist of the discussion. In fact, in direct contradiction to your characterization, (as I've pointed out twice already) they are discussing MoveOn.org letters as an example of Astroturf where only a percentage of the letter is made up of pre-scripted talking points. They specifically mention 40%. In other words, 60% of the letters are not talking points, hence the letters are not identical nor did they ever suggest they were. Captainhendry (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please quote? Sure. The bold emphasis is mine: My informal Google searches netted 22 newspapers running these MoveOn form letters in July, including the San Diego Union-Tribune and The Boston Globe. In some cases, the pro-Moore form letters ganged up and dominated letters pages. The Boise (Idaho) Weekly ran all four MoveOn form letters on one day, the Santa Barbara Independent ran three, and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and Spokane (Wash.) Spokesman-Review both ran two. Also from the article, Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn, said: Some people submitted the sample copy, but the majority wrote it in their own words. There were 4 fully written form letters, called 'samples', in the MoveOn letter-writing tool, and some people mailed these identical sample letters to newspapers instead of writing their own. To Glaser's amazement, some newspapers even printed all four versions of the sample letters in their editorial section. In another article two years later, Glaser again refers to letters written by MoveOn and signed by individuals: When I was boiling in outrage recently over people plagiarizing canned copy with astroturf letters, a good friend of mine said, "I do it all the time when MoveOn asks me to. I don't see the problem with putting my name on words I agree with. I don't have time to write it myself, so I'd rather use their words than not do it." I think that's an opinion held by many who sign their names on automated letters..., and also, When I was railing about this astroturf phenomenon, a friend of mine said, 'Yeah, I've done that for MoveOn. I don't see the problem with it because I agree with what they're saying.' Mastio: When I first heard that, I was taken aback, because as a journalist, we just don't do that. The way you talk to someone like your friend is to say, 'If you knew that a letter to the editor was actually written by insert-advocacy-group-they-hate, would you feel like that's the right thing to do? As you can see, they were indeed discussing letters wholly written by MoveOn, and signed by the individual, instead of just the insertion of talking points, as I correctly noted above. Yes, Glaser does also ask Mastio his opinion on letters from MoveOn that are mostly original but also contain talking points (they used the 40% figure), and Mastio gave his opinion -- as I have previously noted above; he is welcome to his opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So some of the MoveOn letters were identical duplicates of the samples, however not all of them were identical since Mastio is asked "What about letters like the ones via MoveOn that mix the canned Talking Points with original commentary from the letter writers?" So thank you for finally acknowledging that this is indeed what MoveOn.org was doing and that Mastio clearly considers it Astroturf. I accept that you disagree. I'm still not sure why anyone would take your opinion to the contrary over that of a former USAToday letters page editor (not to mention PBS journalist Glaser). Captainhendry (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently MoveOn had resorted to its "old tricks" since some of the MoveOn letters were identical duplicates, and thus were called to the mat for it in Glaser's articles (and in many reliable sources) as astroturf. Yes, Mastio was also asked in one of Glaser's articles his opinion about letters "like the ones via MoveOn that mix the canned Talking Points with original commentary", and gave indication that he disapproved of any level of advocacy group influence on the letter-writer (see above). Yes, I have several times (see above) acknowledged that OfA and MoveOn are now using similar letter writing tools on their websites, but no, the tools themselves do not indicate astroturfing. You lost me as to what I agree or disagree with as far as what MoveOn has done in the past or does now. With the specific links to examples back in 2006 presently dead, there is apparently a bit of confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the gun-owner analogy. He does not say anything about "ease of letter writing." That is your characterization. What he is focused on again is unethical behavior, saying "if you employ a PR firm that's unethical -- even if the PR firm doesn't do anything unethical for you -- you are part of the problem." So again the issue isn't "ease" but "deception." The issue is Astroturf. Captainhendry (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Incorrect. You seem to have overlooked the paragraph leading into his gun-owner analogy, wherein he explains, "...there are consulting companies that provide the technology for doing this. So my next point of attack is to point out who these companies are and say, 'If you are someone who buys something from a plagiarism profiteer, you are part of it.' So I'm going to name big journalism outfits and big advocacy outfits that aren't doing this but are customers of companies that do." Yes, he is demonizing the technology (and the companies that provide it), not the deception, with his anology. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but you're simply wrong. Here is the full gun-owner analogy: "It's OK to be a gun owner, but you're contributing to the problem if you buy your gun from a place with a bad reputation, that's slipshod. So it's OK to employ a PR firm, but if you employ a PR firm that's unethical...you are part of the problem." Notice, exactly as I said before, he is not anti-PR firm. He specifically says it's okay to hire a PR firm. However he is anti-unethical PR firms. Ethics is the issue, not PR in general. So when he writes "there are consulting companies that provide the technology for doing this" the question is what does this refer back to. The answer if you read it in context comes from the question he was asked, i.e. this refers to Astroturf letters to the editor. To boil it all down...if you are doing business with a firm that provides technology for Astroturf, you're part of the problem. It's about ethics not technology.

