Oh, snap!

Given the subjects at hand, allow me to recommend the most interesting textbook I've ever purchased. Yes, a textbook--one so enlightening and educational that I've read it four or five times outside of my college years: Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson's "Age of Propaganda":

[www.amazon.com]

So nobody accuses me of being a paid shill (if only, considering some are paid well), there's even a 'free' version for you true consumerists:

[books.google.com]

Some healthy skepticism is a good thing.

Imagine if the police department or fire department were funded by a tax on soda or cheeseburgers - some things are too important to leave to the whims of consumer preference and addiction.

Oh, you don't have to. Just read your history books from 1935 to the dawn of man...

Money buys politicians, Obama's a politician, Obama's bought too. Surprised? Shocked?

Too bad Rush voluntarily put himself to death because he believes drug abusers should be killed, and he's a man of complete integrity. I didn't like him much, but he certainly surprised me.

RIP GOP Rush Limbaugh

Companies are "conservative" by law - must place "shareholder value" as the highest concern. If that means killing children, stealing your money, buying legislators, etc - if it profits the company it must be done. Hence, those opposed to this philosophy tend to be less conservative and more concerned with their fellow beings and creating a society worthy of living in.

It ain't Monsanto pretending be a neutral scientist claiming Round-Up Ready is organic.

Jesus, democratic participation doesn't always start and stop at the ballot box.

[www.iraqtimeline.com]

It works on this model:

1) Right Wingers (Demo and Repub) hire incompetent idiots (oh, say a horse racing buddy of GW gets to run FEMA) and place them into important government positions.

2) Situations arise and/or activity happens, the idiots either don't lift a finger, or intentionally lift the wrong finger due to their class bias.

3) Results: idiots create a big mess. Then worsen it.

4) The "CEO" of the government's idiot is then used as a poster child, claimed to be "evidence" that government can't do a damn thing right.

5)"CEO President's" uses his own incompetence to justify outsourcing to private, unaccountable CEOs.

[warmowski.wordpress.com]

[www.iraqtimeline.com]

...wonder who he was working for....? Obama?

The reason SEIU et al. keep coming up is the way the left likes to play the underdog against the 'big evil fat cat moneyed interests.' Any campaign comp list can do away with that bullshit in short order. If "astro-turfing" is wrong, than so is putting your $ behind any initiative that seeks to influence policy.

I think it's all free speech. The problem comes when the media is 90%+ in the pocket of one side of the debate. Then, a gathering of 5 liberals is reported in the headlines as "Angry Crowd Blasts Horrible Bush Policies" but a gathering of 50,000 conservatives is " ... " [not reported on] or called homoerotic names and dismissed outright as being in someone's pocket.

Thus, a person like myself opens himself to damning ridicule for daring to express his independent opinion on legislation or policy. This comes from a deeply rooted ideology which states that 'anyone with a brain supports liberalism' = 'conservatives have no brains'. It is living with dogma blinders on.

Still, some of your characterizations are straw men: for example, not all conservatives are "beholden" to corporations. There's a whole branch of conservatism that is manifestly anti-corporate, though, admittedly, it's a branch that's withered into insignificance of late. I'm talking about the small "l" libertarian types (often found in the west) who are as suspicious of "eastern banking interests" and wall street-types as they are of a strong federal government. Think old-timey rancher, minus the public grazing rights.

Similarly, the NRA isn't biased against Progressives per se. But their core activities (teflon bullets and almost-assault rifles easily modified into fully-automatic ones) are ones that Progressives of all stripes find overkill and unneeded.

There's self-selection that's going on, sure. But that doesn't mean the owners of either site has a partisan bias. Rather, the nature of their missions that do this.

