Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumRight wing stepping up attacks on renewable energy
Last edited Mon May 14, 2012, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Confidential memo seen by Guardian calls for climate change sceptics to turn American public against solar and wind power
The proposals suggest setting up 'dummy businesses' to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a 'counter-intelligence branch' to track the wind energy industry. Photograph: Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty
A network of ultra-conservative groups is ramping up an offensive on multiple fronts to turn the American public against wind farms and Barack Obama's energy agenda.
A number of rightwing organisations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support for solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which also has financial links to the Kochs, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy.
Now a confidential strategy memo seen by the Guardian advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of wind farm protesters.
...
Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."
It suggests setting ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/08/conservative-thinktanks-obama-energy-plans
| 5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired | |
| DU needs some sort of policy to deal with conservative misinformation campaigns that target social media | |
4 (80%) |
|
| DU does not need a policy to deal with conservative misinformation campaigns that target social media | |
0 (0%) |
|
| What's a conservative misinformation campaign that target social media? | |
1 (20%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bananas
(27,509 posts)
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Last edited Sat May 12, 2012, 12:02 PM - Edit history (2)
This is a long document available for download with this link:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/355257/national-pr-campaign-proposal.txt
I'm just short of throwing up after reading it.
The created barrage of voices provides enough cover that the elected officials have a way to vote no because they can clearly see they have support for our position.
1: NATIONAL PR CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL
Draft from Rich Porter: 4/25/11.
Edited by John Droz: 1/23/12
-- CONFIDENTIAL --
PR Audiences:
Policy/Political
Local-State-Federal
Landowner/Lease Grantor
General Public (including non-rural population)
Tax Payer
Utility Rate Payer
Business Owner
Media
Academics
Students
PR Strategy: Create a national professional Public Relations (PR) campaign to effectively communicate with the selected audiences using targeted messages. Have a consistent, positive, national message. Be FOR something (e.g. Science), not AGAINST something (e.g. wind energy). Be proactive vs reactive.
The minimum national PR campaign goal is to constructively influence national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal is to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies. Resolve: are our interests just wind energy, or broader?
The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target the identified audiences with consistent messaging to create positive change. Public opinion must begin to change among citizens at large. Create a grass-roots ground swell from which the clamor for change will reach the elected officials and policy-makers.
The message will be determined from a variety of analysis techniques including inputs from local groups and others who have an interest in spreading the message. The message will be tested for resonance with the audiences, and the dynamic of the audience shall be periodically assessed.
In addition to have the appropriate message, it needs to be communicated optimally. We need to study and apply good communication skills.
Decide whether or not a national organization is advisable as well (Part 2).
Goals of the PR Campaign
A) Cause the targeted audience to change its opinion and action based on the messages.
B) Provide credible counter message to the (wind) industry.
C) Disrupt industry message with countermeasures.
D) Cause subversion in message of industry so that it effectively becomes so bad no one wants to admit in public they are for it (much like wind has done to coal, by turning green to black and clean to dirty).
Ultimate Goal: Change policy direction based on the message.
Some PR Tactics:
Most of this could be done by volunteers without having a formal national organization. Discuss how this would work and who would have what responsibilities.
Consider joining forces w some already established organization where there is substantial commonality and commitment (e.g. ATI, Heartland, IER, CEI, Marshall, Brookings, Cato, Manhattan, AfP, FW, CFACT, ALEC, NA-PAW, etc.).
Provide training to local leaders regarding PR.
Provide local groups support materials, like PowerPoint templates to put on local education seminars, document templates for them to file with their state utility commission, etc.
Have a high-quality professional brochure available as a handout, that summarizes the situation with wind energy (e.g. Rasmussen).
Encourage critical thinking from members and the public.
Develop a list of experts for testimony to government agencies, etc.
Identify key topics (e.g. health) and get volunteers to act as a clearing house for information and posting timely information for activists on a website.
