The PRIA and Astroturfing
Written on July 11, 2006 – 11:32 pm | by Paull Young
I’m still tossing up joining the PRIA, I’ve posted my thoughts on joining several times recently, and I’d pretty much decided to take the plunge because I believe in being a part of things rather than criticising from the outside.
However, I’m now deeply concerned about joining after reading an article about the PRIA’s links to a strange event about going to ‘war’ with activists and seemingly promoting astroturfing.
Â
For the uninitiated, astroturfing is the practice of forming fake grassroots organisations to advocate for your cause. It’s a practice that is in no way ethical and when it is performed under the guise of PR it makes our profession look terrible.
As always, Trevor Cook has some great thoughts on the topic. Read this post (which was an article from the Walkley magazine) and listen to our interview on ethics (Trevor discusses astroturfing) for the Forward Podcast.
Trevor explaining astroturfing:
Some of these PR disasters involve astroturfing, the practice of creating, or fostering, individuals and groups to falsely create, or inflate, a ‘public’ viewpoint which journalists will then report on. Astroturfing is not always so clear cut. It’s a broad spectrum from the flagrantly fraudulent to seemingly innocuous donations to research and public advocacy groups.
Explaining why disreputable firms and individuals will continue with the practice:
No matter how often we condemn these practices, companies and governments will still look for an arrangement that will give them the edge in public debates and there will always be a broadcaster willing to be paid for supporting something they believe in anyway.
Equally, the power of ideas, or angry community reaction, is so strong that those companies and governments will always be tempted to support or create anything that helps their cause.
Ultimately, the only solution is a stronger regulatory response which both punishes severely the clearly fraudulent and promotes more effective disclosure in the areas that are less black and white.
If the PRIA is supposed to be “the sole body dedicated to enhancing the stature of public relations professionals throughout the country†– it should be doing everything in its power to limit this kind of activity, and expose and reprimand those who undertake it. Right?
So what is it doing presenting an event featuring a speaker who seems to be advocating this kind of behaviour, and whose trip to Australia was paid for by a body that promotes astroturfing?
Katherine Wilson’s article ‘Grassroots vs Astroturf’ appears in the latest edition of Overland (a left-wing Australian literary journal) She outlines the PRIA event I mentioned above (which she attended) in disturbing detail.
Granted I wasn’t at the event (and Katherine can’t forward me a recording of the event for legal reasons) but content aside – the PRIA supporting an event where the main speaker has been flown in by an organisation that carries out astroturfing is just plain wrong and completely inappropriate.
The PRIA should be ‘enhancing the stature of Public Relations’ by absolutely rejecting this behaviour, and doing everything in their power to uncover it and discourage its use.
So while I wasn’t at the event – there are two major, irrefutable concerns that the article has left me with:
1. That the PRIA organised and promoted the event, and the speaker was flown over by the Institute for Public Affairs – which is known to undertake astroturfing
2. That Clive Hamilton, the impressive, reasonable and well respected Executive Director of The Australia Institute, had this to say after listening to a recording of the event:
Why a government agency would attend a seminar like this is beyond comprehension. These agencies are owned by the public, yet by attending seminars to learn how to beat citizens’ groups by means fair or foul they are turning on their owners. Only an organisation that has wholly alienated itself from the public would even consider attending an event like this.
What on earth is the PRIA doing supporting an event of this kind?
25 Responses to “The PRIA and Astroturfing”
By Trevor Cook on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Paull, I think the PRIA has some real questions on this subject and it’ll be interesting to see whether they come out and defend their actions in supporting this fairly tawdry event or simply duck for cover. Judging by the author’s coverage of the seminar, I believe the participants would be well-advised to ignore all the advice they got from Mr Irvine. You can’t ignore community organisations, instead we should engage with them wherever possible and where they are ‘unreasonable’ we should appeal directly to the broader public and other stakeholders. I can’t see how this sort of paranoid, ultra-combative approach will help any organisation.Especially where it involves practices which are either illegal or at best morally dubious.
I’m not a member of the PRIA because I believe they are weak on issues like astroturfing - this episode seems to confirm that view
By Woolly Days on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Most enlightening.
I had never heard of the term ‘astroturfing’ as a way of conjuring up fake interest in a topic. One I will definitely watch out for in future.
