PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda

Environment editor Sandi Keane exposes the shadowy world of PR, where astroturfing and propaganda is used to coerce the public into sacrificing their own interests for those of big corporations.

. Experienced PR practitioners now coerce you through astroturfing and other socially engineered forms of brainwashing to sacrifice your interests for those of their clients – especially those with the biggest war chest – the fossil fuel industry.

Indeed, it was the rise of citizens groups in the US opposing action on global warming that ledGreenpeace to discover that these so-called grassroots uprisings were organised and funded by the fossil fuel lobby.

Public opinion is a precious commodity. It’s what elects governments and governments can deliver profit and power to those whose largesse it enjoys.Americans pay more for healthcare than any other Western nation, but the Hands Off My Healthcare campaign duped credulous Americans into believing Obama’s healthcare reform was a socialist plot. It was funded by “free marketeer” mining billionaires — the Koch Brothers.

Today’s PR supremos are making serious money out of commodifying public opinion, manipulating it and touting it to this ready market. PR spin is gradually replacing old fashioned journalism as the number of mainstream journalists dwindles, according to a 2010 report by the Pew Centre of Journalism.

The onslaught of suasion in the last few years has been unrivalled in tricking or swaying people to do the unthinkable:

To put corporate interests before their own!

 

http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/deception-is-our-product,3942

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aX2kMAfJggU

 

 

Manipulating the mind used to be the weapon of choice of totalitarian regimes. But the last decade has seen an unprecedented rise in corporate funded propaganda in our so-called “beacons of democracy”, USA and Australia.

Modern age PR illusionists, today’s digital age snake oil salesmen, are reeling you in by evermore shameful and unethical means.  They display no regard for possible tragic consequences. The most despicable are the climate skeptic spinmeisters, whose crowning achievement may well be the end of the planet.

Following our last story “Deception is our Product” posted on February 7, Indy Oz has compiled “A Practical Guide to Trickery & Fakery in the Digital Age” to help you sort the shill from the sham and spin from the scam.

In the humbug peddler’s SHAM BAG, you’ll find:

 

Phony Grassroots Groups or Astroturfers

as well as

Multiple Fake IDs - using Persona Management Software, Avatars, Shills, Sockpuppets, Fake Blogs (Flogs) and Trolls.


Of these, the most effective at manipulating public opinion is the

 

Phony Grassroots Groups or Astroturfers

 

 

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/how-to-spot-an-astroturfer-or-an...

Message 1 of 55
Latest reply
54 REPLIES 54

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda


@am*3 wrote:

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

@j*oono wrote:

I guess the point is that some self professed experts are called quacks and nutty because they are.

 


And you're in a position to diagnose someones medical and mental capabilities?  That must make you either a doctor or phd in something medical as well as a psychologist or psychiatrist? 

 

Because I find the topic interesting and was wondering what others thought about it.  I wanted to share the video as well (which I and others have found interesting) and upon typing astroturfing into new message, this thread popped up, so rather than start a whole new thread.... 

 

 


Self professed are the key words there. People witn no recognised medical qualifications. Also people who may have medical qual's but are spouting/promoting  something that has had no medical/scientific PROVEN studies to support it  = quacks

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I see it as more of a term given to any doctor who questions or disagrees with mainstream medical ideology or tries to expose the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Message 41 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda

I see it as more of a term given to any doctor who questions or disagrees with mainstream medical ideology or tries to expose the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Are we then to assume  that in any instance where a doctor disagrees with mainstream nedical ideology that doctor must   be telling the truth and all  those who don't agree with him  must be in league with the big pharmacutical companies?   If not, then how do you suggest  we determine which ones are quacks and which ones arent?

Message 42 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda


@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

@am*3 wrote:

@secondhand-wonderland wrote:

@j*oono wrote:

I guess the point is that some self professed experts are called quacks and nutty because they are.

 


And you're in a position to diagnose someones medical and mental capabilities?  That must make you either a doctor or phd in something medical as well as a psychologist or psychiatrist? 

 

Because I find the topic interesting and was wondering what others thought about it.  I wanted to share the video as well (which I and others have found interesting) and upon typing astroturfing into new message, this thread popped up, so rather than start a whole new thread.... 

 

 


Self professed are the key words there. People witn no recognised medical qualifications. Also people who may have medical qual's but are spouting/promoting  something that has had no medical/scientific PROVEN studies to support it  = quacks

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I see it as more of a term given to any doctor who questions or disagrees with mainstream medical ideology or tries to expose the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.