Assign key people to be media interfaces (those who are knowledgeable, can think on their feet, camera friendly, etc.)
Coordinate messages to address local, state and federal levels of lawmakers
Create some catch phrases of wind energy -- e.g. puff power, breeze energy.
Setup a volunteer lobbying effort to reach key lawmakers Identify and connect with like-minded groups such as tax, tea party, true environmentalists, business organizations, property rights advocates, etc.
2: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
Some Considerations Regarding a National Organization:
[Note: This is optional. All of the above PR would be done as well, but having a funded national organization would allow for a more comprehensive PR effort.]
Decide on the purpose of a national organization, and how it would interface with local groups. (E.g. local websites would primarily have info pertaining to the local issues. Education re wind energy would be handled nationally.)
Decide on the structure of a national organization, and where the funds would come from to support it.
Create a "think-tank" subgroup to produce and disseminate white paper reports and scientific quotes and papers that back-up the message.
Timely gathering of information as it appears in media outlets on this subject
Media Outreach & Response (communications) Committee will create and coordinate media contact campaigns.
Use PR Newswire as the wind industry does currently.
Create advertising campaign for radio, TV, and alternative media.
Coordinate with signage, tee-shirts, hats, bumper stickers etc
Employ a well-known spokesman with star credibility. (Find one to volunteer?)
Develop corporate partnerships where the message goes onto bags, signs, tents and other outlets.
Start a "get people talking" campaign. Use controversy to spark ideas.
Youth Outreach will create program for public school coordination as well as college coordination.
This will include community activity and participation with sponsorships for science fairs, school activity etc. with preset parameters that cause students to steer away from wind because they discover it doesn't meet the criteria we set up (poster contest, essays etc).
Setup a dummy business that will go into communities considering wind development, proposing to build 400 foot billboards.
Social Media Outreach director/create coordination for message on web and in Twitter-type outreach, YouTube, etc.
Create counter-intelligence branch (responsible for communicating current industry tactics and strategies as feedback to this organization) A team investigates links to any organization supporting wind in order to expose that support.
Provide alternative solutions for public consumption as well as re-branding of the current wind industry?
Write expose book on the industry, showing government waste, harm to communities and other negative impacts on people and the environment.
Meme (self-replicating messages)
Response Coordinator (This will help slow the meme effect of the industry, for instance when a company places a seal showing wind power was used to produce the product, we automatically assign a tax wasting symbol to the product and recommend a boycott on the website.
When a company uses wind power as marketing tool, or illustration such as a toy manufacturer showing turbines on the box, we automatically contact them to tell them we will list them on the web as actively participating in disinformation by favorably showing wind turbines)
Legal Department for contract review and guidance on communication efforts, and also taking developers (etc.) to court on various issues to cause media exposure.
Maintain a comprehensive collection of court cases on this subject. Also to provide legal voice for those who have none in this issue.
Develop legal strategies that can be copied in other areas.
Take zoning boards to court to rezone as industrial land to create chilling effect on signing contracts.
Also sue for property value loss to small land holders, and use all legal cases to create media poster child effect.
Sue states regarding RPS.
Sue state utility commission who don't do their job. Etc.
National Organization: Details and Narrative
The minimum national PR campaign goal is to constructively influence national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal is to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies.
The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target three audiences with consistent messaging to create the change. Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a "groundswell" among grass roots. The message will be determined from a variety of analysis techniques including interviews with local groups and others who have an interest in spreading the message. Those who hold opposing views must also be assessed. The analysis will include scientific polls as well as focus groups to be used on a continuing basis from time to time to direct and focus thecampaign on messages that are useful to the end goal. As perceptions change over time, a barometer must be used to determine those changes and make dynamic adjustments in the message and campaign.
Proposed Structure of a National Organization
A paid, full time director will report to a board on which the director has a voting seat. The director shall have one paid executive assistant. The organization shall rely on a network of volunteer state committee chairpeople who are to coordinate efforts to disseminate the message in the state. The chairperson shall make contacts and maintain them with various adhoc groups throughout the state that would benefit from the coordinated message.
