Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada — Transcript

Full transcript

1. 0:00Transcriber: Marta Palacio Reviewer: Denise RQ
2. 0:14Consider this fictitious example that's inspired by real life:
3. 0:18say you're watching the news, and you see a story about a new study
4. 0:22on the cholesterol-lowering drug called cholextra.
5. 0:25The study says cholextra is so effective
6. 0:27that doctors should consider prescribing it to adults
7. 0:30and even children who don't yet have high cholesterol.
8. 0:34Is it too good to be true?
9. 0:36You're smart, you decide to do some of your own research.
10. 0:39You do a Google search, you consult social media, Facebook, and Twitter.
11. 0:43You look at Wikipedia, WebMD, a non-profit website,
12. 0:47and you read the original study
13. 0:49in a peer-reviewed published medical journal.
14. 0:52It all confirms how effective cholextra is.
15. 0:56You do run across a few negative comments and a potential link to cancer,
16. 0:59but you dismiss that,
17. 1:00because medical experts call the cancer link a myth
18. 1:04and say that those who think there is a link there are quacks, cranks, and nuts.
19. 1:11Finally, you learn that your own doctor recently attended a medical seminar.
20. 1:15The lecture that he attended confirmed how effective cholextra is,
21. 1:18so he sends you off with some free samples and a prescription.
22. 1:22You've really done your homework.
23. 1:25But what if all isn't as it seems?
24. 1:27What if the reality you found was false;
25. 1:30a carefully-constructed narrative by unseen special interests
26. 1:34designed to manipulate your opinion?
27. 1:37A Truman Show-esque alternate reality all around you?
28. 1:41Complacency in the news media
29. 1:43combined with incredibly powerful propaganda and publicity forces mean
30. 1:47we sometimes get little of the truth.
31. 1:50Special interests have unlimited time and money
32. 1:53to figure out new ways to spin us while cloaking their role.
33. 1:57Surreptitious astroturf methods are now more important to these interests
34. 2:01than traditional lobbying of Congress.
35. 2:03There's an entire industry built around it in Washington.
36. 2:07What is astroturf?
37. 2:09It's a perversion of grassroots, as in fake grassroots.
38. 2:13Astroturf is when political, corporate, or other special interests
39. 2:16disguise themselves
40. 2:18and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts,
41. 2:21publish ads and letters to the editor, or simply post comments online
42. 2:26to try to fool you into thinking
43. 2:28an independent or grassroots movement is speaking.
44. 2:32The whole point of astroturf is to try to get the impression
45. 2:35there's widespread support for or against an agenda when there's not.
46. 2:40Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion
47. 2:44by making you feel as if you're an outlier when you're not.
48. 2:49One example is the Washington Redskins' name.
49. 2:52Without taking a position on the controversy,
50. 2:54if you simply were looking at news media coverage
51. 2:57over the course of the past year, or looking at social media,
52. 3:00you probably have to conclude
53. 3:01that most Americans find that name offensive
54. 3:03and think it ought to be changed.
55. 3:05But what if I told you 71% of Americans say the name should not be changed?
56. 3:11That's more than two thirds.
57. 3:14Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them.
58. 3:18They attack news organizations that publish stories they don't like,
59. 3:22whistle-blowers who tell the truth,
60. 3:24politicians who dare to ask the tough questions,
61. 3:27and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it.
62. 3:31Sometimes, astroturfers simply shove intentionally
63. 3:34so much confusing and conflicting information into the mix
64. 3:38that you're left to throw up your hands and disregard all of it,
65. 3:41including the truth;
66. 3:44Drown out a link between a medicine and a harmful side effect
67. 3:47say, vaccines and autism,
68. 3:49by throwing a bunch of conflicting paid-for studies,
69. 3:52surveys, and experts into the mix,
70. 3:54confusing the truth beyond recognition.
71. 3:58And then, there's Wikipedia -
72. 4:01astroturf's dream come true.
73. 4:04Built as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,
74. 4:08the reality can't be more different.
75. 4:10Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages
76. 4:14on behalf of special interests.
77. 4:16They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda.
78. 4:19They skew and delete information
79. 4:21in blatant violation of Wikipedia's own established policies with impunity,
80. 4:26Always superior to the poor schlubs
81. 4:28who actually believe anyone can edit Wikipedia
82. 4:30only to discover
83. 4:32they're barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies.
84. 4:36Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error
85. 4:39on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages, and poof!;
86. 4:42sometimes within a matter of seconds you'll find your edit is reversed.
87. 4:47In 2012, famed author Philip Roth tried to correct a major fact error
88. 4:52about the inspiration behind one of his book characters
89. 4:54cited on a Wikipedia page,
90. 4:56but no matter how hard he tried,
91. 4:58Wikipedia's editors wouldn't allow it.
92. 5:01They kept reverting the edits back to the false information.
93. 5:04When Roth finally reached a person at Wikipedia
94. 5:07- which was no easy task -
95. 5:08and tried to find out what was going wrong,
96. 5:10they told him he simply was not considered a credible source on himself.
97. 5:14(Laughter)
98. 5:17A few weeks later, there was a huge scandal
99. 5:19when Wikipedia officials got caught offering a PR service
100. 5:23the skewed and edited information
101. 5:25on behalf of paid publicity-seeking clients,
102. 5:28in utter opposition to Wikipedia's supposed policies.