• Apology accepted; and here is the full gun-owner analogy:

  Another angle on this...there are consulting companies that provide the technology for doing this. So my next point of attack is to point out who these companies are and say, 'If you are someone who buys something from a plagiarism profiteer, you are part of it.' So I'm going to name big journalism outfits and big advocacy outfits that aren't doing this but are customers of companies that do. I think a good analogy would be: It's OK to be a gun owner, but you're contributing to the problem if you buy your gun from a place with a bad reputation, that's slipshod. So it's OK to employ a PR firm, but if you employ a PR firm that's unethical -- even if the PR firm doesn't do anything unethical for you -- you are part of the problem. I'm hoping that that point of attack might make a company or two rethink participation.

  Notice, as I said before, that he is coming down on the providers of the automated letter-generation tools, as well as their customers -- if you use a PR firm that is known to also provide this technology, Mastio considers you part of the problem, whether or not you actually use the technology to astroturf. The technology for doing "this" -- with "this" being astroturfing by using technology to send professionally written letters signed by an individual. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You realize this isn't what you said earlier, right? Initially you said he was coming down on technology that allowed "ease of letter writing." I replied that, no, his concern was PR firms that use unethical behavior. Now you have corrected your interpretation to note that Mastio is criticizing "automated letter-generation tools" which is very different than ease of letter writing. The difference is the writing part. Having someone else do the writing and signing your name is unethical. Mastio is criticizing any use of plagiarism/talking points in these tools (even if it's only 40% of the letter). However, he is not criticizing PR or "ease of letter writing" as you initially claimed. He is criticizing Astroturf letters exactly like the ones OFA has been co-producing nationwide. Captainhendry (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What I said is what I said. Specifically, "his [Mastio's] opinion is that it is okay to use a PR firm as long as the firm doesn't utilize the technology that enables ease of letter writing" -- and it is my understanding that "automated letter-generating tools" certainly qualify as "technology that enables ease of letter writting." I have not corrected anything to indicate otherwise; I still stand by what I said. As for Mastio criticizing a MoveOn or Focus on the Family letter containing 40% talking points as an issue, or the hiding of the roles of those advocacy groups as deception -- he is welcome to that opinion. Your statement, "He is criticizing Astroturf letters exactly like the ones OFA has been co-producing nationwide", is your opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are in fact many ways you can phrase statistical information. The phrase in question was "borrowed" word for word from a USA Today article (plagiarism) and then sent out to dozens of newspapers verbatim without informing local editors that they were a) getting talking points or b) indirectly plagiarizing USA today. Despite the PBS source describing identical activity, you continue to maintain that OFA's behavior is not Astroturf. Again I'll just point out that this is your opinion and I have clearly demonstrated that two professional journalists with experience on the topic (and experience at newspaper letters pages) consider it Astroturf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhendry (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is your opinion, and an incorrect one. The phrase in question was borrowed word for word from the federal report by both USA Today and the OfA, and you can't plagiarize federal reports. The "facts" (simple statistical facts also cannot be plagiarized, regardless of source - look it up) were indeed included in dozens of letters to newspapers -- and were worded in various ways. The PBS article describes various behaviors, including the mailing of professionally written, complete letters that were signed by people that did not write them and sent to newspapers -- something OfA has neither done nor encouraged. The PBS article does not discuss the OfA, and the only 'behavior' close to that of OfA's discussed in that piece is the inclusion of talking points in an otherwise originally crafted letter, to which Mastio gives his opinion as discussed above. If you would like to include the opinions on astroturfing of the two afore mentioned journalists in the Wikipedia article, that is a possibility, but trying to represent their opinions as commentary on OfA activities is synthesis, and isn't allowed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While distribution of identical form letters not written by the signatories is considered by some as astroturf, even that opinion is questioned by some and even the definition is challenged by others (yeah, more editors). I think we can agree that deceiving readers by presenting form letters as your own is unethical, and the organizations that facilitate and automate that deception can be described as astroturfers -- but while MoveOn has been shown to have crossed that line, OfA has not even come close. I understand that the BJ article writer has attempted to stretch the circumstances of OfA's activities to fit the definition of astroturfing, but that just exemplifies why we stick with citing reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the federal report that uses the identical language used by USAToday. Letters sent from OFA to editors used identical phrasing in dozens of cases. This is Astroturf.