The director shall make use of information gathering technology to stay abreast of developments in the media and industry and then coordinate appropriate messages accordingly.
This technology shall include a subscription to Nexis.
The director shall also develop and maintain contacts and coordinate their actions in regards to the message.
The organization shall maintain 501c3 and PAC status and shall coordinate lobby efforts at the congressional and state levels.
The director will make use of scientific research which is designed to gauge the response to the message and allow for the adjustment of the message from time to time. The same research is also to determine the weaknesses in opposition messages for the purpose of exploiting them to the end goal of the campaign.
National Organization: Details and Narrative
The purpose of a national organization would be to do a better, quicker job at constructively influencing national and state wind energy policies. A broader possible goal might be to constructively influence national and state energy and environmental policies.
The goal will be realized by coordination of a focused message along many channels and with multiple voices. The intent is to target three audiences with consistent messaging to create the change. Public opinion must begin to change in what should appear as a "groundswell" among grass roots. The message will be determined from a variety of analysis techniques including interviews with local groups and others who have an interest in spreading the message. Those who hold opposing views must also be assessed. The analysis will include scientific polls as well as focus groups to be used on a continuing basis from time to time to direct and focus the campaign on messages that are useful to the end goal. As perceptions change over time, a barometer must be used to determine those changes and make dynamic adjustments in the message and campaign.
The amount of time and energy the campaign will consume will necessarily require a minimum of two paid positions with consideration for the addition of other paid positions as the campaign grows and is able to garner more funding. A director will be appointed by a board, on which the director shall make material contributions to the direction the board takes in its approach. The director should have at least one administrative assistant paid to help with work loads. The work load of the director will likely exceed 60 hours per week and more if travel is included. A travel budget should also be planned to allow the director to meet with key persons in the various states where the campaign will become active.
The director position assumes that volunteers are ready and willing to begin serving in various committee positions as soon as possible. The beginning committees can be constituted by a board vote and should include the following for immediate activation:
Media,
Science,
Regional State Coordinators,
Networking,
Political/Lobby,
Group Policy
The group policy committee will decide the key messages and focus and will use data from analysis and research to make its decisions. The decisions from this committee will be used to guide the efforts of the organization in communicating with the prospective audiences. This committee is responsible for analyzing and responding to the dynamics of the audiences over time, and is key to successfully implementing the strategy by identifying the correct arguments and tone for resonance among the audiences.
The media committee is responsible for implementing the message in a variety of media resources including traditional media, new media, social media and networking. This committee will also be responsible for using analysis to determine the most appropriate packaging of the message for the various outlets. It should consider what channels and voices to use in each instance. This committee will have the responsibility of message integrity, that is, the continuity of message. The committee will need resources for message positioning as well as utilizing free message placement techniques.
The science committee will be responsible for assembling a directorate of scientists with the proper credentials to be accepted by main stream media. Those credentials are also important in making the scientific material harder to target and more difficult to tear down by the opposition. This committee will coordinate with the directorate to develop a highly respectable collection of scientific white papers and reports that are consistent in their approach to supporting the messages chosen as most likely to succeed. This committee will provide well respected scientists for media and political symposiums to be conducted to further establish the messages. They will coordinate their efforts with other committees whose duties will include dissemination of the science.
The state and regional coordinators will be volunteers appointed to regional positions to remain in contact with the state leaders in their area. They will ascertain the needs of the state and also local campaigns and be responsible for regularly reporting those needs to the organization so they can be addressed. They will also be responsible for coordinating the flow of information in two directions between the organization and the state. They should hold a monthly meeting where round -robin information sharing assures the flow of information up into the organization. The coordinators will also individually be responsible for reaching out weekly to their state contacts to maintain a current picture of the situation on the ground, and should communicate any urgent state needs directly up to the director who should then coordinate the appropriate response.