 


Well, that is not really what quack means. 

 

If a registered doctor wanted to expose alleged corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and had proof of what they were claiming, they wouldn't be a 'quack'.

 

any doctor who questions or disagrees with mainstream medical ideology

 

 

How many practicing, registered doctors would do that? Why would they want to be a doctor if they disagree with mainstream medical ideology? 

 

Message 43 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda

Good example of a 'quack'

 

1. Dr. Joseph Mercola. Mercola is not a strict medical doctor, but an osteopath who practiced in suburban Chicago (according to Chicago magazine, he gave up his practice in 2006 to focus on Internet marketing). Mercola has also written several books on health that have become bestsellers.

 

Mercola operates one of the Internet's largest and most trafficked health and consumer information sites. With an estimated 15.5 million unique monthly visitors, Merola.com dwarfs even ConsumerReports.org and HealthCentral.com. The site vigorously promotes and sells dietary supplements, many of which bear Dr. Mercola’s name.

 

A typical article on Mercola’s site touts the wonders of yet another miracle cure or supplement. Some recent articles include "13 Amazing Health Benefits of Himalayan Crystal Salt" and "Your Flu Shot Contains a Dangerous Neurotoxin." His site has also touted Vitamin D as "The Silver Bullet for Cancer."

 

Many of Mercola’s musings clash — sometimes bitterly — with conventional medical wisdom. Mercola advises against immunization, water fluoridation, mammography, and the routine administration of vitamin K shots for newborns.

 

The medical community says Mercola is dangerous, and that he steers patients away from proven medical treatments in favor of unproven therapies and supplements.

 

“The information he’s putting out to the public is extremely misleading and potentially very dangerous,” says Dr. Stephen Barrett, who runs the medical watchdog site Quackwatch.org. “He exaggerates the risks and potential dangers of legitimate science-based medical care, and he promotes a lot of unsubstantiated ideas and sells [certain] products with claims that are misleading.”

 

Mercola has been the subject of a number of Food and Drug Administration warning letters about his activities, including marketing products as providing “exceptional countermeasures” against cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. He also has marketed coconut oil to treat heart disease, Crohn’s disease, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Mercola.com also sold an infrared camera to be used as a cancer screening tool.

 

Some of Dr. Mercola’s wildest claims include:

HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. Mercola believes that the manifestations of AIDS (including opportunistic infections and death) could result from "psychological stress" brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful. Mercola.com has also featured positive presentations of the claims of AIDS truthers who deny the existence of AIDS or the role HIV has in the disease.

 

Mercola has said that microwave ovens emit dangerous radiation and that microwaving food alters its chemistry.

 

Commercial sunscreens increase the likelihood of skin cancer, instead of protecting from it. Of course, he sells his own natural sunscreens on his website.

 

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/four-biggest-quacks-plaguing-america-their-bad-claims-about-...

Message 44 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda


@am*3 wrote:

Good example of a 'quack'

 

1. Dr. Joseph Mercola. Mercola is not a strict medical doctor, but an osteopath who practiced in suburban Chicago (according to Chicago magazine, he gave up his practice in 2006 to focus on Internet marketing). Mercola has also written several books on health that have become bestsellers.

 

Mercola operates one of the Internet's largest and most trafficked health and consumer information sites. With an estimated 15.5 million unique monthly visitors, Merola.com dwarfs even ConsumerReports.org and HealthCentral.com. The site vigorously promotes and sells dietary supplements, many of which bear Dr. Mercola’s name.

 

A typical article on Mercola’s site touts the wonders of yet another miracle cure or supplement. Some recent articles include "13 Amazing Health Benefits of Himalayan Crystal Salt" and "Your Flu Shot Contains a Dangerous Neurotoxin." His site has also touted Vitamin D as "The Silver Bullet for Cancer."

 

Many of Mercola’s musings clash — sometimes bitterly — with conventional medical wisdom. Mercola advises against immunization, water fluoridation, mammography, and the routine administration of vitamin K shots for newborns.

 

The medical community says Mercola is dangerous, and that he steers patients away from proven medical treatments in favor of unproven therapies and supplements.

