Congratulations for your “Spin Cycles”! I’m very glad that you took time to participate in this conversation.

You have a very good point regarding the astro-turfing, although in my view it’s not so much about doing something on behalf of an undisclosed interest but more about “undisclosed actions” on behalf of a known interest.

The slight difference might be underlined by the mention to another code. The Lisbon Code (Officially adopted by the European Confederation of PR – CERP – back in 1978) stresses several professional obligations for PR Professionals amongst which are “obligations towards public opinion and information media”.

It might be of particular interest to reply here the Clause 14 of Lisbon Code
“Any attempt to deceive public opinion or its representatives is strictly forbidden. Any form of blackmail, corruption or exertion of undue influence, especially in relation to the information media, is forbidden. News must be provided without charge and with no private understanding or hidden reward for its use or publication.”

I think this is much a question of trying to influence published opinion and forgetting that the most important opinion is the (true) opinion of the publics. Many practitioners still base the biggest part of their work on the premise that if they achieve certain objectives with regard to the published opinion, then they will have done their work right. To me, this might well be the bottom line of astro-turfing.

João Duarte

This dishonest “journalist” interviewed on his show an executive of a public raltions agency that had as its assignment the promnotion of Ira’s radio progam, and Ira failed to tell his listeners that his interview subject was employed by the organization for which he, too, worked.

To be precise, I actually interviewed two executives from the firm Media Profile for the series. The first was Patrick Gossage, the firm’s president, who was once press secretary to Pierre Trudeau. I used him in Program Three to talk about how television came to dominate election coverage in the 1970’s and 80’s, while he was working for Mr. Trudeau. The second was Susan Reisler who is a Media Profile vice-president. She was a senior CBC journalist before she went into PR, and brings a unique perspective on the nexus between PR and the press. She appeared in Program One, giving a vigorous defence of PR against the charge that it was all about spin and lying, and in Program Two, to discuss the techniques of media training.

Media Profile currently has a contract with the CBC to promote its radio and television shows. Neither Patrick nor Susan are personally involved in that work. Aware that there might be a perception of a conflict of interest, I received permission to interview Patrick and Susan from John Bozzo, Executive Director of CBC English Communications, who has overall responsibility for promotion at the CBC. Mr. Bozzo agreed that there were legitimate reasons to interview both Patrick and Susan, and the roles that they played in the series had no connection to any publicity work Media Profile might ultimately do for the series. I believe this was the correct decision, and I saw no reason to make an on-air connection between those individuals and the very tangential role that their firm played in the series.

Brian Kilgore’s statement that Patrick Gossage and Susan Reisler are “employed” by the CBC is ludicrous. The CBC enters into contracts with hundreds of private firms that perform a wide variety of functions for the corporation. Employees of these firms are not CBC employees by any stretch of the imagination. And if Mr. Kilgore is suggesting that Media Profile gave additional promotional support to the series because of the role played by Patrick and Susan, my response would be…if only that were true. My question to Mr. Kilgore is, where was the “dishonesty”, and who was I “scamming”?

As for the question of astro-turfing, I think the most compelling reason for PR people to speak out against it is that it is prohibited by the codes of ethics of both the PRSA and the CPRS. The PRSA code is most explicit. Under the category “Disclosure of Information” it states that it is improper for a member to implement “‘grass roots’ campaigns or letter writing campaigns to legislators on behalf of undisclosed interest groups.”

The CPRS code states… “A member shall be prepared to disclose publicly the name of their employer or client on whose behalf public communications is made. A member shall also not associate themselves with anyone claiming to represent one interest or professing to be independent or unbiased, but actually serving another or undisclosed interest”.

Although these Codes of Ethics are ultimately not enforceable, they represent a powerful statement of what the PR industry stands for, and what it believes in. They were drawn up by PR practitioners. If people who work in PR do not vigorously condemn these activities when they appear, it will be hard for the outside world to believe that the industry’s commitment to openess and transparency is worth much more than the paper these codes are printed on.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22astroturfing%22&btnG=Search

And Bob LeDrew, it’s nice to see you join the PR Conversation; despite your comment about the ineffectiveness of most ad campaigns, we still think of you very fondly here at the Certified General Accountants of Ontario because of the wonderful (unsolicited) editorial you did several years ago on CBC Radio about our (former) television ad campaign.

Nice conversation. Just like BAK I decided to start by thinking more about what are people mentioning when they speak about astroturfing.

Here are some thoughts I developed after looking at the AstroTurf (AT, as Markus proposed) definition at the Centre for Media and Democracy (www.prwatch.org is probably one of the most interesting sources to get into the minds of PR critics).

They endorse a definition of AT as «grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.»

AT is about manufacturing public support (do you note any resemblance with Bernays idea of the “engineering of consent”?) instead of achieving the support of the publics. AT is considering publics as ignorants and as “a means to an end” instead of as “an end in themselves” (one of the Kantian Maxims). AT is about trying to influence the “published opinion” (AKA public opinion) and forgetting the importance of the “opinion of the publics”. [More on this on a previous conversation we had here http://www.prconversations.com/?p=41 ]

This is why AT is a terrible practice with serious consequences for public life and for the growing disbelief of people in democracies. By the way, can AT be one of the reasons that help explain why Governments have lost so much confidence capital over the last few years – according to the Edelman Trust Barometer?

