The Real "Fake News"

Jeffrey Wolfe
jw939417@ohio.edu

Astroturfing is a big problem.

No, I'm not talking about leg injuries of football players that play on AstroTurf. I'm talking about individuals, groups, or companies who hide their motives behind advertisements and deceptions that appear to have grassroots support.

According to a Business Insider article, the term "astroturfing" was first used by U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas in 1985. Grassroots movements throughout history have always been powerful, and those that are unable to find the same masses to support their cause are using this method to mislead others into believing support is there.

In most cases, fear of losing money is the "why" companies take this approach.

Big Corporations Have Tried

The same Business Insider article referenced earlier shares some examples of big corporations attempting to mislead the public through the use of astroturfing. Highlighting two below from the article, I was astonished to what ends corporations would go for the all mighty dollar.

• 2010 legislation in Australia banning logos on cigarette packaging was challenged by "small businesses" who would be hurt by the change. The group was later found to be financed by Big Tobacco companies like Phillip Morris International.

•  At a 2008 FCC hearing on neutrality, Comcast paid people off the street to attend, clap and cheer during the Comcast VP presentation. Filling the seats with fake supporters kept those opposed out of the room.

This type of deception is also happening in advertising, creating billboards, websites and fake Twitter accounts all in the hope of growing support that isn't actually there.

Example of an astroturfing website  |  Source: hootville

Big Corporations are Trying Harder

As reported by The Guardian in 2011, companies have begun using "persona management software." This creates online identities with names, email accounts, web and social media accounts, and keeps the accounts active by interacting with users.

The article goes on state how the "...US Air Force has been tendering for companies to supply it with persona management software...". I could not write the authors following statement any better to share the severity this has:

"Software like this has the potential to destroy the internet as a forum for constructive debate. It jeopardizes the notion of online democracy."

What's the Solution?

It's not a perfect solution, but when these types of actions are found out to be true, there must be stiffer penalties for misleading the public.

There will always be staged situations or a company trying to sell you their perspective. However, knowingly misleading the public to believe in a truth that is not there should be a crime with serious consequences.

This is just another tool in our current online society that is dividing our nation and the world.

Astroturfing Today

Sydney Meckler- sm003614@ohio.ediu


-->

S. Greenberg

In today’s day and age, Astroturfing is a harm to society. While most of society tends to care towards agencies that are dedicated towards causes that generate awareness to social causes around the world it is all too easy for people to become involved with causes that are not what the general public think they are.


With the easy accessibility that is available to those who are willing to look for it, Astroturfing tends to lead the public into wayward causes.


Astroturfing, in addition to the issue of fake accounts and bots, have aided in the cause to the spread of misinformation. This is a common issue today. In previous posts that contained information on these issues, while mobile devices have spread in commonality, these issues still remain prevalent.


Astroturfing is described by Merriam-Webster as an “organized activity that is intended to create a false impression of a widespread, spontaneously arising, grassroots movement in support of or in opposition to something (such as a political policy) but that is in reality imitated and controlled by a concealed group or organization (such as a corporation).




In this blogger’s opinion, corporations, companies, and firms should not be permitted to create these sub-organizations for personal gain. It is in the disinterest of the public, as well as contributes to the spread of misinformation.


With today’s political climate, it is all too easy to discredit journalistic stories is all too easy with the term “fake news.” According to Statista,  most fake news is accounted for poor journalism that is attributed to factual mistakes which accounts for 42% of respondents who have personally come across these types of fake news.


The next percentage attributes to stories where facts are twisted push an agenda that attributed towards a fake agendas at 39%. Headlines that look like news but turn out to be adverts also make up a percentage of 34% of respondents.



Through companies that create these separate organizations only attribute to misleading the public and create the issue of fake news or the spread of misinformation.


This can be seen simply through the titles of the organizations that they create that misrepresent the public. Through these organizations, companies hope that customers will take action through their separate companies. This is, quite simply, a way for companies to create organizations that represent an organic cause through dishonest journalism.