 

“The information he’s putting out to the public is extremely misleading and potentially very dangerous,” says Dr. Stephen Barrett, who runs the medical watchdog site Quackwatch.org. “He exaggerates the risks and potential dangers of legitimate science-based medical care, and he promotes a lot of unsubstantiated ideas and sells [certain] products with claims that are misleading.”

 

Mercola has been the subject of a number of Food and Drug Administration warning letters about his activities, including marketing products as providing “exceptional countermeasures” against cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other illnesses. He also has marketed coconut oil to treat heart disease, Crohn’s disease, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Mercola.com also sold an infrared camera to be used as a cancer screening tool.

 

Some of Dr. Mercola’s wildest claims include:

HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. Mercola believes that the manifestations of AIDS (including opportunistic infections and death) could result from "psychological stress" brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful. Mercola.com has also featured positive presentations of the claims of AIDS truthers who deny the existence of AIDS or the role HIV has in the disease.

 

Mercola has said that microwave ovens emit dangerous radiation and that microwaving food alters its chemistry.

 

Commercial sunscreens increase the likelihood of skin cancer, instead of protecting from it. Of course, he sells his own natural sunscreens on his website.

 

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/four-biggest-quacks-plaguing-america-their-bad-claims-about-...


But how do we know Dr Mercola isn't just a victim of "Astroturfing"?

Message 45 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda

You can believe that, I can believe he is a quack.

Message 46 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda


@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

I see it as more of a term given to any doctor who questions or disagrees with mainstream medical ideology or tries to expose the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Are we then to assume  that in any instance where a doctor disagrees with mainstream nedical ideology that doctor must   be telling the truth and all  those who don't agree with him  must be in league with the big pharmacutical companies?   If not, then how do you suggest  we determine which ones are quacks and which ones arent?


No not at all, I wouldn't reccommend taking any one person at face value tbh.  Especially when you are dealing with medical issues. Most people when they have been diagnosed with a serious health problem, for example, will always get a second, third, forth opinion if necessary.  

 

I didn't say that those who disagree with the so called "quacks" must be in league with the pharmaceutical industry.But I think that people will always lean towards the ideas that are the most popular and most widely advertised. They trust websites like CDC WHO AMA etc to give only truthful, factual information. But there are alot of people who think that these organizations are bought out by big parma and so their agenda is more about selling pharmaceuticals rather than providing unbiased information.  

 

I dont trust the pharmaceutical industry full stop.  (I know there are alot of people who, without the use of pharmaceutical's would most likely be dead because they have life threatening ailments, these people need their meds and I understand that but...) The price of compensation to the innocent people that are permanently injured or killed by their drugs that are so often fast tracked onto the market before long term studies have been conducted to prove their safety and efficacy, is just the price of doing business.  If they can saturate the market with a drug and make 45 million in profits from the sales of this drug, paying out 5 or 6 million in injury compensation is just part of the process of making big money. They keep getting caught out time and time again.  So, as their reputation wanes the only way they can keep selling their drugs is by employing practices like astroturfing in an attempt to boost their reputation and credibility.  

Message 47 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda


@am*3 wrote:

You can believe that, I can believe he is a quack.


Well there you go then.

That proves Ms Attkiss's point. There's so much conflicting information out there that ppl can pick and choose what they believe is right, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.

Message 48 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda


@icyfroth wrote:

@am*3 wrote:

You can believe that, I can believe he is a quack.


Well there you go then.

That proves Ms Attkiss's point. There's so much conflicting information out there that ppl can pick and choose what they believe is right, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.


Thats such a good point.  People will always have pre conceived ideas about what they want to believe as truth and what actually is the truth.  It's a conundrum that actually does my head in (for want of a better explanation) at times.  

 

I do tend to believe the whistle blower types.  Mainly because they actually have very little to gain by doing what they do, they are more likely to lose everything they have ever worked for in the process of exposing the industries they were a part of.

Message 49 of 55
Latest reply

PR, Advertising, Astroturfing and Propaganda

I do wonder whether Sharyl Attkisson was a supporter of Belle Gibson.  I heard about this on the tv.  

 

Belle Gibson wrote a book called The Whole Pantry and claimed that she was curing herself naturally from terminal brain cancer.

She also had an app and claimed that parts of the proceeds would be donated to charity which also seems to be untrue.

 

It turns out that she didn't even have cancer.  Another charlatan and quack or does she have a serious mental illness?

 

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/the-whole-pantry-author-belle-gibson-admits-she-...

Joono
Message 50 of 55
Latest reply