Fake Grassroots Campaigns Deserve Uprooting

authordefault
on

AstroTurf looks and feels like grassโ€”in an all-too-perfect way. But itโ€™s not grass.

Now the well-known artificial turfโ€™s brand name hasย taken on a new meaning, referring to purported โ€œgrassrootsโ€ efforts that are actually funded and supported by industry and politicalย entities.

Some people, organizations and campaigns around everything from forestry to fossil fuels look and feel โ€œgrassroots,โ€ but many are anything but. In discussions around climate change and fossil fuels, for example, we see groups likeย Canada Actionย (and its spin-offs, Oil Sands Action and Pipeline Action),ย Ethical Oil,ย Resource Works, theย International Climate Science Coalition,ย Friends of Scienceย and theย Canadian Taxpayers Federation, amongย others.

Itโ€™s one tactic in the industry playbook. In aย recent column, we discussed science denial campaigns related to climate change and caribou habitat protection. Astroturf campaigns are designed not just to deny evidence and discredit opponents but also to imply broad public support for products or practices.

Many of the organizations are secretive about their funding and alliances, even as they attack social justice and environmental organizations over โ€œforeign fundingโ€ and collaboration with international groups.

Astroturf campaigns arenโ€™t new, but theyโ€™re becoming increasingly widespread and effective as social media and the internet play a greater role in shaping public opinion.

In B.C., they go back at least as far as the 1980s and โ€™90s, during the โ€œWar in the Woodsโ€ over logging in Clayoquot Sound. To counter massive protests, the Citizens Coalition for Sustainable Development, also known as Share B.C., was launched with support from and ties to the forestry industry, later spawning a number of โ€œShareโ€ offshoots.

The tactic gained notoriety in the U.S. after the Environmental Protection Agency released a 1992 report about the health impacts of tobacco smoke on non-smokers. In response, the worldโ€™sย biggest tobacco company, Philip Morris, launched a campaign โ€œto prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans.โ€

The company hired PR firmย APCO, which warned that industry spokespeople are not always seen as credible messengers and that a โ€œnational grassroots coalitionโ€ would carry more weight. APCO then established the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition to challenge the scientific consensus about tobacco smoke harms.

In his bookย Heat, UK writer George Monbiotย quotes a memoย from tobacco companyย Brown and Williamson: โ€œDoubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the โ€˜body of factโ€™ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.โ€

The coalition, with additional funding from Exxon and other fossil fuel companies, went on to sow doubt about climate science. Its name illustrates another tactic: using labels and branding to convince the public theyโ€™re evidence-based or to blur distinctions between them and legitimate entities. In Canada, the International Climate Science Coalition and Friends of Science (both of whichย Tom Harrisย has been or is involved with), are anything but friendly to science.

A report sponsored by the U.S. Heartland Institute and promoted by Harrisโ€™s ICSC was published under the banner of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a name aimed at creating confusion between it and theย Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In 1998, a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine sponsored theย Oregon Petition, which urged the U.S. government to reject climate change measures. It used the same font and format as the legitimate Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, prompting that organization to issue a statement distancing itself from the bogus group.

As the internet and social media become greater forces in society, astroturf groups and campaigns are growing, especially around global warming. Armies of trolls and credible-sounding organizations spread similar messaging on a range of topics. In keeping the forestry industryโ€™s caribou science denial tactics, we can expect to see it using PR firms and ostensibly third-party voices to make its case.

Although it would be difficult or impossible to end astroturfing, people can learn how to spot phoney โ€œgrassrootsโ€ organizations and campaigns.ย SourceWatchย andย DeSmogย provide thoroughly researched information on a range of groups and individuals involved in these campaigns.

For the sake of public discourse and progress on important social, health and environmental issues, itโ€™s up to all of us to critically assess all informationย sources.

Main image: A patch of astroturf. Credit: Amy,ย CC BYNCNDย 2.0

Related Posts

Analysis
on

Carbon myths, UN conspiracies and more magical thinking on display at the partyโ€™s annual meeting.

Carbon myths, UN conspiracies and more magical thinking on display at the partyโ€™s annual meeting.
on

The cache reveals a disturbingly โ€œcosyโ€ relationship between polluters and politicians, campaigners say.

The cache reveals a disturbingly โ€œcosyโ€ relationship between polluters and politicians, campaigners say.
on

Canadian environmentalist Tzeporah Berman makes the case for a "bold idea" to end the era of coal, oil and gas.

Canadian environmentalist Tzeporah Berman makes the case for a "bold idea" to end the era of coal, oil and gas.
on

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.

High demand for wild-caught species to feed farmed salmon and other fish is taking nutritious food away from low-income communities in the Global South.