(snide mode)
So, Conservatives want Cop-Killer bullets being sold at every 7-11, while Progressives want companies to admit which disinformation campaigns they're funding. See? Totally equivalent!
(snide mode off)

If paying people to spread your message as "battle-tested grassroots professionals" is not astro-turfing, then I guess my examples were not astro-turfing. Yes, we should all be out in the open. In fact, they're checking IDs at the town hall meetings now. Guess this guy is clean:

And don't go on with that BS about how Fox News is not credible, the video speaks for itself. It's only on Fox because only Fox would air it.

are you guys purposely ignoring my previous post of examples?
View here such classics as:

ORGANIZE TO PASS HEALTHCARE REFORM!!! EARN $10-$15/HR!!! (Los Angeles)

Canvassing: Winning campaigns and building organizations one person at a time

[looking for] Battle-tested grassroots professionals

Might I suggest good sir, that you READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE?!?

Ok, wise guy. What IS astro-turfing then? Why don't you define it instead of just saying I'm wrong, with nothing to back it up?

So, for the few of you above who see nothing wrong with astroturfing, let me ask you a few questions.

If a corporate lobbying group is so convinced that their cause is just, why do they need to disguise themselves as some sort of grassroots organization?

Is it acceptable to lie about who you are in order to get your point across?

Do you see labor unions misrepresenting themselves as Fortune 500 companies?

If you serve on the Board of Directors of a telecommunications company (like Time-Warner or Comcast or ATT) that opposes an open Internet or a health care conglomerate that works tirelessly to eliminate competition, is it ethical to portray yourself to the public as a consumer group?

Are you so caught up in the "right vs. left" idealogical war of labels that you believe it's ethical for front groups to misrepresent who they are?

Astroturfing is well-funded, phony self-representation. The public understands the difference, even if you pretend not to understand.

@sinfonian94: You are incorrect. There is no limit on medicare payrol taxes, I know this for sure. You are probably thinking of the limit on social security taxes which is at $106k, I think. That one obviously makes sense because benefits are similarly limited.

***TWEEEET!!!**** RACKETEERING - ACORN IS A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION WORSE THAN ANY MOB OR POLITICIAN

@Trai_Dep:
But don't you see how question-begging that analysis is? I'm saying these guys have a bent for catching out big, bad companies, and your repsonse is, "well, right-wing companies are the bad ones." As evidence, you say, if it weren't so, these guys would be all over it, because that's news. But they're deciding what do go after! They are transparent about their funding, yes.
I'll leave at this: The Village Voice--the Village Voice, mind you!-- described the CMD this way: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."
I don't think I'm exactly in left-field by saying the obvious: the CMD is a liberal organization--long may that be so; this kind of advocacy and muckraking is needed. But, to me, a claim to non-partisanship necessarily entails a balnce that's just not there in this case.

[www.villagevoice.com]

More to your point: sunshine. Expose your funding sources, cite your claims, publicize the background of your writers, especially who's paid by whom. Then let the readers decide. Which the CMD does, and the astroturf firms do not.
And, we can't call CMD biased in the left/right sense: if any left-leaning companies created astroturf organizations to stealthily push their agendas, the CMD would be all over them. Man bites dog is news!
But the thing is, no Progressive company is stupid enough to try, knowing they'd be exposed. So they attempt to influence debate openly, as it should be done.

@Trai_Dep:

I generally agree with your outlook, but I would argue that there is a way to reduce bias, not in the indivdual, but in groups simply throguh diversity of membership. Just as we individually wade through a marketplace of ideas, a group can do the same by having members of a range of opinions and outllooks. The CMD, for good or ill, doesn't have that with respect to political views. In a sense, one wouldn't expect them to, because the kinds of concerns they have tend to be (although certainly not exclusively) liberal concerns. Just as a group concerned about, say, government encroachment on property rights would tend to be conservative. Nothing wrong with either thing, in my view, they just don't happen to be non-partisan. Heck, what's wrong with a little partisanship, for that matter? The CMD has a viewpoint, they don't even /really/ really hide that, even though they mouth the words non-partisan.

DOWn, baby, DOWn!

And let's not even talk about the sheer hilarity of "I'd say breaking the law is evil."

Show me a paycheck.

There's this myth held by some that bias can somehow be removed, or that this would be a good thing. It can't, it's not. It's incumbent on US to compensate. We're thinking humans: it's our job.

And no, you should not trust what I said just because I said it! Of course not! You should, instead, test it out in the real world and see how right or wrong my advice turns out to be.

