1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:14,000 Tanya Cushman Reviewer 2 00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:19,000 So, consider this fictitious example that's inspired by real life. 3 00:00:19,000 --> 00:00:22,000 Say you're watching the news and you see a story about a new study 4 00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:25,000 on the cholesterol-lowering drug called Cholextra. 5 00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:28,000 The study says Cholextra is so effective 6 00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:31,000 that doctors should consider prescribing it to adults 7 00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:34,000 and even children who don't yet have high cholesterol. 8 00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:36,000 Is it too good to be true? 9 00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:39,000 You're smart, you decide to do some of your own research. 10 00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:43,000 You do a Google search, you consult social media, Facebook and Twitter, 11 00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:47,000 you look at Wikipedia, WebMD, a non-profit website, 12 00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:52,000 and you read the original study in a peer-reviewed published medical journal. 13 00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:55,000 It all confirms how effective Cholextra is. 14 00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:59,000 You do run across a few negative comments and a potential link to cancer, 15 00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:04,000 but you dismiss that because medical experts call the cancer link a myth 16 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:10,000 and say that those who think there is a link there are quacks and cranks and nuts. 17 00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:14,000 Finally, you learn that your own doctor recently attended a medical seminar. 18 00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:18,000 The lecture that he attended confirmed how effective Cholextra is, 19 00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:22,000 so he sends you off with some free samples and a prescription. 20 00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:24,000 You've really done your homework. 21 00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:27,000 But what if all isn't as it seems? 22 00:01:27,000 --> 00:01:30,000 What if the reality you found was false? 23 00:01:30,000 --> 00:01:36,000 A carefully constructed narrative by unseen special interests designed to manipulate your opinion. 24 00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:41,000 A Truman Show-esque alternate reality all around you. 25 00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:50,000 Complacency in the news media combined with incredibly powerful propaganda and publicity forces mean we sometimes get little of the truth. 26 00:01:50,000 --> 00:01:57,000 Special interests have unlimited time and money to figure out new ways to spin us while cloaking their role. 27 00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:03,000 Surreptitious astroturf methods are now more important to these interests than traditional lobbying of Congress. 28 00:02:03,000 --> 00:02:07,000 There's an entire industry built around it in Washington. 29 00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:09,000 What is astroturf? 30 00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:13,000 It's a perversion of grassroots, as in fake grassroots. 31 00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:18,000 Astroturf is when political, corporate, or other special interests disguise themselves 32 00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:24,000 and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, 33 00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:32,000 or simply post comments online to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking. 34 00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:40,000 The whole point of astroturf is to try to give the impression there's widespread support for or against an agenda when there's not. 35 00:02:40,000 --> 00:02:48,000 Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you're an outlier when you're not. 36 00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:52,000 One example is the Washington Redskins name. 37 00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:58,000 Without taking a position on the controversy, if you simply were looking at news media coverage over the course of the past year 38 00:02:58,000 --> 00:03:06,000 or looking at social media, you'd probably have to conclude that most Americans find that name offensive and think it ought to be changed. 39 00:03:06,000 --> 00:03:11,000 But what if I told you 71% of Americans say the name should not be changed? 40 00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:14,000 That's more than two-thirds. 41 00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:18,000 Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. 42 00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:24,000 They attack news organizations that publish stories they don't like, whistleblowers who tell the truth, 43 00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:31,000 politicians who dare to ask the tough questions, and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it. 44 00:03:31,000 --> 00:03:38,000 Sometimes astroturfers simply shove, intentionally, so much confusing and conflicting information into the mix 45 00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:44,000 that you're left to throw up your hands and disregard all of it, including the truth. 46 00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:49,000 Drown out a link between a medicine and a harmful side effect, say vaccines and autism, 47 00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:54,000 by throwing a bunch of conflicting paid-for studies, surveys, and experts into the mix, 48 00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:58,000 confusing the truth beyond recognition. 49 00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:01,000 And then there's Wikipedia. 50 00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:05,000 Astroturf's dream come true. 51 00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:10,000 Billed as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the reality can't be more different. 52 00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:16,000 Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests. 53 00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:19,000 They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda. 54 00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:26,000 They skew and delete information in blatant violation of Wikipedia's own established policies with impunity, 55 00:04:26,000 --> 00:04:31,000 always superior to the poor schlubs who actually believe anyone can edit Wikipedia, 56 00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:36,000 only to discover they're barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies. 57 00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:43,000 Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages and poof. 58 00:04:43,000 --> 00:04:47,000 Sometimes within a matter of seconds you'll find your edit is reversed. 59 00:04:47,000 --> 00:04:56,000 In 2012, famed author Philip Roth tried to correct a major fact error about the inspiration behind one of his book characters cited on a Wikipedia page. 60 00:04:56,000 --> 00:05:01,000 But no matter how hard he tried, Wikipedia's editors wouldn't allow it. 61 00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:04,000 They kept reverting the edits back to the false information. 62 00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:08,000 When Roth finally reached a person at Wikipedia, which was no easy task, 63 00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:10,000 and tried to find out what was going wrong, 64 00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:15,000 they told him he simply was not considered a credible source on himself. 