• I did cite the report above, but my doing so was redundant. Both the OfA and USA Today cite the new federal report from the government for its information; a fact the BJ article conviently leaves out of its attempt to insinuate plagiarism. Repeating statistics is not "astroturf". Please provide dozens of links to letters to editors that contain "identical phrasing". My review of the links provided in your BJ article did not show dozens of cases of identical wording. (Note, please specify with the links if the content is identical to the OfA fact, or the USA Today fact, quoted here):

USA Today said: Although the nation's gross domestic product declined in 2009, health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person, according to the report. That number will grow to $4.5 trillion in 2019, or 19.3% of the GDP, which is the entire economic output of the USA.

OfA said: A new federal study shows that health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person—and is now projected to nearly double by 2019.

• Let me be very specific. USAToday: "health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person" OFA: "health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person" Those are identical phrasings and that is plagiarism. The Big Journalism piece shows the same phrase appeared in dozens of letters to the editor around the country, like this one at the Sioux City Journal. The reason you are unable to quote the identical passage in the government report is because no such passage exists in the report. In fact, I don't believe the $8,047 figure appears in the report at all. So your previous contentions that a) this is all taken from a government report and b) there are only so many ways to phrase the same information are both shown to be false. The USAToday phrasing was original to the author and was copied verbatim by OFA. Captainhendry (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Let me be even more specific. USA Today said: Although the nation's gross domestic product declined in 2009, health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person, according to the report. That number will grow to $4.5 trillion in 2019, or 19.3% of the GDP, which is the entire economic output of the USA. OfA said: A new federal study shows that health care spending rose to an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,047 per person—and is now projected to nearly double by 2019. Those are completely different phrasings, with the only common denominator being the specific factual statistics (which have to be the same) - so there is no plagiarism. The BJ piece shows that similarly worded phrases (with identical statistical facts) appeared in newspapers around the country, just like the one at the Sioux City Journal. The reason I didn't quote the two different passages (one from OfA and one from USAT) is because I didn't need to; both of those sources already noted their content came from that CMS government report. In fact, the $8,047 figure does appear in the reports, just as the secondary sources have indicated (note: it is $8,046.73 in the per capita raw date reports; rounded to $8,046.7 in some of the final reports; $8,047 in other final reports and in the abstracts of those reports -- but they are all statistically accurate). I stand by my assertion, backed up by the actual facts, that (1) the content is from federal reports, as attributed, and (2) there is a limited number of ways specific factual statistics can be conveyed, and the repeating of those statistics does not in any way constitute plagiarism. Disagree all you want; the matter isn't relevant to this article on astroturfing, and no reliable sources have accused OfA or USA Today of being involved in plagiarism. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The PBS article does not discuss OFA because OFA did not exist in 2006. However the article does discuss techniques which are identical to the ones OFA currently uses and does label them Astroturf. Also, the link you offer to southofboston.com doesn't really support your claim. The writer says "Newspapers across the country try to catch these before they appear in print, not always successfully. Some have slipped onto our pages, some will again." Clearly she is not suggesting that editors are on the fence about this practice. She is suggesting that they are against it and consider it Astroturf. She merely asks if readers agree. Yes, we agree about MoveOn.org's behavior and, as the Glaser/Mastio