The networking committee will be responsible for coordinating the response of networked groups with like-mind on our message. These will include the tea party, anti-tax leagues and utility rate groups as well as government watch-dog, anti-waste groups. This committee will help spread our message to the network groups and then gather feed-back as to their interests and needs for further information from the organization.
Political and lobby committee is the coordinating arm for the message going to elected officials and contact with them in the capacity of lobby efforts. This group ideally will be able to present a ground swell of public opinion in addition to facts that support the message. The lobby efforts will include targeted opposition to current bills that continue the policy this organization opposes. A coordination with the science committee is important to provide facts for lawmakers in a format they can understand easily.
Funding for a National Organization
The organization will need funding and a recommendation of $750,000 for seed and startup is probably a realistic number. Printed materials, mailing, and the creation of a media packet, plus phone and computer links and information services. Travel will be necessary as well. The director should receive a salary of not less than $80,000 per year with an assistant receiving $35,000 per year. The director should have experience in PR and media with the appropriate understanding of marketing techniques. High level of creativity in developing media strategies, with emphasis on writing and communications. This person must think outside the box and be willing to use the latest understanding of PR to counteract the opposing message and strategy across a broad range of audiences.
This is a recommendation to hire a professional fundraiser responsible for coordinating donations to both the 501c3 and Pac.
The fundraising efforts should be separated from the duties of the director so as not to interfere with the day to day activities needed to keep the campaign moving forward.
Example Scenario (for a National Organization)
In this example, the group policy committee has identified that a particular bill providing funding for the opposition has been advanced to committee for a hearing. Policy committee has asked for a coordinated effort to stop the progress of the funding measure.
First, the lobby committee uses their contacts to begin a campaign from the inside against the bill with phone calls and private meetings. They meet with several staffers who suggest that the bill is being supported because it has been moved as green legislation and several committee members are afraid to oppose it on that basis. The lobby committee reports this to media and science for further action.
The media committee decides to use a full page advertisement in the Washington Post as a method of communicating the 'not so green truth' to congress, and at the same time coordinates a special interview and story from a scientific point of view that illustrates the dirty side of the industry. At this same time, the science committee holds a press conference to announce that the industry is using dishonesty and "greenwashing" as a cover for what amounts to corporate welfare.
The message is also repeated in Wash Times, WSJ, Fox and other sources.
State regional coordinators are tapped at this time to provide a letter writing campaign from the grass roots asking the key legislators to back away from the funding measure.
This campaign is also echoed in various directorate groups coordinated from the organization including tea party, anti-tax leagues, etc.
The coordinated effort stretches across multi-channels and multi-voices, and appears to come from as many as a dozen separate sources, but the message is the same and stays on point. The created barrage of voices provides enough cover that the elected officials have a way to vote no because they can clearly see they have support for our position.
CONCLUSION
A more consistent professional PR campaign is an absolute imperative. With well over ahundred US local groups fighting the same issue, it is clearly advisable that these people be on the same page. What sense does it make for each of these groups to be reinventing the wheel, and duplicating efforts?
There are several options as to how this can be implemented, ranging from the informal to the very structured.
The low cost alternative is to continue to rely on volunteers, and not to have a national organization. That can work, to a degree, but there still is a critical need for the numerous local groups across the country to work more closely together. Exactly how that can be best done is what needs to be resolved.
The more high-end approach would insure the widest distribution of the best message -- but will require considerable time effort and funding. A national organization can not be accomplished without full-time people working to coordinate local efforts. Are we prepared to commit to that option at this point?
Establishing a national organization (if that is the chosen route) should be viewed as a long term project. A three year plan should be developed that can offer some time table for expected results. Due to the size of this undertaking, this plan should include a roll-out period where a test of the organization can be made in a single state or region of states first, before going to a national format.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)We've known they've been doing this for years. Why is this worth histrionics now?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)We've known for decades the detailed structure of the propaganda campaigns that have derailed climate action.
Nothing to see here, move along...