Through these, as well as other companies who hope to do the same, create an outlet for the public to declare public outrage in hopes to make changes that will benefit their causes through dishonest reporting.


By disallowing companies to create these faux organizations, we could create a baseline for the public to attribute true facts to true organizations that have just causes.


We, the public, need to source information that maintains integrity.

--> -->

Responsibilities of a PR Professional

Bailey Hays
bh665415@ohio.edu


I've always wanted to be a publicist. Drafting press releases, planning events, managing social media and dealing with any crisis has always been so interesting to me. One day, I want to even have my own PR firm. But, how do I get there? What is the most important part about working in public relations? What must every publicist have in order to be successful? Easy. Ethics and responsibilities.

When you're a PR professional, you are always working with other people. YOUR clients. It's so important to establish good relationships and have trust with them. Otherwise, you will lose them, which is probably not something any good PR professional would want. Without clients, you don't have a firm.

A good example I can think of where poor ethics and responsibilities of PR professionals lacked was the crisis of United Airlines forcibly removing a passenger from its plane. This article explains that United overbooked the flight and then asked for volunteers to get off the plane since others needed to get to work. An asian man and his wife were dragged off of the plane.

Obviously, this is a huge issue that went viral on social media. The public relations team didn't post an apology until people said they were going to boycott. With an event like this, an apology and explanation should have been issued RIGHT AWAY. As a PR professional, it's our job to get information our there to the public and try to establish a good relationship after this incident.

Source: viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com               

The first apology from the CEO was criticized a lot. It was viewed as insensitive after everything that happened. They then had to release a SECOND apology. This whole case is a very good example of how PR professionals were not responsible and proactive. The article we read in class explained that people need to know their role. The role of a CEO is to "create, foster and communicate the culture of an organization." The CEO of United Airlines did not act in this way when it came to issuing an apology.

This video does a great job at explaining how be ethical while having a job in PR. I believe that being responsible while working and constantly practicing good ethics is the foundation to having a successful career in PR. Our relationship with our clients is about trust and communication. If we don't have that, we don't have a job.

There needs to be open communication, honesty about what's truly happening and a promise from the PR professional that they are doing whatever they can to fix the problem.

The Positives Of Astroturfing, And Why it's Not Really That Positive.

Jess Deyo 
jd922016@ohio.edu 

For a teenage girl like myself, I grew up learning about social media. Once advertisements started popping up on popular platforms like Instagram, I started noticing people who literally spent their time commenting positive statements, and dismissing negative responses. After looking at most of the accounts belonging to these people, I noticed that, for the most part, these didn’t seem like real people. It wasn’t until recently that I learned that there was a name for this behavior: astroturfing.

According to The Guardian, Astroturfing is an attempt to create an impression that a policy, individual or product is widely supported. I’m sure that all of us can instantly think of an example of astroturfing because it is all around us. My question, though, is when do we draw the line?

I’ve always thought that astroturfing was wrong and unfair, but after I read that the Air Force was doing it, I wondered if it could have benefits. In another article by The Guardian, the motives of the US Air Force are explained.

Photo Courtesy of Cliff Owen, AP

In an attempt to counter violent extremists and potential threats outside of the US, the Air Force has developed several false personas, known as “sock puppets,” to be active on foreign blogging activities. In order to keep the personas protected, these fake identities have convincing backgrounds and histories, as well as 50 US controllers.

While many may disagree, I believe that this has several good and bad consequences. For example, the more insight we have on foreign conflict, the better; in the end, we have to protect our country and I appreciate the effort. However, if an entity as powerful as the US Air Force is participating in widely questionable behavior, other companies and businesses may also feel entitled to do the same.

These effects are hard to miss, just look at these 10 fake grassroots campaigns. Here, we can see all of the negativity that comes from the influence of larger sources, like the USAF, amongst many. One of the best examples was the Toronto Mayor, who used fake twitter accounts to push his policies. This act of dishonesty is usually somewhat transparent, and is likely a contributor to several other politicians doing the same.