article shows, those letters were only partially pre-scripted. In other words, it's the same behavior as is taking place at OFA. The technique is Astroturf (according to editors and journalists). My argument was not merely synthesis since I have provided a source proving OFA engaged in the same behavior as MoveOn.org. You claim it is not reliable enough, even though the facts in the article are self-evident, i.e. DNC talking points appeared in 70+ local papers verbatim. This is not a "synth" argument. It is a factual one. I will demonstrate that in my revised edit. Captainhendry (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Which "techniques which are identical to the ones OFA currently uses" does the article do the two people in that article label as astroturf, again? Please be specific, and quote the exact wording used in the article. As for the "southofboston" article, it raises the question about the practice of mass-mailing pre-fab form letters with the only difference between the letters being the signatories -- a practice widely policed and widely held by editors as astroturfing. My point was that even that generally accepted definition of astroturfing could be questioned, by an editor, no less. Yes, we agree that MoveOn's behavior of facilitating the mass distribution of form letters to editors could constitute astroturfing, at least by the standards of many editors, as the Glaser & Mastio articles show. As for original letters to the editor that also contain talking points from an advocacy group, Mastio has given us his opinion, too. As for "behavior taking place at OfA", there is no behavior. They have set up a website that indexes a supporter's zip code with local newspapers; they have outlined a political issue and briefly defined their position on that issue with a few facts and talking points; they have petitioned supporters to compose an original letter, specifically noting: These points are only to provide extra information and suggestions. Do not use these points verbatim. Your letter must be original and should focus on your views and experiences. None of that constitutes astroturfing by OfA, even if a few people would like to paint it that way. In fact, any verbatim parroting of wording generated by an advocacy group works against that group's interests these days, simply because of the taint and outrage associated with discovered astroturfing. Hence OfA's strongly worded instructions to be original and personal. If the OfA does, however, ever decide to engage in astroturfing, you will have no trouble at all finding a multitude of reliable sources from which to draw content. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The south of Boston article does discuss "identical" letters. It calls this Astroturf and says editors avoid it. I was not relying on this source to prove that partially identical letters are also considered Astroturf. Proof for that comes from the PBS piece I cited. Nothing in the south of Boston piece discounts this position. The author merely solicits the opinion of readers about what they think. She never takes a position herself. The fact that OFA asked people not to plagiarize and Astroturf their talking points was noted in the Big Journalism piece. However, the fact remains that people did plagiarize and Astroturf and the result was DNC scripted talking points in over 70 newspapers nationwide. Captainhendry (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that OFA asked people not to plagiarize and Astroturf their talking points was noted..." Whoa there, let's keep this factual - please. That isn't what OfA did at all. OfA asked people to write letters to newspapers in support of a political position on a political issue (in this particular instance it was health care reform). OfA never said anything about plagiarism or astroturfing. You also claim that, "the fact remains that people did plagiarize and Astroturf", yet you offer no reliable sourcing as proof (in addition to the confusing switch from accusing first OfA, and now the "people" of astroturfing). If you would like to include content in this Wikipedia article that indicates OfA has conducted astroturfing, please provide reliable sourcing. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

David Axelrod's astroturfing

User:Xenophrenic is removing well sourced content noting David Axelrod's involvement in astroturfing activities. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Funding sources for the Tea Party Movement