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I was just pointing out that it's an entirely predictable part of a pattern that's been going on for a while now. Even if the memo hadn't come out, most of us would have assumed that something like it existed. Knowing that it exists won't make it any easier to counter its effects, though it will make a few people more vigilant.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I disagree wholeheartedly.
It is exactly how you counter the effects. No one likes to be played for a fool.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
…[/font][/font]
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is probably the closest DU comes to dealing with the issue, and ultimately it might be the best that can be done, but I'd like to see some brainstorming on the nature of the problem and possibilities for dealing with it before throwing in the towel.
For what it's worth, I don't think a policy of headhunting for heretics is the answer and it should not be thought that is being suggested. My only suggestion at this point is discussion. See post 7 for more.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Or old ads by the Bell System that would "embarass" the photovoltaic enthusiasts?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)…aside from the fact that they are a reminder of a missed opportunity. 
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Have you ever been to one of the antiwind aggregator sites? Before becoming active on DUEE I watched it develop. They started slamming wind on the internet out of the coal fields of England when they shifted the subsidies they were paying to the coal industry to the wind industry. Its next manifiestaion was funded by (among others) the Koch Brothers in Cape Cod. That was the core from which all the rest of it grew, and now they have a massive presence on the web.
People really don't appreciate the depth of this effort.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Maybe he owns coal stocks.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/donald-trump-to-fund-anti-wind-farm-campaign-1-2134899
Yes, I just googled "anti wind" and found a lot of stories based in Britain.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)by all means, hit alert on them.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The only way to defeat denalist arguments (such as waste heat being an alternate explanation for warming) is to simply refute those arguments.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'm not making any proposal at all. I'm asking for opinions. The OP article describes a propaganda campaign that is designed to prevent action on global warming by subverting public opinion. I personally consider this one important, but isn't the only campaign of this sort by any means. Ever since the manipulation of public opinion by the tobacco industry, the use of covert and strategically designed propaganda efforts to sway public opinion has been a reality. If you think social media like DU is immune to such efforts for one reason of another then your answer would be that you don't see a need for a comprehensive policy to address the issue.
If on the other hand you do not think DU is immune then you either accept it as good, or you think it should be dealt with. It's clear you think we should deal with it and the policy you state you endorse is to let it be argued in a public forum; the truth will carry the day, right? You feel that we only need to "refute" those arguments and to do that good will is all we need.
Could you be more explicit and describe how that is to occur? If you mentally walk through a few scenarios I think you'll find it is much harder to do than simply letting it happen hit or miss.
How will you recognize it?
What makes you think that rational debate is, in fact, the objective of those who would misinform?
They are not practicing science, they are practicing the promotion of a message that is designed to sway emotions. How do you deal with it if there are a swarm of people pushing the same false messaging and constantly ridiculing you for showing them that they are presenting false information?
If your answer is to do what has been done to stop the propaganda campaign against the science of global warming I remind you that we've been losing that fight. Public opinion is unquestionably moving in the wrong direction and political action has become completely toxic. What makes you think the results will be different regarding renewable technologies?
"Everybody is amateur and everybody is learning from the ground up and re-inventing the wheel and the discussion among some of us was as to whether or not we could be a little more efficient and share resources and information," said Carolyn Gerwin an attorney and Tea Party activist from Pontiac Illinois who was among the participants.
Gerwin has been active in both Illinois Wind Watch and the Tea Party Patriots, and lobbied against wind energy at the state and federal level, her sign-in questionnaire for the February meeting said. "I'd like to see us develop a nationwide network of wind warriors that can be mobilised on very short notice," she wrote in a questionnaire distributed to participants.
There is evidence that network is already coming into being. Since the meeting, participants have pooled efforts to make phone calls and send email to members of Congress.
Social media isn't specifically mentioned, but there is abundant evidence that every professionally advised PR campaign being waged today is targeting the internet community as one of the most effective tools for spreading their message. Do you think DU is immune?