I'm confident, though, that you will find it to be correct. But ultimately it's up to YOU to decide how right I am.

Wait a sec--the thread may not be about non-partisanship, but Craig's comment sure was! For the record, I know what astroturfing is, and I, certainly am not accusing the CMD of engaging in it. Heck, I happen to like most of what I've seen the CMD do. Nevertheless, it's okay to state the obvious: it's a liberal group, made up of people with liberal outlooks. That's not a crime,but it's certainly so. Notice, too, I didn't say they're some extreme leftist wackjob outfit, but no, they're not non-partisan, either.

*looks around suspiciously*

o.O

"I want my country back" indeed.

Really? And you can tell that, how, exactly?

love it!

These WERE/ARE grassroots organizations from once upon a time. Do they have political agendas? Sure, but they started as small organizations that were begun by a small group of people.

Realize this - the act of getting your organization to participate in rallies is not astroturfing. Busing in people to participate in debates and mobilizing your organization to action (voting, protesting, etc) is not astroturfing.

Astroturf organizations are groups that are designed to look like grassroots organizations (and call themselves such), but in fact are generally created by large corporations, political action groups and/or PR firms. They are not small groups, but backed by big money. The problem with them is that by claiming they are something other than they are, they have an appearance of being noble, when generally they are only serving the interests of big money.

Furthermore, the employees who were defrauding ACORN weren't even indicted for voter fraud. They were indicted for voter registration fraud. The reason was they weren't trying to get people to illegally vote. They were trying to take money from ACORN without doing any work.

I'd say nice try but you have no and I mean no proof to back up any of your accusations.

***TWEEEET!!!**** Backpedaling!

Let the record show that HiPwr has stated that ACORN is NOT a Criminal Organization.

I'd say let's dance but it seems your facts have two right feet.

As far as the VA goes I added a link showing why I disagree with you. The VA insurance is very good and should viewed as a model for creating any health system public or private.

This thread is not about being non-partisan despite your many attempts to make it so.

It is about How To Identify Astroturfers and Front Groups.

If CMD is a "front group", who are they fronting for?
What is their hidden agenda?
Their message seems quite clear for anyone who goes to their website.

You keep trying to change the conversation to something else.

@thezone: Correct, ACORN is not a criminal organization, they just hire people that engage in criminal activity on their behalf.

...if it was a group that revealed who is astroturfing on both sides I don't think many would complain.

The article I linked to has information useful to anyone of any political stripe. It doesn't out a bunch of groups; it provides advice on how to figure out if any supposedly grassroots group is a front. You can take these tactics and use them on any group. That makes me think the readers who are saying it's biased aren't actually reading the linked article before playing the partisanship card.

The other source I linked to has a Flash widget that focuses on 5 telephony companies--Qwest, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T--that are manipulating legislation through a series of front groups purporting to be grass-root.

@NatalieErin: Oops, first sentence should read "You say anything 'reported by the mass media'".

@PsiCop: One question: You say "reported by the mass media" is likely to be the work of some invested group. But your first bit of advice is to check everything in "independent" sources. What, exactly, do you think of as an independent source?

They improved a lot in the last 20 years. Also, don't confuse them with the military healthcare system (e.g., Walter Reed is NOT a VA hospital).

Additionally, how do you give tax credits to people who can't afford to pay for health care in the first place? Rebates are great for those of us who can afford the service. And vouchers aren't just like single payer to the insurance companies instead of directly to the hospitals. If the government pays for the service it is still socialist.

Funny too how medicare has higher satisfaction ratings than private insurance too. Sure there is waste in Medicare. But there is was on the private side too. But your answer does not account for the poor, the elderly and the young. It also doesn't account for people who lose their job or are changing jobs.

BTW. Verizon tried to get the state cell phone tax repealed a few elections ago. Once word got out that Verizon was behind the ballot initiative and that the cities involved really needed the funds the voters KEPT THE TAX. Exposing these groups can do wonders.

Who stands to gain the most from no reform: Insurance companies, and those who care about the plight of the insurance companies.