João Duarte

But if we’ve talking about the WalMart con job with the fake RV couple… yeah, lying is bad.

What puzzles me is how Edelman was the villian. Don’t tell me WalMart did not know the whole deal was based on deliberately misleading the public..

And now I see by my morning paper on Friday past that Dell has got into bed with the liars at Wal-Mart. Now, there’s a store in which to buy computers. Run by liars, who employee the lowest quality retail people outside of adult video stores, to sell products that are really complicated, especially to the people who would go to Wal-Mart to buy a computer. And they bungled the announcement, making them (both Dell and WalMart) look stupid.

Liars in marketing departments — and I think you’ll find most of the social media scams come from marketing departments, not real PR departments — have got away with deceit for quite a while, but in the narrower marketing segment of advertising, at least at the higher levels, there really is a lot of honesty.

There are lots of rules about honesty here in Canada.

As for Ira — notwithstanding that his CBC radio series was pretty good, he’s a scam artist, too.

This dishonest “journalist” interviewed on his show an executive of a public raltions agency that had as its assignment the promnotion of Ira’s radio progam, and Ira failed to tell his listeners that his interview subject was employed by the organization for which he, too, worked.

Seem kosher to you?

Other than the dishonesty, his show was pretty good, and PR Conversation readers with time on their hands should go to the CBCX archives, and listen.

As for getting in trouble by lying on so-called social media — I suggest that PR people look at the concept of e-discovery (punch up the Conrad Black kangaroo court lynching in Chicago as a starting point) and note the way government prosecuters can find out who sent what message to whom, when, etc.

And then just wait for a politician who did not get a big donantion from some company that ran a social media scam, to notice that aforementioned scam.

And then watch the court case.

Is having a fake web site social media? Then just lookup Best Buy’s fakery in Hartford, Conn., USA.

In this deal, Best Buy — so the allegations go, and this is not a completed court case — ran one price on its real web site, and then when a sucker came in to buy the product, Best Buy questioned whether the custoemr remembered correctly, and then punched up a fake web site with a higher price.

Try this scam across state lines int he USA and the FBI raise an eyebrow.

Enough for now. Time to cook dinner.

BAK

(I had the opportunity to chat with him at length post-presentation and Ira said he would send me his speaking notes. Hopefully I can expand further on his words directed to PR practitioners down the road.)

A reminder that the final episode of his “Spin Cycles” series from the CBC spends a lot of time on the subject of astroturfing.

Spinning into the 21st century: Episode 6
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spincycles/index.html

Audio file: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spincycles/audio/spincycleep6.mp3 (49.43 minutes)

It might be worth a listen (or a refresher listen).

(Cathy, Ira was very clear in stating that he thinks the majority of PR practitioners are ethical in their dealings with the media and various publics. He said that a number of times.)

Any practitioner in their right mind (or worth their salt) will not astroturf. Some deluded publicists ( I won’t call them practitioners) might unscrupulously be surfing for dollars, in which case they are between the devil and the deep blue sea, so may the fates deal them the hands they deserve. And, as you rightly say, it is a practice which has been linked with public relations for a number of decades. Fortunately, we all now know that that sort of thing – like smoking – isn’t good for you and, hey, the very idea is a little passé.

There is a flicker of hope in my mind that today’s practitioners are completely self-aware, have outgrown this perspective and will have therefore deduced that honest, transparent and true advocacy of their organisation is the only path to take. How can any form of astroturfing further a sensible and mutually beneficial relationship between people? How can any form of astroturfing (and there are a multitude of manifestations) move a business or organisation forwards? Bob is absolutely right when he says it reflects on the credibility of the profession.

If you want to slavishly follow outdated and somewhat archaic business models, along with the kind of ethical approach that the many discredited corporations have followed, then maybe astroturfing is the way to go. For the rest of us – and I have a blind and hopeful faith that it is a majority ‘us’ – our right thinking minds in today’s business and social environment understand that transparency, dialogue and an honest willingness to engage with stakeholders is still the way to go. Social media is neither here nor there – it is simply another approach to take.

Finally, to Markus, I truly wish I had the skills and ability to converse in German for a while – I am in awe of your ability to communicate in the English language, along with all the other PR Conversationalists who explore this subject so eruditely in their second language – would that we all had your linguistic talents and ability! (In fact, I am off to download a ‘ how to speak’ podcast now – but I am torn between Italian and German – which should I choose? Now that really is a difficult – and potentially contentious – debate!) And I have bought my boys ‘less than cool’ brands – they can deal with it, because we have had the whole ’sweatshop’ conversation and their generation is considerably less bothered with brand and far more bothered with impact,community and sustainability – to flick back to another conversational thread here!