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)This is a proposal, in the form of a poll option, but a proposal non-the-less. Every single person voting for that option is potentially opening up the doors for a "Ministry of Truth" option. That is, some group of people who go through and determine whether or not something is sanctioned.
DU is not a microcosm of the American public. 'We' are not "losing that fight." We refute racist, xenophobic, homophobic, denialist non-sense on a regular basis.
The poll is specific to DU in particular, and reeks of an attempt to divide and conquer in an attempt to "oust" those who don't follow some "party line." It's Orwellian to the extreme. Such a proposal should never have been made to begin with.
If you want to deal with people who are posting false information, you need only refute them, it's simple. If, however, your entire purpose here is to post false or highly misleading and distorted information, then perhaps you have somewhere else to be.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You say we are not losing that fight and that we refute XYZ nonsense on a regular basis and that's fine, it is your belief and that is what I hope to elicit.
However would you mind sharing your opinion specifically on the point in the header: do you or do you not think DU is subject to attention from commercially motivated PR campaigns?
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)
This is an environment board on DemocraticUndergound. It's not a blog associated with "Science" or "Nature", or with the wind power industry, or even RealClimate.org. This board is essentially a water cooler, with exactly the sorts of conversations one would expect to find in such a place. Very few people come here looking for authoritative information on renewable energy. Given that somewhat humbling fact, no commercial PR campaign worth its salt would waste a minute or a dollar on our impoverished opinions. And if they did, what on earth would they gain?
There might be a few commercial RW campaigns that target DU in general on the political side, but even there the motivation would seem to be lacking. This is a committed progressive board after all, and as such is automatically unfertile ground for swaying public opinion (which is what anyone with money to spend on the effort wants to do).
That same logic goes double for this little corner of the DU-niverse. The simple fact that there are some participants here who think renewables are unlikely to help, or even that nuclear power might be acceptable, is not evidence of some nefarious commercial RW campaign against us. It's just evidence that people have very broadly varying opinions on any topic one cares to name.
The idea that the Koch brothers or the American Enterprise Institute would care enough about what we think about renewables - especially that they would care enough to spend money to disrupt the flow of conversation here in E&E - seems more than a touch grandiose. I'd go so far as to say that it's a narcissistic perception. The idea that they are already here, lurking around and fomenting their evil agenda in our little outpost of banter and opinion, is IMO frankly paranoiac.
You repeatedly insinuate that anyone whose opinion is more than a sigma or two away from your own is a RW shill. I've always been horrified that you would resort to slander like that, but I've realized that it's part of a longstanding pattern. Recognizing the pattern makes it easier to have compassion, but it doesn't mean I will capitulate to paranoid, megalomaniac bullying, and I don't think anyone else here should either. The idea that the RW is spending money on us is, as far as I can tell from my eight years of membership, nothing but a figment of your own febrile imagination.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The idea of DU being like a water cooler in an office is a good image to work with. I would respond, however, that this is precisely what makes it the type of fertile ground that propaganda efforts aimed at creating a grass roots groundswell love to target. Whisper campaigns and recruiting low-information (on a specific topic) people via peer influence to jump on a bandwagon are both extremely important tools in shaping public opinion. This segment of the campaign isn't a process that depends on the scientific method, it works on the level of personal relationships.
The volunteer structure of the organization looks to be explicitly designed to reach audiences at the DU level and to arm them with both tools and training designed to specifically for that segment of the campaign. Remember, their goal isn't to promote coal, petroleum and natural gas, but instead to stop positive memes related to wind energy (and effort that couldn't help but overflow to renewables more broadly). With an army of volunteer keyboard warriors distributed widely around the country acting within the context of a broad coordinated messaging campaign there is no shortage of manpower such as you suggest.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)...to make their case.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)is bullshit. I think your insistence on shouting down dissenting voices on this board does far more damage to the conversation than any such phantasms ever could.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)But I can certainly see why you would.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)Luckily, we already have one.