Which of these two has the resources and the motive to create fake grass-roots (astroturfing) groups?

@microcars: They are not in the middle. They are not non-partisan. Your own bias is causing you to espouse such nonsense. Below, on their own website [www.prwatch.org] is the proof - these are books written by their own staff and promoted on their website.

The first one criticizes the Iraq War with verbage such as "Lies" and "Mess," how's that exposing corporate spin?

The last one doesn't even hide it's partisanship unless someone else on their staff wrote a book titled "How Democrats Are Using Hype and Hyperbole to Turn the Country to Marxism?"

Books including the following by CMD staff:
The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq
Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry
Mad Cow USA, which documents the PR coverup of human and animal health risks from mad cow disease
Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future
Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America Into a One-Party State

citation of ACORN being convicted for voter fraud please.

Co-incidentally, craigslist was mentioned earlier in this thread: [consumerist.com]

so now you have Identified HCAN as a "grassroots" group that has accepted funding from George Soros or an entity he controls. Very good.

Now, my question: what is the "hidden agenda" of this group? that is what this thread is about.

Who or What interests are they fronting that are different than what they advertise?

They want to promote Health Care Reform. Is there a hidden agenda that I don't see here?

It's funny to see who one of CMD's biggest critics is:

CMD has been criticized for having an anti-corporate viewpoint by industry lobbyists like Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman specializing in creating front groups for industry clients in the tobacco, food, biotechnology and other sectors. ActivistCash.com, an industry-funded website run by Berman & Co. and associated with Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom, has run such critiques. ActivistCash.com accuses CMD of operating "as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

United Health Care, on the other hand, has a vested interest in how this debate goes. As many Democrats have already admitted, the "public plan" is a short-term step towards a single payer plan. That puts United Health Care out of business and forces them to lay off all of their employees. Why is it not legitimate for them to fight against this bill?

In the end, Soros doesn't attach his name to any of the groups he founds and funds. Why should United Health Care, or anyone else for that matter, be held to that standard if it's not applied equally? Or maybe it's only ok to fund something if it has no effect on your life.

As for the VA, that's a sticky one. The VA serves a noble purpose, but in practice it is poorly and inefficiently run. It would probably serve our vets better to just give them healthcare coverage with private physicians.

@thezone: Except when they are convicted for voter fraud.

Just watched a NatGeo last night showing Truthers doing the same exact thing. No proof is good enough if it contradicts your preconceived notions.

I remember showing anti-war guy the Amenisty International proof that Iraqis were Gassed by their own Government...

and that was still not enough proof.

So SEIU does not count? ACORN? Moveon.org?

All have been caught busing people into townhalls to pack them.

SEIU has even let pro-healthcare townhalls be held in their offices!

With 5 million members across America - from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders - we work together to realize the progressive promise of our country.

From their "about" page, first paragraph.

Is that not a claim of representing the "grassroots"?
No mention of the lobbyists and political operatives that are/were part of MoveOn. Like Tom Matzzie for example? He now heads HCAN mentioned above.

Sure, if I were them, I'd start with HCAN, which is a massively funded fake-grass-roots group. Major backers are Soros, the SEIU, MoveOn, Herb and Marion Sanders, and a long list of others. They've been blasting the airwaves and sending out fake (paid) "support protestors" for months now, but they never identify their backers in all those ads.

Sure,

Health Care for America Now (HCAN)

for one.
CAP for another.

So the next step in this dance is "show me the proof" and I do, then you say "that is from a bunch of right wingers!"

So shall we dance?

Certainly. Having the government pay directly for all those things just created bad care and waste. Tax credits and/or vouchers for private insurance would be much better than what we have now, which is socialized (crappy) care for veterans, and socialized (wasteful) payments for care for the elderly.

if anyone's "credibility" is destroyed, it is your own.

@HunanGarden: Yes, and those people who are openly brandishing weapons (sorry, excercising their constitutional rights), are not intending to intimidate anyone.

Those with legitimate concerns- the ones who have been instructed to scream and chant and prevent discussion.