There are lots more sources we can add, some discussed on this talk page already. Though the August reports were widely publicized, we need to be careful of such WP:RECENTISM emphasis. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone simply being a funding source for a group does not make the group to be astroturf. MoveOn is not considered astroturf even though its funding sources tend to be murky. The tea parties aren't even centrally organized. 108.115.7.242 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this article mentions anything about the requirement for being centrally organized. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've requested the article be partial protected against these ips. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've requested full protection, since partial protection would unfairly prevent all these ip SPAs from contributing to the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Parallel discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should link to Tea_Party_movement#Astroturfing, and give a brief summary in this article. Here's the most recently disputed info on the topic that's been repeatedly removed: --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In August 2010, some American news organizations made allegations concerning the funding sources for the Tea Party Movement. Along with funding from Rupert Murdoch, claims were also made that the billionaire Koch brothers, David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch are funding the movement.

If no one is even going to bother to discuss the matter, then it's settled. We'll restore the removed information and link to the other article. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? how does it mean its settled if its just who writes here last? I just read the cites above and they don't make a claim that the tea party movement is astroturf. Of course there is funding. All political groups get funding from supporters and the most funding comes from the wealthy just like taxes are mostly paid by the wealthy. It does belong in the tea party article, but not here. 108.101.175.97 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. The issue here is do the sources support the information here in this article? --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A long quote from the New Yorker article:

A few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials “have a socialist vision for this country.”

Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. “Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,” it said. “But you can do something about it.” The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”

In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.”

At the lectern in Austin, however, Venable—a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994—spoke less warily. “We love what the Tea Parties are doing, because that’s how we’re going to take back America!” she declared, as the crowd cheered. In a subsequent interview, she described herself as an early member of the movement, joking, “I was part of the Tea Party before it was cool!” She explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.”

Venable honored several Tea Party “citizen leaders” at the summit. The Texas branch of Americans for Prosperity gave its Blogger of the Year Award to a young woman named Sibyl West. On June 14th, West, writing on her site, described Obama as the “cokehead in chief.” In an online thread, West speculated that the President was exhibiting symptoms of “demonic possession (aka schizophrenia, etc.).” The summit featured several paid speakers, including Janine Turner, the actress best known for her role on the television series “Northern Exposure.” She declared, “They don’t want our children to know about their rights. They don’t want our children to know about a God!”

During a catered lunch, Venable introduced Ted Cruz, a former solicitor general of Texas, who told the crowd that Obama was “the most radical President ever to occupy the Oval Office,” and had hidden from voters a secret agenda—“the government taking over our economy and our lives.” Countering Obama, Cruz proclaimed, was “the epic fight of our generation!” As the crowd rose to its feet and cheered, he quoted the defiant words of a Texan at the Alamo: “Victory, or death!”

Americans for Prosperity has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception. In the weeks before the first Tax Day protests, in April, 2009, Americans for Prosperity hosted a Web site offering supporters “Tea Party Talking Points.” The Arizona branch urged people to send tea bags to Obama; the Missouri branch urged members to sign up for “Taxpayer Tea Party Registration” and provided directions to nine protests. The group continues to stoke the rebellion. The North Carolina branch recently launched a “Tea Party Finder” Web site, advertised as “a hub for all the Tea Parties in North Carolina.”

The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, “The problem with the whole libertarian movement is that it’s been all chiefs and no Indians. There haven’t been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it. So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement.” With the emergence of the Tea Party, he said, “everyone suddenly sees that for the first time there are Indians out there—people who can provide real ideological power.” The Kochs, he said, are “trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies.”

A Republican campaign consultant who has done research on behalf of Charles and David Koch said of the Tea Party, “The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it. It’s like they put the seeds in the ground. Then the rainstorm comes, and the frogs come out of the mud—and they’re our candidates!”