If an argument parrots a RW lie... let the poster know. If the poster has been shown that (s)he is not merely presenting a valid center-left position that happens to have broader support, but actually facilitating a RW lie, yet keeps it up... alert and let the community standards work.
caraher
(6,278 posts)DU already has policies against wingnuttery. And we already have the power to argue with anything we disagree with, provided we do so in a civilized fashion. (And sometimes even if we don't.)
Suggesting we need more of a "policy" than that naturally brings to mind the notion of expanding the list of DU-banned discussions (from TOS: "chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission..."
. Most of the things I can think of to add that are E/E-relevant would be along the lines of the worst climate change denial talking points; going much further than that would muzzle honest differences of opinion far too much for my linking.
I do very much appreciate things like the contents of Post 12. Exposing these campaigns is important, I think we're interested in knowing about them, and spreading the news when someone gets caught red-handed is infinitely more productive than casting aspersions on fellow DUers one happens to disagree with. As the cliche goes, sunshine is a great disinfectant.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I had in mind approaches aimed to keep track of the various memes that are being pushed, making that information readily available to DUers and providing a canned response to refute the misinformation.
I can see several problems associated with the idea but it is conceivable that it could work.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)That is more of an acknowledgement that there is a problem than a wider policy for DU. I suggested that approach for EE in the discussion on hosting back in December, but the intent was wider than DP's focus on just climate, it included also energy; a need amply demonstrated by this thread's OP.
However, what I'm fishing for here is probably broader that would also have quality information on the memes that organized PR campaigns are using to influence public opinion in a range of areas, from energy and climate to health-care reform and things like high fructose corn syrup; or civil rights issues like marriage equality and gun rights. All of these areas are politicized and subject to organized, and rapidly evolving PR campaigns designed to affect the political process through misinforming the public. And although it is very limited sampling, the survey above indicates a trend that people broadly recognize there is a problem.
As I said, elsewhere, I see a number of problems involved with such an effort and I will readily admit that DU might now be doing everything that can reasonably be done. But I've never seen the subject actually discussed transparently to the point of brainstorming possibilities.
The anonymous internet is great in many ways but it also has some very serious pitfalls related to misinformation that are going to destroy it if we, the users, do not figure out a way to address them. The broader problem of ill-informed people innocently sharing their opinions will never go away and we are all guilty of that to one degree or another; but that becomes exponentially worse when it is used as an amplifier for interests with deep pockets.
caraher
(6,278 posts)I think it would be great either to add to the existing pinned thread or have a second pinned thread be a compendium of well-sourced documentation of these memes.
I'm sorry I couldn't guess that's the kind of thing you had in mind. I appreciate wanting to solicit other ideas, but I think it's clearer to everyone else just to be specific about what you think might be useful. I don't think anyone here would be shy about suggesting alternatives.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)What problems would you see?
When I'm trying to learn what other's think I to hold input beyond the question until after exploring their ideas. That avoids just hearing my own thoughts being bounced back at me (in either negative or positive form) and is, in my experience, more likely to expand the pool of ideas than if I try to lead off with something.
I've been focused broadly on the issue of misinformation on the anonymous internet for going on 7 years now, and the implementation of solutions that are broadly applicable all seem related to changing the basic architecture of the internet. I think you'd be talking something along the lines of the proposal to create a separate domain for porn. Alternatively if there were widespread recognition of the problem at the grass roots level, then the potential exists for different, locally implemented paths that might help mitigate the damage - emphasis on the word 'potential'.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and he will commence building The People's Most Supreme Democratic Internet right after he finishes executing some running dog dissidents.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)I've been focused broadly on the issue of misinformation on the anonymous internet for going on 7 years now, and the implementation of solutions that are broadly applicable all seem related to changing the basic architecture of the internet. I think you'd be talking something along the lines of the proposal to create a separate domain for porn. Alternatively if there were widespread recognition of the problem at the grass roots level, then the potential exists for different, locally implemented paths that might help mitigate the damage - emphasis on the word 'potential'.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your eagerness to pull the trigger on snark directed towards me is leading to more and more inane commentary from you Xemasab. As evidenced by the poll above there is a broad recognition of the existence of a problem. If you wish to deny it that's fine; but if the only thing you have to offer is absurd oblique personal attacks then your position is what suffers, not me.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and the others have been laying pretty low.