The best rules to go by are:

1. Believe no one, until you have confirmed what they tell you from independent sources;

2. Accept the veracity of nothing that's reported, until you have double- and triple-checked it; and

3. Look for any and all unstated motives of whoever is telling you something. That motive is usually money, but it might also be power.

Corollaries to the above:

1. When someone tells you "it's not about the money," that's a guarantee that it IS, in fact "all about the money";

2. When people advocate spending money on solving a problem, do not believe them if A) they are the ones who will get some or all of the money, and/or B) they're the ones who are keeping the problem going in the first place;

3. The mass media are always influenced by the people they report on, if for no other reason than they wish to have continued access to them and any information they offer ... remember that when you read/watch/listen to any story.

4. Whenever someone says they're not biased, or have no reason to skew what they say, that is a guarantee that they ARE, in fact, biased and that they ARE, in fact, skewing what they say.

5. Never underestimate the willingness and desire of people to lie to you in order to avoid accepting responsibility for themselves or to hide their motives from you. There really are people, companies, and organizations that would rather die — or cease to exist — than tell you the truth and admit what they're up to.

sounds like he has funded many many of them so this should be easy, right?

try again.
MoveOn.org is a political organization with clear stated goals and no hidden agenda.
Just because you disagree with them does not make them a grassroots "Front Group".

@Fresh-Fest-1986: No, you're right, a lot of folks are getting paid to show up at health care townhalls and the like. Like SEIU members. HCAN reps. And random folks hired via Craigslist.

[gatewaypundit.blogspot.com]
[hotair.com]

Now please provide evidence of protestors on the anti-Obamacare side being paid to be there.

@Scott4: Take it easy - I'm pretty sure that was a joke.

But seriously, they can tend a little left of center. But their goal is to be a middle as possible. The biggest problem is that just look at this thread, the right has so many more targets that can be hit. But make no mistake, if the left were doing things like this, they would be called on it too.

To agree w/ you - and fortify your argument - if a group is truly grassroots, and they get funding / support from a corporate entity, in the end, that is not astroturfing. There is nothing wrong w/ true grassroots getting corporate support.

In terms of what I posted, these were all groups that were FOUNDED by corporate money, and have ZERO organic qualities about them at all.

Here is a fun Graphic for you all:
Who is paying to kill health care reform?

@rickyjulianbubbles: What in the holy hells is an "ideological pressure group"?

And no I'm not defending or care about ACORN in any way.

@TomCoughlin: Yeah your not getting paid for it so naturally no one else is? Them some logic moon boots you got there.

@Red_Flag: Thanks for providing actual evidence - I agree, in that instance, what Comcast did was wrong.

Now if you will excuse me, I have better people to talk to.

[tinyurl.com]

But I clicked 3 links, and all 3 seem to be the conservative and anti healthcare types. And atleast one actually looked like it was a grassroots organization that honestly believed in reducing government spending.

I was asking Costanza to provide examples of his alleged astro turfers on the pro side.

Again, in general, let me repeat: Grassroots organizations and corporations openly throwing their weight for or against something does not count as astroturfing.

Thanks for the links though. I did not know about most of them before now.

@MostlyHarmless: Oooh, I know this one! It means "When people employ the exact same tactics that the left has been using for the past eight or so years, except now it's bad and also, big evil corporations!"

You can play semantics all you want, it doesn't change the fact that real people are really upset, and apparently that's scaring the crap out of a lot of you.

That is SO surprising...

It's like when the Rolling Stones hired Hell's Angels to do security at the Altamont concert in 1969.

Astroturfing refers to an organization that pretends to be a grass-roots movement, so that it gains credibility by hiding who its real sponsors/interests are.

These guys are all at 601 Pennsylvania Ave in DC:
America's Health Insurance Plans - these guys fund them all
The Coalition for Medicare Choices
FreedomWorks

All of these guys reside at 1726 M Street NW in DC:
Americans for Prosperity
Patients United Now
Patients First

Not sharing quarters with the above, but involved in the health care stuff:
60 Plus Association - worked with one Jack Abramoff
Conservatives for Patient's Rights

@mythago: He was blatantly not advocating employing the Heritage Foundation as a source, he was demonstrating the silliness of the OP using a partisan outfit as a source.