The etymology of the word (out of plastic ‘grassroots’) is fascinating.
I’m no PR expert but I understand your reticence in joining the PRIA while they remain ambivalent on this sneaky and unethical practice.
Thanks again,
Derek Barry
By Chris Newlan on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Sounds like an episode from Absolute Power. And we wonder why PR gets such a bad rap from the media. I have long questioned the value of joining the PRIA. As Trevor points out they don’t take a leadership position on the issues impacting the industry. You’d be better off sticking with the blogosphere where you learn more and have an opportunity to interact with more of your industry colleagues.
By Katherine Wilson on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Yes, the PRIA is implicated in the article. But I’m not convinced they were aware of the political campaign behind it. Mind you, I think the whole ethic of dirty tricks campaigns and damage control, rather than ENGAGING WITH the public (the whole purpose of PR), stinks to the core.
By David Phillips on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Paull, A long time ago Mark Adams (Text 100), Prof Anne Gregory, Infonic’s Roy Lipski, Alison Clark and some others worked on the key drivers that would be delivered by the Internet (CIPR/PRCA Interet Commission). There were three: Transparency, Porosity & Agency. The Internet forces organisations to disclose (to everyone in the end); Information leaks out of organisations at the speed of light and to a global audience (all the time - Governement Ministers risign because of it); and once the information is out you loose control and a combination of people and technologies will change the message. We have been proved right for six years so far and have watched PR ‘professionals’ show how dizzy headed they can really be. The clever people who think astroturfing is a bright idea should be at the PR equivelent of first school and allowed out only with a grown up.
By Paull Young on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Trevor and Chris, reading those thoughts from Aussie practitioners with your level of experience just increases my grave doubts about organising the PRIA.
Katherine - I’m not sure how they could not be aware of the political campaign behind Ross Irvine’s appearance.
After all, you said in the article that it was David Hawkins from the PRIA who introduced Irvine and told the group his trip was funded by the IPA.
David - Great to see you reading the blog, thanks for your first comment.
“The clever people who think astroturfing is a bright idea should be at the PR equivelent of first school and allowed out only with a grown up.”
Extremely well said! That was my initial reaction to the topic. Then I thought, hang on, I’m a new PR practitioner… this event has been organised by my professional body… surely there must tbe something to it.
I’m glad to see that several senior PR’s also think this is as dodgy as I do.
By Marie Williams on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for an informative post, Paull. I had no idea what astroturfing was until now. I can’t believe that this is actually considered a veritable PR tactic by some people, and it’s even more shocking that a PR organization would act in support of it!
As you said, it really reflects badly on the whole of our profession.
By Trevor Cook on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Paull, maybe you could provide the image in this post (or something similar) as a piece of java script and those of us in PR who oppose this anti-democratic practice could put it on our blogs and websites - just a thought
By Paull Young on Jul 12, 2006 | Reply
Trevor, excellent idea.
I’ll look into it over the weekend. If I can come up with an appropriate image and the java script I’ll post them to the blog.
I’m thinking the best course of action would be to write a post explaining what astroturfing is and why we oppose it. Then, anyone who opposes astroturfing can leave a comment or stick the java script on their blogs.
Stay tuned!
By David Hawkins on Jul 14, 2006 | Reply
The PRIA is responsible for ensuring its members are aware of what’s happening in the industry. We have had a range of controversial speakers from across the political, environmental, social and economic spectrum.
The PRIA does not agree with the views of all our speakers but we are always interested in hearing different points of view.
PRIA members must adhere to a strict code of ethics. Those that operate outside this code are dismissed from the PRIA, which has occurred in the past.
The author of the article, Katherine Wilson, believes that the PRIA is part of a conspiracy theory against NGOs. I quote from a recent email from Katherine.
“But, as you will gather from my article, there is strong evidence this workshop is part of a wider campaign to discredit NGOs and silence dissent. You may or may not have been aware of this campaign, but by partaking in the workshop and promoting its unsavoury methods, you have become part of it.”
This is complete rubbish.
The PRIA is a strong supporter of many NGOs. The PRIA has a very significant number of members working in NGOs. Many of our registered consultancies provide pro-bono services to NGOs which reflects deep philosophical commitment to social and community issues.