One man's "right-wing talking points" are another man's "things about which reasonable people can disagree," and so far the people on the hosting team tend to lean towards giving the latter interpretation full rein.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)There cannot be a simpler promotion of an interest of the one percenters and the war industry than nuclear power.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)You obviously won't be able to support candidates who take what you consider to be right-wing positions.
Right?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The corollary would be voting FOR the energy systems that renewables displace - nuclear and coal.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)My post was in reply to the blanket statement that support for nuclear is itself a right-wing talking point.
Since several of our Democratic candidates (including the President of the United States) advocate the use of nuclear power... and since DU exists for those of us who intend to vote for Democrats...
...I just wondered when the poster would put his beliefs in action.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)... in which a corporation, business, or developer sues an organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against its actions. SLAPP suits typically involve the environment ...
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/slapp-suit-term.html
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Fight on the merits, not through regulation, because DU regulation about these matters would make wind/solar advocates lazy, IMHO.
Let's take them on, give them enough rope to hand, fight the good fight.
JMHO.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Policy can take many forms and what I think is needed is one specifically designed to do exactly what you are talking about, "fight on the merits". I fail to see how making that fight one that is organized rather that haphazard and slip-shod is problematic in any way.
If you are talking about banning people then you are not discussing any suggestion that I've made. You do realize that, right? It is pretty clear in the thread above who has tried to put those words in my mouth, I'm very surprised you are going along with that.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I never mentioned or even considered banning anyone. You wrote the OP. I replied.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You mean you didn't read the thread before posting?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Get a grip and send your energy where it can actually sway people who disagree with you.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I had assumed you read the thread and I have no idea what you mean by a policy that "dictates speech". Letting you know that isn't "fighting" as I understand the term.
I know of no policy that can perform the "dictate speech" function; policies can limit speech or they can enhance speech by providing information.
What went on behind the scenes with the DU2 policy of not posting from certain right wing websites? I don't know the antecedents of that but I suspect it is an attempt to address the same problem I'm concerned with here. Depending on the way it was done in the background it might provide a model for that I and others (see poll) see a need for.
I don't have a concrete plan in mind here, I opened it for discussion with the hopes of exploring the way it might be done. How about some help?
ETA: Do you know why regulation is needed to meet demand for social goods that generally everyone agrees are needed? It is a fundamental schism between right and left, so I believe that being aware of the results of research in the area is important. I don't have specific references since it is part of economics classes long in the past, but here is the meat of the matter. I am not accusing you or anyone else of being a conservative, but the argument they make is an emotionally appealing one that captures us more often than we realize.
The conservative ideological approach says that allowing people to meet these needs through voluntary contributions is the best way to address them. The point to the works of church and charitable giving etc where the action is centered on the initiative of an individual to address the problems that are most on their radar.
However when you do very high quality research involving extensive interviewing an polling to determine the level of resources people believe we should dedicate to providing for those social goods you establish a baseline for reference. When you compare the results of the approach fostered by conservative ideology you discover that the provision of the social goods always falls far short of where the social consensus says it should be.
There are a lot of reasons for this which I couldn't list without researching the literature, but I believe the idea applies to the issue at hand when we think of whether to pursue an approach to this problem that is rooted purely in individual initiave or whether to organize a programmatic response to deal with it.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Mon May 21, 2012, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)
No it's not.
Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch. Except not funny.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)REcent flood of posts that seem right in line with the strategy outlined in post 12. Although it was a draft looking for funding, it provides us a common sense blueprint of what to look for when money is spent to accomplish the stated goals.