Please see your snark a few comments down - again in response to HiPwr - about "deliberately misreading a comment" and "going home."

@LanciePants:

Yeah, if someone, had you know, read anything about the Center for Media and Democracy, it's pretty obvious they are a pro-democratic party organization.

@mythago: I don't make a habit of frequenting the fringe sites on either end of the spectrum, but I bet if I do some research, I could find a piece from the Heritage Foundation as tightley coupled to consumerism as the above piece.

@TomCoughlin: Now you're getting it. If you disagree with Trai_Dep, you are a rube. Hard to argue with such logic, isn't it? Maybe "hard" isn't the word I was looking for, "pointelss" seems more appropriate.

@Craig Newmark:

"a genuinely nonpartisan group." Lost me right there. Liberal echo chamber, anyone?

Left wing GOOD... Right wing.. BAD
Left wing -- Grass roots Right wing -- Astrotruf

@TomCoughlin:

Didn't you get the memo from Pelosi and Hoyer, your disagreement makes you Un-American.

@TomCoughlin: You are deliberately misreading mythago's comment.

Dude.

Seems to me that when the left organizes, its labeled grass-roots and when the right organizes, its labeled astro-turfing.

@mythago: How does one "pretend to be an ordinary citizen?" There's obviously some confusion and/or disagreement about what exactly we're talking about. Can you please provide a specific example of "astroturfing?"

DING DING DING DING!
We have a winnah! Somebody give dragonfire81 a Kewpie Doll!

Seriously, DF, the press in this country:
1. has never been trustworthy,
2. is not trustworthy, and
3. will never be trustworthy.

And it doesn't matter if you're talking "Faux News" or "PMSNBC" or Jon Stewart or even our beloved Consumerist, if you take anything you see, hear or read as gospel truth instead of measuring it against everything else you know as true, you're a sucker looking for P.T. Barnum.

Even the gospel itself is largely just third-hand...

@aswearengen: I have no doubt that you would consider this a reliable source:

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

Conflicted now?

@Trai_Dep: Oh, I get it now - only "rubes" exercise their right to disagree with the government. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm such a tool of those dastardly, well-paid "organizers." I can't believe how easily they conned me.

here's an example.

Are you trying to say that whatever a corporation does is OK? Your comment makes no sense otherwise.

The reason a lot of those stories 'slant liberal' is that, well, it's not conservative-advocacy groups doing most of the pro-consumerist work.

F

Corporations can lobby the gov't and public opinion all they want as long as they make clear who they or their agents represent. But if they're lying about who they are, how can you trust the information they are trying to sell you?

@Trai_Dep: I imagine that you probably do believe that all of those that support the causes you beleive in at these town hall meetings are 100% open and transperent about their motives. I won't try to change the color of your glasses from rose to something else.

However, will you acknowledge that not all of those that are in opposition are not astroturfers (or racists, or un-American, or Nazis, or the half a dozen other invectives directed their way)?

When reading the articles on this site, I think we call can imagine what kind of havoc 0 government influence over corporations would wreak on consumers. But I see lobbying and "astroturf" groups as the corporate yin to the government yang.

I encourage people to know with whom they're dealing. But if it's a corporation or special interest group, that doesn't necessarily mean the information the group is providing is wrong.

@Segador: Yes, I agree. If corporations or labor unions are hiring actors or directing members to portray the roles of "outraged citizen" or "supportive citizen", we all benefit from that knowledge.

However, if Chris Walters would have cited the Heritage Foundation as a source (which I would NEVER expect to see here), we would be seeing the same kind of firestorm from both sides.

I realize that Consumerist does not make any promises about impartiality, but I find it befuddling that anyone wouldn't expect some kind of backlash from such a one-sided approach.

Way to be played consumerist.

Nonetheless it made me pretty furious when I saw an anti-net neutrality ad a few years back that used a quote from Vint Cerf talking about the issue. They solely identified him as a VP at Google and only talked about whether or not we should be doing what is in Google's interests...neglecting to mention the fact that this man is practically the inventor of the Internet.