103. 5:31All of this may be
104. 5:32why, when a medical study looked at medical conditions
105. 5:36described on Wikipedia pages
106. 5:38and compared it to actual peer-reviewed published research,
107. 5:42Wikipedia contradicted medical research 90% of the time.
108. 5:47You may never fully trust what you read on Wikipedia again,
109. 5:50nor should you.
110. 5:52Let's now go back
111. 5:53to that fictitious cholextra example and all the research you did.
112. 5:56It turns out
113. 5:58the Facebook and Twitter accounts you found that were so positive,
114. 6:01were actually written by paid professionals
115. 6:03hired by the drug company to promote the drug.
116. 6:06The Wikipedia page had been monitored by an agenda editor,
117. 6:09also paid by the drug company.
118. 6:11The drug company also arranged to optimize Google search engine results
119. 6:15so it was no accident that you stumbled across
120. 6:18that positive non-profit that had all those positive comments.
121. 6:22The non-profit was, of course, secretly founded and funded
122. 6:25by the drug company.
123. 6:27The drug company also financed that positive study
124. 6:30and used its power of editorial control
125. 6:33to omit any mention of cancer as a possible side-effect.
126. 6:38Once more, each and every doctor who publicly touted cholextra
127. 6:41or called the cancer link a myth,
128. 6:43or ridiculed critics as paranoid cranks and quacks,
129. 6:47or served on the government advisory board that approved the drug,
130. 6:50each of those doctors is actually a paid consultant for the drug company.
131. 6:55As for your own doctor,
132. 6:56the medical lecture he attended that had all those positive evaluations
133. 7:00was in fact, like many continuing medical education classes,
134. 7:04sponsored by the drug company.
135. 7:06And when the news reported on that positive study,
136. 7:08it didn't mention any of that.
137. 7:11I have tons of personal examples from real life.
138. 7:14A couple of years ago, CBS News asked me to look into a story
139. 7:17about a study coming out
140. 7:19from the non-profit National Sleep Foundation.
141. 7:22Supposedly, this press release coming out said the study concluded we are a nation
142. 7:26with an epidemic of sleeplessness, and we don't even know it,
143. 7:30and we should all go ask our doctors about it.
144. 7:33A couple of things struck me about that.
145. 7:35First, I recognized the phrase "ask your doctor" as a catch phrase
146. 7:38promoted by the pharmaceutical industry.
147. 7:40They know that if they can get your foot
148. 7:42through the door at the doctor's office to mention a malady,
149. 7:45you're very likely to be prescribed the latest drug that's marketed.
150. 7:49Second, I wondered
151. 7:50how serious an epidemic of sleeplessness could really be
152. 7:53if we don't even know that we have it.
153. 7:55(Laughter)
154. 7:57It didn't take long for me to do a little research and discover
155. 8:00that the National Sleep Foundation non-profit,
156. 8:02and the study which was actually a survey not a study,
157. 8:06were sponsored in part by a new drug
158. 8:08that was about to be launched onto the market, called Lunesta,
159. 8:11a sleeping pill.
160. 8:12I reported the study, as CBS News asked,
161. 8:15but of course, I disclosed the sponsorship behind the non-profit and the survey
162. 8:19so the viewers could weigh the information accordingly.
163. 8:22All the other news media reported the same survey
164. 8:25directly off the press release, as written,
165. 8:27without digging past the superficial.
166. 8:29It later became an example written up in the Columbia Journalism Review,
167. 8:33which quite accurately reported
168. 8:35that only we, at CBS News, had bothered to do a little bit of research
169. 8:38and disclose the conflict of interest behind this widely reported survey.
170. 8:43So now you may be thinking,
171. 8:45"What can I do? I thought I'd done my research.
172. 8:48What chance do I have separating fact from fiction,
173. 8:52especially if seasoned journalists with years of experience
174. 8:54can be so easily fooled?"
175. 8:56I have a few strategies that I can tell you about
176. 8:59to help you recognize signs of propaganda and astroturf.
177. 9:02Once you start to know what to look for, you'll begin to recognize it everywhere.
178. 9:07First, hallmarks of astroturf include use of inflammatory language
179. 9:11such as "crank", "quack", "nutty", "lies," "paranoid", "pseudo", and "conspiracy."
180. 9:17Astroturfers often claim to debunk myths that aren't myths at all.
181. 9:22Use of the charged language test well:
182. 9:24people hear something's a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes,
183. 9:28and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it.
184. 9:31But what if the whole notion of the myth is itself a myth,
185. 9:35and you and Snopes fell for that?
186. 9:37(Laughter)
187. 9:39Be aware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking
188. 9:43the people, personalities, and organizations surrounding it
189. 9:46rather than addressing the facts.
190. 9:48That could be astroturf.
191. 9:50And most of all,
192. 9:51astroturfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism
193. 9:55for those exposing wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers.
194. 9:59In other words, instead of questioning authority,
195. 10:01they question those who question authority.
196. 10:05You might start to see things a little more clearly;
197. 10:07it's like taking off your glasses, wiping them, and putting them back on,
198. 10:11realizing, for the first time, how foggy they'd been all along.
199. 10:15I can't resolve these issues, but I hope that I've given you some information
200. 10:18that will at least motivate you to take off your glasses and wipe them,
201. 10:22and become a wiser consumer of information
202. 10:24in an increasingly artificial, paid-for reality.
203. 10:28Thank you.
204. 10:29(Applause)