However, members need to be aware of those that practice astro-turfing and the methods they use. Astro-turfing is common practice in the US and there have been recent examples of it in Australia. This is done by organisations using illegal means to generate publicity. As an industry we need to be aware of this and stamp out bad practices. These practices, which are outside our code of ethics, have an impact on the work we do and our reputation as an industry.
There are pressure groups that claim to represent the broad community when they only represent a small number of people. Policy makers and other leaders need to be aware of this to ensure decisions are not influenced unduly by those that make the most noise, rather than those that represent a broad community.
What a tragedy it would be to only have non-controversial speakers and never explore the new or the difficult.
David Hawkins
President
PRIA Victoria
By Paull Young on Jul 14, 2006 | Reply
David,
Thank you very much for replying, I’m glad to see you joining the conversation.
I understand the need for diversity in events and speakers. However, surely in this case Ross Irvine was not an appropriate speaker?
I’m new to the industry, so I can’t speak with a great deal of authority, but take a look at some of the comments above from senior practitioners.
There must be a difference between ‘not agreeing’ with the views of a speaker; and putting forward a speaker with dubious credentials, backed by front groups, sprouting information that all the senior practitioners who have commented here find deplorable?
I’m sure the PRIA supports a number of NGO’s, and I’m sure it’s home to a broad church of opinions - as it well should be.
However, this event appears to have been in opposition to the stated goals of the organisation.
How about a stronger public stance on astroturfing from the PRIA? And how about some support for the upcoming campaign Trevor and I are going to organise?
Also, on another topic:
“What a tragedy it would be to only have non-controversial speakers and never explore the new or the difficult.”
Speaking of not exploring the new or the difficult - when can we expect the PRIA to follow the CIPR’s lead and start blogging?
By David Hawkins on Jul 14, 2006 | Reply
Paull
Ross’ presentation was thought-provoking. My recollection of the event was that Ross was teaching corporates about the illegal tactics that astro-turfers use, not encouraging them to use them or encouraging them to be anti-NGOs.
Some of the tactics used by NGOs are not ethical and cause severe misrepresentation of the facts.
It is important for people to be aware of this.
Re blogging, good question and one that I will look into.
Regards
David
By Marc on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Somehow, I still haven’t quite figured out how to use trackbacks yet (either I or wordpress is doing something wrong, and I suspect the former).
Hoping that this grassroots campaign against astroturfing picks up steam, I decided to write about it as well. It’s a worthy cause for the good of the industry.
If only because it encourages debate on what exactly astroturfing is (not entirely sure), if it is always evil (almost entirely), and what we can do as an industry (a lot).
Paull, good luck!
By Paull Young on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
Marc, Great to see you supporting the campaign. I hope you continue to contribute to the debate.
By Angela Caple on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
I am a public relations student in Western Australia, and I think that astroturfing is not an honest form of communication. As PR practitioners, and future PR practitioners, we need to make sure that this tactic is not seen as one that belongs in this industry. It completely undermines the goals of open, honest two-way communication that we should all aspire to achieve. If we manufacture grassroots support, how can we learn from the real thing?
I am creating a videoblog this semester as part of my coursework, which investigates the concept of astroturfing. It is something that I am passionately against, and I hope that I am not in the minority of feeling this way.
Check out my videoblog so far: http://cacofonix.arts.uwa.edu.au/blog/10
And let me know your thoughts of how this deceptive practice can be ‘turfed’ from our industry.
By Paull Young on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Angela - I like the vids! Looks like a case of ‘cat-stroturfing’.
I’m glad you care enough about the issue to cover it for your course!
By tekglow on Apr 26, 2007 | Reply
im a public relation student in canada, and I think that astroturfing isn’t an honest form of communication also. i just though id trow in my 2 cents , VERY good website. a lot of information. Thank you.
ill be back hoping for updates
_____________________
http://www.top10songschart.com/
By mouseman on May 22, 2007 | Reply
If only because it encourages debate on what exactly astroturfing is (not entirely sure), if it is always evil (almost entirely), and what we can do as an industry (a lot).
http://bestmousepadcontent.com/
By immune guy on Oct 13, 2007 | Reply
Interesting debate on what exactly astroturfing is not entirely sure, if it is always evil almost entirely.
always interesting to read
By Rajiv Harjai on Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
Hey Paull,
Just wanted you to know that after 1 1/2 years of your post, your posts is getting used in academic studies.