@rickyjulianbubbles: I don't doubt the essential information, but anybody who uses the term "Obamacare" is highly suspect in my view.

In what sense are they goons? Are you referring to the "brutal attack" where someone was standing over a SEIU member who was pushed down and someone pushed him out of the way. The videao shows him to be wandering around just fine, until a few days later when he decided he was "brutally attacked" and went on Fox News

@Trai_Dep: Sure, but using a failing system as the mold is quite silly and claiming it is a great system while ignoring its huge problem is intellectually dishonest (and something we should expect from our politicians).

@Chris Walters: Amen, Chris. However, as soon as I saw the title for the article, I knew there was going to be firestorm of trash in the comments, from both sides. Have I fallen prey to the same temptations before? Yes. Was it stupid? Yes.

Regardless of your leaning, its important to know who's money is behind the message.

@Craig Newmark:

"a genuinely nonpartisan group."

Way to destroy your credibility in 4 words. Any honest, thinking person can see they are an obviously biased organization. They, and now you, have limited credibility because if one can lie about, or be fooled by, this notion, than what else are they lying about or fooled by?

Is that a libertarian comment or something else?

When they bus in from out of state to pack a meeting, that's not astroturfing? Interesting.

Whether they are or aren't astroturfers, though, they're definitely goons.

@TKOtheKDR: What are you talking about? John Stauber(Founder of Center for Media and Democracy) is a paragon of logical, clear headed, unbiased thinking! Just look at his professional, peer-reviewed journals on amazon!

[www.amazon.com]

[www.amazon.com]

@mythago: Pretending to be citizens? You think people are getting shipped in fron Finland?

Whoops, left out the last link. Here it is:

[hotair.com]

Oh, how about the busloads of SEIU goons armed with pre-printed "protest" signs?

[gatewaypundit.blogspot.com]

... or this pack of HCAN (now THERE is an astroturf outfit if there ever was one) yahoos being coached on how to shout down opposition at meetings?

Fish. Barrel. Bang.

Yep, every single solitary one of them, collecting checks from the eeeevil malefactors of great wealth.

Gee, that's funny, I'm adamantly opposed to socialized medicine, and I haven't seen cent one yet. Golly, it must be an oversight. Rachael Maddow, why she couldn't be wrong!

@chiieddy: What's even funnier is to see all sorts of politicians and their front groups saying medicare is a great program that sets the mold for healthcare reform because it lets people keep their own doctors and doesn't intefere with the patient-Dr. relationship and then conveniently ignore the fact that medicare is on a collision course with bankruptcy.

@Chris Walters: Organized labor also plays a role in all of this as well.

@Snowblind: Thank you for writing that. It seems the editors neglected to mention the story was implying only one side of the political spectrum was sponsoring front groups. When such 'mistakes' are made editorial credibility is significantly diminished.

@Chris Walters: Well put. Sadly, I'm sure too many people are busy hate-mongering over this spew to read what you've said.

Oh well, if you touch at least one...

...Michael won't be able to catch up?

@aswearengen: Right. As opposed to the $150 million that the pharmaceutical companies are spending to promote Obama's plan.

[www.nytimes.com]

Do you have any evidence at all of this "backing" or astroturfing by people opposed to Obama's plan? If so, please post it, I'd love to know who I should talk to about getting paid for all the time I've spent fighting this monstrosity.

Easiest way to tell if a group of people voicing their opinions or views are "astroturfers"; if they agree with you, they are grassroots, if they don't, they are astroturfing.

@Trencher93: That book never existed.

If union members pretend that they're not union members, it's astroturfing. If they say, "We're union guys and we want this legislation," it's not.

If a business hires people to pretend that they're not associated with the business and are independent, it's astroturfing. If someone from the business comes right out and says, "I work business X, and we are against this legislation", then it's not.

Does that clear it up?

Logic? In a Consumerist thread?

Chris = My Hero.

Obviously there are trade-offs. But when you get one, you get the other.