One of the most common grassroots campaigns I have seen is for makeup products. All over the internet are fake accounts spending all of their time making sure that customers know how incredible a certain product is. All I can seem to think is, do we really want to be getting publicity that way?

At the end of the day, I can see both sides of astroturfing, and I suppose that’s why we are stuck at the crossroads of what is right and wrong, and how to regulate it. If I had a say, I would potentially argue that astroturfing should be permitted only for purposes like that of the USAF. But either way, no matter who it is for, it’s unethical and could lead to a multitude of problems.

Corporate News: Old practices, new problems, and ethical concerns along the way

Ryan Spellman

rs344103@ohio.edu

 

Historical Practices and Problems

Corporations generating their own news is not a new phenomena. In an article for the Financial Times, Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson shares a few relics that put this old practice into perspective:

Image Credit: Contently

1895: John Deere publishes first The Furrow Magazine

1900: Michelin Releases the Guide for Drivers

1909: Hershey Press is first published in Hershey Pennsylvania

John Deere’s Furrow Magazine and Michelin’s Guide for Drivers are very early examples of a strategy called content marketing – a practice focused on delivering useful content that draws in readers while promoting engagement with their product. Such content marketing strategies can be deceptive, especially if it is not apparent to the customer that the content is generated for a means to an end (in this case the benefit of the corporation). If the consumer is lulled into assuming it is a source of independent, not corporate-owned, information then there is a major conflict of interest when bias against competitors seeps in.

In the case of Hershey Press, we have an early example of a corporation literally delivering the news. Just a quick glimpse at an archive of the publication reveals it was clearly released in a newspaper format that makes it hard to discern its corporate roots (given that the corporation shares the city’s namesake). Bias is difficult enough to overcome in traditional, independently-owned newsrooms. A paper owned by the area’s top industry is most certainly going to be riddled with conflicts of interest.

So, as we can see, corporate news issues are long running and nothing new… and these problems certainly have not gone away. However, with the changing media landscape there are concerns presenting new ethical concerns that extend from the PR sphere into the domain of traditional journalism.

 

The Line Blurs: PR Enters the News Unchecked

"Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy." -SPJ Code of Ethics

Edgecliffe-Johnson brings an interesting conundrum to light in his article covering the now blurry line between PR and journalism. PR professionals are beginning to circumvent journalists, getting their content published directly into news sources with little effort. There was a time when PR professionals regularly sent press releases in hopes of getting their content published. Now, according to Edgecliffe-Johnson, news outlets are gobbling up corporate generated PR news from their social media content. This ultimately validates what corporations are saying, often unchecked. Edgecliffe-Jones shares this is in large part due to pressure to keep up an around-the-clock information and multimedia engagement with their audiences.

It is easy to imagine the challenge of producing new content in such a fast-paced media world. Newsworthy product innovations from cars to energy drinks are relentless. With PR coming out in such professional, multi-modal ways it would be very tempting to just take it wholesale and push it out as news. 

Free, well-produced content that your audience wants to see. What’s not to like?!

Well, there is a hang up there. As SPJ reminds us, speed and format do not excuse inaccuracy. Newsrooms must fact check information, and avoid pushing out corporate-driven PR as news without disclosure -- no matter the deadline or demands. Even if the story seems inconsequential, it can be a slippery slope and build bad habits.

This sacrifice of unbiased journalistic coverage for quick and easy PR-to-news content is a major concern. Not only is there potential for an appearance of bias, doing so also risks validating false statements rooted in efforts to benefit corporations. This is especially true in an age when it is becoming difficult for the consumer to distinguish between what is actual news and what is corporate driven stories... but that is a whole topic unto itself.

Are you being Astroturfed?

Trish Tierney (tt318700@ohio.edu)

There is so much going on these days in regards to what we read, post and hear. Is it fake news, opinion based or hoax? And, now we add in the possibility of Astroturfing. No, that is not a term for a football field.

