Astroturf in our DNA

Astroturf – a campaign that cloaks the efforts of an interested entity under the guise of genuine grass-roots public response.

It’s not easy being green. Fake green is easier, until it is exposed and you get “brown.”

There are many others who have written about poor astroturfing efforts – from Walmart Across America to Whole Foods’ “Harobed”. The perpetrators of these efforts to influence through guile have had their hands appropriately slapped, and business goes on. I’m not out to excuse what they’ve done, but rather to explain the origin of the impulse to pull the rug over the mud.

The News of Democracy

In my day job, I see the occasional article critical of my employer. I also monitor articles critical of others in the non-profit sector. And often, the interesting piece isn’t in the story itself, but rather in the comment stream tied to the story. Typically, you’ll find a few comments of shock, horror, dismay, or sympathy. Increasingly, we’re seeing comments that either refer to “facts” or allegations that were not present in the original news item. Sometimes they link to a blogpost, but more often they are unattributed and are posted by an unsigned party.

This isn’t the work of trained PR professionals who are using every tool (and buzzword) to leverage their clients story. This is a reaction from ordinary people who happen to have passionate feelings about an issue for one reason or another. And yet they don’t sign their names, as though there would be some repercussion for owning that end of a conversation.

In a few of these instances, I’ve known enough of the backstory to realize these “facts” could only come from someone very close to the incident. They are trying to introduce information that is not presented in the story, and that only an interested party with an agenda might know. No PR person involved – just homespun astroturfing at play.

Citizen Reporters?

I do know that newspapers have been slow, measured, and tortured in their response to the internet. Slow and measured seems to be working, as they adjust their business models and editorial schedules to meet the new expectations in the marketplace. The ‘tortured’ part refers to the begrudging nature of loosening the grip of editorial control, by allowing comments. Comment streams on news sites can be a great way to create a sense of community, to increase participation, and to generate additional page views. But it also creates a new backchannel that doesn’t fall within the traditional editorial function, because the community of blog commenters don’t expect the same level of scrutiny the reporters would get.

It’s an interesting decision. Do we allow anonymous comments? Keep an email address on file? Heavily moderated? Who has the time?

In the comment streams I see, alleged “facts” are being dropped into the comments without any attribution. They are being debated just as rigorously as the items specifically cited by the reporter. And rarely is there an admonition to the jury to “strike that last remark,” even though the question has been asked, and the damage done.

The Enemy Within

No one needed to teach these people how to twist and manipulate a comment stream. And I’m not talking about the majority of civic-minded people who want to express themselves – just those who have an additional vested interest, and are pretending to be bystanders. The impulse is within us all.

It’s not necessarily borne of a desire to manipulate. Nor is it shame, or trying to duck the consequences of sticking up for the point in contention. It’s a desire to belong, and have others agree.

If “Jeff” has a personal stake in a news item about a family member, he just wants to have his viewpoint represented. However, if he posts as “Jeff,” then he’s a lone voice. If he posts as “Bryan”, well at least there is someone else agreeing with him out there. And just maybe, “Bryan” can attract some followers too.

We see it in blogs, and in message boards, and we suspect it but often can’t prove it. People logging in multiple times under different names, and carrying forth a sad conversation with themselves. It’s comforting to see agreement, and to know that others who read will feel moved by the level of dialogue and support. It’s borne of a sense of belonging.

Newspaper sites can do us all a favor by recognizing this reality. Yes, it takes a little extra time to moderate the comments. Yes, it is an additional hurdle to ask for an email address for all commenters. Yes, it’s even more time to ensure that the email address is valid. Once past those steps, you could still allow for anonymity, but knowing there is a real person to reach out to if there are additional questions. Those steps alone would cut down on the imposition of neuroses on comment threads. They would also yield editorial gains for reporters who might use the comments to find ancillary sources for follow up stories.

It’s in the DNA

The impulse to Astroturf is in our DNA. It’s always been there, lodged in the part of our brain that makes us social creatures. If we don’t recognize that, we run the risk of enabling non-genuine activity on the sites and communities we build.

This lack of vetting is what places “lowly bloggers” so far down the food chain of news. It takes time and effort to build a reputation for accuracy, neutrality, and consistency. Yet the newspaper sites – by mimicing the conversation of blogs without vetting the content – threaten to sever one of the remaining advantages they own over the citizen journalist.