Another good way to see if you're dealing with potential astroturfers is to do a whois on their website. See if any contact info is provided or if it is an anonymous registration.

The argument that many are having is that the source you're using isn't exactly non-biased, and that's the issue, if it was a group that revealed who is astroturfing on both sides I don't think many would complain.

The other difference is in this healthcare battle currently raging we have groups that are against the current bill that aren't being back by any funded groups, and the ones that are are at least being paid for by independent companies or groups.

The groups supporting the health care bill in it's current state, by in large, are the unions, or are groups being funded by the government directly (Organizing for America is a good example), and that's being paid for by all tax payers (who are also consumers), so I believe that reporting both sides using an unbiased source is far more helpful.

PHRMA is not an astroturf group. It is a lobbying organization openly funded by pharmaceutical companies to promote their interests. Nothing wrong with that.

If a group called Citizens for Open Medication were quietly funded by Merck, and pretended to be a 'grass-roots activist' coalition, THAT would be astroturfing. (Grass roots...get it?)

The problem with treating corporations just like people is that they already ARE made up of people, and they have a larger ability to make their case to corrupt representatives than regular people do. You might have a point if the influence of a corporation were the same as the influence of a person, but it's not.

@FTWGeek: Seriously. I'm still waiting for my check from these "big companies" that are supposedly supporting my presence at Tea Parties and townhalls. Plus, my reimbursement for those signs I made must have been held up in the mail. Maybe Rachel Maddow can get to the bottom of it for me.

@mannyv:

Couldn't agree more mannyv. It goes both ways. The Dems like to complain about how the Reps are in the pockets of big business. Nevermind that the Dems are the same way with the trial attorneys and indian tribes.

p.s. I am neither Rep. nor Dem. I am fiercely independent.

I've worked a lot with the Center for Media and Democracy, a genuinely nonpartisan group.

They've done a great job of exposing front groups, aka "swiftboaters" who practice deception professionally, at the expense of our country.

A lot of people try to ease the suffering of others, but the front groups fight that, for the profit of a few.

@PunditGuy: To quote Mostly Harmless - "Examples?"

If consumerist had a system for giving barnstars, I would have totally given you the

"Brick of Logic Barnstar", which is given when someone says something that is simply logical, and yet it looks like the other person just got hit over the head with a slice of lemon... wrapped around a gold brick.

When all the foam and rabies over Health Insurance Reform is finally over, and when Obama has been replaced by a Republican president and the other side is screaming about the destruction of the free world, there will STILL be a need to know how to uncover front groups and astroturfers.

This is a bigger issue than whatever bullshit political team you support. Corporate interests manipulate both major parties, and all sort of independents. To protect consumers, we must take up arms against abusive corporations and fight to keep them in line.

My favorite piece of propaganda regarding the health care debate (other than the death panel, which is ridiculous) is the one where senior citizens are made to believe they can't trust government run programs while they happily collect Social Security and use Medicare.

Consumer advocacy is political. Health insurance reform directly impacts the consumer's wallet. Net neutrality directly impacts how the consumer pays for, and what he can access in the first place, on the Internet. False free markets like what the telecom industry enjoys prevent competition that would ultimately benefit the consumer. Every law that protects the consumer from fraud, marketing abuse, or invasion of privacy for commercial gain was passed through the political process.

If that horrifies or angers you, you should probably stop reading/commenting because you're missing the point.

When the unions mobilize their members to support their candidates, that's political activism.

When businesses mobilize pay people to voice opinions, that's astroturfing.

Of course! Because those union members are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, and aren't getting compensated. Oh wait.

@Ozyman666: Hahahahahahahahaha.

How bad is it that I have gotten to the point where I take every report, statistic, testimony and whatnot I see in the media with a grain of salt? I just don't know who's spinning the data so it's hard for me to trust much.

Rachel Maddow has done a good job on her show of showing how the people backing the anti-health care reform people are backed by pharmaceutical companies.

Secondly, "The Center for Media and Democracy" is ridiculously left-leaning, and I trust them about as far as I could throw a Honda.

Find out if George Soros is a funder.