Later from the New Yorker article:

As the first anniversary of Obama’s election approached, David Koch came to the Washington area to attend a triumphant Americans for Prosperity gathering. Obama’s poll numbers were falling fast. Not a single Republican senator was working with the Administration on health care, or much else. Pundits were writing about Obama’s political ineptitude, and Tea Party groups were accusing the President of initiating “a government takeover.” In a speech, Koch said, “Days like today bring to reality the vision of our board of directors when we started this organization, five years ago.” He went on, “We envisioned a mass movement, a state-based one, but national in scope, of hundreds of thousands of American citizens from all walks of life standing up and fighting for the economic freedoms that made our nation the most prosperous society in history. . . . Thankfully, the stirrings from California to Virginia, and from Texas to Michigan, show that more and more of our fellow-citizens are beginning to see the same truths as we do.”

And the article ends::

The Kochs have long depended on the public’s not knowing all the details about them. They have been content to operate what David Koch has called “the largest company that you’ve never heard of.” But with the growing prominence of the Tea Party, and with increased awareness of the Kochs’ ties to the movement, the brothers may find it harder to deflect scrutiny. Recently, President Obama took aim at the Kochs’ political network. Speaking at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser, in Austin, he warned supporters that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Citizens United case—which struck down laws prohibiting direct corporate spending on campaigns—had made it even easier for big companies to hide behind “groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity.” Obama said, “They don’t have to say who, exactly, Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation”—or even, he added, “a big oil company.”

The long quote from the article isn't needed. People can follow the link to the entire article. One is an editorial even by a writer opposed to the group. Even so, this just talks about funding but does not tie it to astroturf. An equally good argument can be made that many left wing activist groups are astroturf since they are funded by George Soros - but the argument would be equally bogus since they aren't astroturf. 108.101.175.97 (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I felt the quote was needed, since no one had yet provided any specifics. Please do your best to stay on topic.

"this just talks about funding but does not tie it to astroturf" It talks about much more than just funding, right? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited articles do discuss astroturf. The objection that the articles do not specifically use the word "astroturf" when they describe the astroturfing activities of groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity is a weak technicality that is easily remedied by adding citations to similar articles that actually do use the accusation of "astroturf". The objection that one of the cited articles is an Op-Ed in a regular column of The New York Times by a George Polk Award-winning investigative journalist is somehow not a reliable source is incorrect; it can be cited as a reliable source. Tea Partiers claiming their movement is "grassroots", while at the same time receiving significant funding, organization, training, promotion and support from large interests such as Koch, Fox, Armey, etc., qualifies as astroturf. It isn't the funding that makes something astroturf; it's the deception - trying to appear to be something else. Ronz' idea to link to the Astroturf section in the TPM article for more detailed explanation is a good one. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Biased

Maybe I read this incorrectly, but every one of the astroturf examples comes from the right. The probability of this occurring in a country that is split fairly equally down party lines has to be incredible... Not saying that none of these are astroturf, though it seems unlikely that all of them are from a quick read. If ALL are from the right, add a section explaining why you believe this to be true... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.146.99 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Health Care America

• Sourcewatch article on Health Care America. Do not use this as a citation, as Sourcewatch is itself a wiki; it is only listed as a source for background on the subject and other citations, including:
• NY Times story which establishes notability for the group
• And the org's site itself, which has been heavily edited in the manner of a fly-by-night org, as you can see if you follow the links on Sourcewatch. All the pages that Sourcewatch listed lead to 404 errors.

None of which is overwhelmingly conclusive. But the real break comes after Democracy Now! did an interview with a former health care industry PR man, who was personally tasked with controlling PR damage from Michael Moore's Sicko.