65 00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:23,000 A few weeks later there was a huge scandal when Wikipedia officials got caught offering a PR service 66 00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:31,000 that skewed and edit information on behalf of paid, publicity-seeking clients in utter opposition to Wikipedia's supposed policies. 67 00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:38,000 All of this may be why, when a medical study looked at medical conditions described on Wikipedia pages, 68 00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:47,000 and compared it to actual peer-reviewed published research, Wikipedia contradicted medical research 90% of the time. 69 00:05:47,000 --> 00:05:52,000 You may never fully trust what you read on Wikipedia again, nor should you. 70 00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:57,000 Let's now go back to that fictitious Colextra example and all the research you did. 71 00:05:57,000 --> 00:06:03,000 It turns out the Facebook and Twitter accounts you found that were so positive were actually written by paid professionals 72 00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:06,000 hired by the drug company to promote the drug. 73 00:06:06,000 --> 00:06:11,000 The Wikipedia page had been monitored by an agenda editor also paid by the drug company. 74 00:06:11,000 --> 00:06:15,000 The drug company also arranged to optimize Google search engine results, 75 00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:22,000 so it was no accident that you stumbled across that positive nonprofit that had all those positive comments. 76 00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:27,000 The nonprofit was, of course, secretly founded and funded by the drug company. 77 00:06:27,000 --> 00:06:33,000 The drug company also financed that positive study and used its power of editorial control 78 00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:38,000 to omit any mention of cancer as a possible side effect. 79 00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:41,000 Once more, each and every doctor who publicly touted Colextra, 80 00:06:41,000 --> 00:06:47,000 or called the cancer link a myth, or ridiculed critics as paranoid cranks and quacks, 81 00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:50,000 or served on the government advisory board that approved the drug, 82 00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:54,000 each of those doctors is actually a paid consultant for the drug company. 83 00:06:54,000 --> 00:07:00,000 As for your own doctor, the medical lecture he attended that had all those positive evaluations 84 00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:06,000 was, in fact, like many continuing medical education classes, sponsored by the drug company. 85 00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:10,000 And when the news reported on that positive study, it didn't mention any of that. 86 00:07:10,000 --> 00:07:14,000 I have tons of personal examples from real life. 87 00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:19,000 A couple of years ago, CBS News asked me to look into a story about a study coming out 88 00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:22,000 from the nonprofit National Sleep Foundation. 89 00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:25,000 Supposedly, this press release coming out said, 90 00:07:25,000 --> 00:07:30,000 the study concluded we are a nation with an epidemic of sleeplessness and we don't even know it, 91 00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:32,000 and we should all go ask our doctors about it. 92 00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:35,000 A couple of things struck me about that. 93 00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:40,000 First, I recognized the phrase, ask your doctor, as a catch phrase promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. 94 00:07:40,000 --> 00:07:44,000 They know that if they can get your foot through the door of the doctor's office to mention a malady, 95 00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:48,000 you're very likely to prescribe the latest drug that's marketed. 96 00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:54,000 Second, I wondered how serious an epidemic of sleeplessness could really be if we don't even know that we have it. 97 00:07:54,000 --> 00:08:03,000 It didn't take long for me to do a little research and discover that the National Sleep Foundation nonprofit 98 00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,000 and the study, which was actually a survey, not a study, 99 00:08:06,000 --> 00:08:13,000 were sponsored in part by a new drug that was about to be launched onto the market called Lunesta, a sleeping pill. 100 00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:19,000 I reported the study as CBS News asked, but of course I disclosed the sponsorship behind the nonprofit and the survey 101 00:08:19,000 --> 00:08:22,000 so that viewers could weigh the information accordingly. 102 00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:30,000 All the other news media reported the same survey directly off the press release as written without digging past the superficial. 103 00:08:30,000 --> 00:08:39,000 It later became an example written up in the Columbia Journalism Review, which quite accurately reported that only we at CBS News had bothered to do a little bit of research 104 00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:44,000 and disclosed the conflict of interest behind this widely reported survey. 105 00:08:44,000 --> 00:08:47,000 So now you may be thinking, what can I do? 106 00:08:47,000 --> 00:08:49,000 I thought I'd done my research. 107 00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:57,000 What chance do I have separating fact from fiction, especially if seasoned journalists with years of experience can be so easily fooled? 108 00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:02,000 So I have a few strategies that I can tell you about to help you recognize signs of propaganda in AstroTurf. 109 00:09:02,000 --> 00:09:07,000 Once you start to know what to look for, you'll begin to recognize it everywhere. 110 00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:17,000 First, hallmarks of AstroTurf include use of inflammatory language such as crank, quack, nutty, lies, paranoid, pseudo, and conspiracy. 111 00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:22,000 AstroTurfers often claim to debunk myths that aren't myths at all. 112 00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:25,000 Use of the charge language tests well. 113 00:09:25,000 --> 00:09:31,000 Some people hear something's a myth, maybe they find it on Snopes, and they instantly declare themselves too smart to fall for it. 114 00:09:31,000 --> 00:09:39,000 But what if the whole notion of the myth is itself a myth, and you and Snopes fell for that? 115 00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:46,000 Beware when interests attack an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities, and organizations surrounding it, 116 00:09:46,000 --> 00:09:48,000 rather than addressing the facts. 117 00:09:48,000 --> 00:09:50,000 That could be AstroTurf. 118 00:09:50,000 --> 00:09:59,000 And most of all, AstroTurfers tend to reserve all of their public skepticism for those exposing wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers. 119 00:09:59,000 --> 00:10:05,000 In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority. 120 00:10:05,000 --> 00:10:07,000 You might start to see things a little more clearly. 121 00:10:07,000 --> 00:10:14,000 It's kind of like taking off your glasses and wiping them and putting them back on and realizing for the first time how foggy they've been all along. 122 00:10:14,000 --> 00:10:21,000 I can't resolve these issues, but I hope that I've given you some information that will at least motivate you to take off your glasses and wipe them, 123 00:10:21,000 --> 00:10:28,000 and become a wiser consumer of information in an increasingly artificial, paid-for reality. 124 00:10:28,000 --> 00:10:29,000 Thank you. 125 00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:30,000 Thank you.