What is it?

In the event I am not the only one who had no clue what Astroturfing was, Merriam Webster provides a definition:

"Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection."

Why should we care?

Well, in my opinion this allows anyone to post as if they are involved with the product or cause. It provides credibility to something that the participant may not even know. For instance, if I was a Blogger with a good following (or any following), I could be approached to post to start or participate in a grassroots campaign to support a particular product, even if I have never used the product. I could post several times under different login names and post on different sites. It makes the product appear to be popular and it makes consumers believe it works. That is all it takes: a Blogger, a computer and the message. Fake or not.  

https://www.ganador.com.au/retailsmart/2014/1/22/the-dark-side-of-social-media

We need to care about this because it is extremely misleading. We do not know if the person posting has reliable or correct information. The cartoon above is amusing but Astroturfing is far from amusing when it misleads the public.

According to George Monbiot, from the Guardian, “The anonymity of the web gives companies and governments golden opportunities to run astroturf operations: fake grassroots campaigns that create the impression that large numbers of people are demanding or opposing particular policies. This deception is most likely to occur where the interests of companies or governments come into conflict with the interests of the public. For example, there's a long history of tobacco companies creating astroturf groups to fight attempts to regulate them.”

Yes, you read that right, we are being misled from a major corporation such as the Tobacco Industry. Not shocking I guess, but very wrong!

What do we do?

One way to solve the issue is to be wary of what you read. There are also algorithms that can be run by corporations and businesses to detect it. Of course, that does not help the individuals who are just surfing. My best guess is to say be cautious and verify, verify, verify. And, be aware of the possibility of Astroturfing. I had never heard of it, but you can bet I will now be wary!

 

 

The Greenest Grass

Christy Hamman

ch629717@ohio.edu

Fake Grass | Source: Community Catalyst

As one of the most hated players in the NFL during final season of football, Albert Haynesworth responded to his “dislikes,” saying, “If you’ve got haters, that means you’re doing something right.

Corporations such as Exxon Mobil, McDonald’s and mayoral candidates agree.

Their agreement is so strong that they’re creating the haters to hype up their business and drown out their detractors.

This hater-hack is called astroturfing: “when companies or even individuals mask their motives by putting it under the guise of a grassroots movement,” explains The Guardian.

Grassroots movements are powerful because they show the will of the everyday citizen to organize and fight for change.

Per usual, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

McDonald's paid crowds in Japan. | Source: Trend Hunter

McDonald’s hired 1,000 part-time employees to stand in line for hours in anticipation of its quarter-pounder release—the big crowds drawing coveted attention for a cheeseburger.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s communications director created a fake Twitter account to support the candidate’s policies.

To casual viewers, the long line by the drive-thru and a Twitter citizen look like real people, genuinely hungry for a burger or interested in politics.

But the line was bought by McDonald’s and the tweets were crafted by a campaign manager.

This is astroturfing-- unethical deceit, according to the Public Relations Society of America’s Ethics Code:

A member deceives the public by employing people to pose as volunteers to speak at public hearings and participate in “grass roots” campaigns.

Recently astroturfing has gotten a much greener upgrade: 

The Guardian writes, "Technology has been created to create “personas:” fake internet-personalities used to multiply efforts of each astroturfer, creating the impression that there's major support for what a corporation or government is trying to do—” in other words, they’re amping up the hype.

Today’s Internet users must be savvy enough to disable cookies and outsmart algorithms. Now we are wary of company-created “citizen-campaigns” using state-of-the-art technology that’s being pursued by even the U.S.Air Force.

 The Internet has been recognized as something special in the fight for net neutrality, but how do we protect the accessibility of the Internet while minimizing the ease of deception online?

The PRSA states in its Ethics Code:

“We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.”

Where is the voice of responsibility and reason against astroturfing? And can it drown out the noise of so many personas? I’m not so sure.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but beware: the greenest grass probably isn’t real.