• Democracy Now! interview with Wendell Potter, 11th November 2010.
  Anarchangel (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are claiming that Health Care America is astroturfed, I don't have any objection. If you're claiming it should be listed as an example here, that would be another matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Astroturfing example

why do we have to do this... Alright so for the astroturfing page, I have stated why I believe that article should be removed, and you have re-added it with only the explanation that it has a source. While having a source is important for verifiability it doesn't mean you can't delete it, I know this, I just got an entire sourced page deleted a few days ago. So based on the what the source is saying can you prove its relevance to the astroturfing page and how it is a clear and proven example of astroturfing? Thanks, Passionless (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your two edit summaries, and my comments on them:

1) (the source never said it was astroturfing, just that the person hoped it was, and added another example)

A word search of the word "hope" came up with zero hits on the cited source; a word search on the word astroturf shows multiple hits, and the same goes for the original source that is referenced by it. I'd recommend reading both of those sources.

2) (what if he said hes wouldn't be suprised in the Republican party was just astroturfing, would the Rep party than be an example of astro??, of course not)

I ran that through my universal translator and it came up blank. I'm really not sure how to comment on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I used the word hope to replace the oddly phrased "is not surprised to see", though that was written by the now blocked User:12.7.202.2.

Anyways the specific sentence referenced from the opinion piece is "But as TPMmuckraker has looked into the group, every indication is that Stop Too Big To Fail is an astroturf operation funded by corporate interests to give the appearance of grassroots opposition to reform."

I do not see this sentence as a declaration that Stop Too Big to Fail is for certain astroturfing. 'every indication' is very weaselly, they are not saying that we have information which proves STBTF is astroturfing. If 'every indication' actually meant 'we have information showing' than the writer would have flatly said that STBTF is astroturfing. I think they made the sentence so that readers will misunderstand and come away with the idea that the writer knows that STBTF is astroturfing.Passionless (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to refuse to discuss this I will have to get a Third opinion involved immediatelyPassionless (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure for whom that was intended, as the above discussion appears to indicate I am the only editor that has not refused to discuss this with you. As for third opinions, wider input is always a good thing. I've seen the personal opinions you have expressed above (i.e.; "I do not see this sentence as..." and "I think they made the sentence so..."); was there something you wished to discuss? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss with you that the source does not state that STBTF is astroturfing, so the source should not be used to cite STBTF as an example of astroturfing, and without a source the article should be deleted.Passionless (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Which source would that be? This one? Or this one that you quoted above? Or perhaps this one, with even more detailed information about the group behind the 'turfing? "Every indication Stop Too Big to Fail is an astroturf operation" is clear enough for me, but if that one particular phrase leaves you wanting, then just read the rest of what is conveyed by the article - which does convey that it is astroturf. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC) It appears Krugman wasn't the only one to reference the TPM reporting on the issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would you think I was looking at sources you are just bringing up and adding now? Anyways the Roll Call and TPM references both fail to state STBTF is astroturfing, they merely say they have connections to astroturfing organizations and former astroturfers, but you did finally find a reference that says it is astroturfing with reference.

so if you add that ref, I will accept it as an example of astroturf. Oh, and the wording could really use a change to something more like "Consumers for Competitive Choice, an astroturfing firm, launched an advertisement campaign aimed at stopping the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act from entering law in 2010." Passionless (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your third opinion

• TPM does indeed call the effort astroturfing, leaving themselves a potential out by saying "every indication". "every indication is that Stop Too Big To Fail is an astroturf operation funded by corporate interests"
• Paul Krugman never calls it astroturfing. We are putting words into his mouth here inappropriately. His lack of surprise is regarding how easy it is to hijack such a concise and simplified slogan, not at the astroturfing. The current text as of my writing needs to be changed.
• On a general note, the way that this article is developing is not particularly ideal. Long lists of examples generally should not be in topical articles. They should be integrated into prose or spun off into a list article. If an example is just another example that isn't really a seminal example in a topic area, then it probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the general topic article.

Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Gigs,

So, as per Gigs opinion that a rewrite is necessary, I'm going to replace it with what I suggested in my last comment. If anyone wants to modify it a bit that's fine.

Also, I agree that a new page just for the examples would be more appropriate, though I will wait until Xenophrenic, or another editor agrees with doing this. Passionless (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)