Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently said that the government has allegedly received numerous emails demanding it to lower property prices, or face voter pull-out at the next election. However, it was deduced that these emails were the effort of astroturfing, as a number of such writers have purportedly “borrowed” the identity of real-life grassroots leaders to mount the campaign.
Is the claim valid? Honestly, we can never be sure. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, detecting astroturfing is minimally about deduction, mostly about a hunch. Personally, I thank the article for piquing my interest in the term, as I would normally have mistaken it with a purely online activity – astro, cyberspace, turf ‘n’ surf, get it?
It got me intrigued enough to start searching for a proper definition. To this end, Wikipedia, which basically covers just about everything but the kitchen sink, did the job:
“Astroturfing is an English-language term referring to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous, popular “grassroots” behavior…
“The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity – a politician, political group, product, service or event.
“Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda or highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, unions, non-profits, or activist organizations.”
This differs from what the Straits Times provided, which defined it as:
“…the creation of a fake grassroots movement to suggest more people feel strongly about an issue than is actually the case. Astroturf [sic] often involves genuine views held by several persons who go on to rope in others to express and multiply these views with little effort by creating templates they can adapt. It seeks to give the impression of a groundswell of opinion.”
The key differences between the two definitions are:
1) The Straits Times defined astroturfing as a numbers game, while Wikipedia alludes to the strength of influence, even with lesser numbers.
2) The Straits Times suggested that astroturfing often takes the form of the use and re-use of templates, while Wikipedia broadens it to include both the creation of false witnesses, as well as the consolidation/rallying of genuine but otherwise obscure support for a cause, both which might or might not use a prepared script or letter.
3) The Straits Times article has – wittingly, conveniently or otherwise – conflated the definition of “grassroots” with that of grassroots leaders that PM Lee noted, while “grassroots” as defined in Wikipedia is more general, meaning “from the ground up”.
And if you prefer a more succinct definition, take your pick from Urban Dictionary.
Essentially, if you trust the “less reliable online UGC source of information” over the “credible and factual” traditional media – well, uneducated, mouse-click-happy blokes like me tend to do that – you would arrive at a broader definition of the term.
My view: More accurately, astroturfing is an effort by any group that is not in a position of power, leveraging visibility at an appropriate platform of influence, to pressure those in power to act in their interest. The activities are not necessarily restricted to an online campaign, but could also involve advertising and public relations. The intended zone of influence is not restricted to politics or public policy, but can be commercial (e.g. spreading rumours of a faulty product to cause disrepute to a company).
Given the rather narrow definition presented by the government and the Straits Times, it is little wonder that online commentators have alleged that:
1) Sending template letters does not mean the common view given is not genuine.
2) Sidelining potentially genuine sentiment by labelling it as astroturfing, rather than entertaining the possibility that it could be real, encourages “selective tunnel vision” that focuses policy makers away from the real issues.
3) The ruling party also engages in astroturfing on their own, with Young People’s Action Party opinion seeders cited as an example.
I would rather not dwell too much on these arguments, but instead relate my experience as an astroturfer, or the “victim/willingly coerced party” of an astroturfing campaign, and hopefully provide what has been lacking – an alternative, insider view of such efforts, measured against the definition you did not see in the news.
When Genting Group – developer of Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) – first announced its intent to build a whale shark exhibit in its Integrated Resort bid in 2006, the local marine conservation community, a small but highly vocal bunch, expressed strong dissent in the local media and blogosphere. I was part of that public conversation.
But I was also part of another dimension of this opposition – the astroturfing variant. An activist group set-up a website that generated an automated petition to RWS, created as an individual email for each supporter of the cause. All I had to do was enter my email and click the send button. There was an option to modify the letter as I liked, but it was really social activism in five seconds.
I was impressed – you could imagine the flood of letters that greeted RWS public relations officers every day. But technology cuts both ways – RWS too was well-equipped. I immediately received an automated reply from RWS acknowledging receipt of my email, together with the usual spiel about them “looking into it”.
Shortly thereafter, RWS decided to can the whale shark exhibit. We will never know if it was the tirade to the local media or the blatantly obvious astroturfing that caused the result, as RWS cited only commercial interest for the change of mind.
I learnt a lot about environmental conservation then, but there was another conclusion I drew from the experience that I wish to relate: Astroturfing, for all its ills, is really another mean by which we make our opinions known.
The intent behind astroturfing might not always be malicious, despite what the Straits Times suggested. In addition, the RWS example suggests that “turf wars” are already in existence, where organisations have the ability to fight back using tit-for-tat technology, rendering such efforts irritating at best, futile at worst.
In this day and age, it might be better to associate astroturfing with aggressive lobbying, rather than as a clandestine black propaganda operation. In this view, power holders must not be obsessed with deducing whether a particular chain of spam should be classified as an astroturfing campaign, to be ignored or countered with its own tactics, but rather to view it as a valid, albeit aggressive, piece of the overall public conversation that goes on in our pluralistic society.
Failure to do so is a failure to acknowledge that relationships between society, traditional media and the power elite are neither what they used to be. Singaporeans are increasingly adept at using social networks to mobilise like-minded people to campaign for a cause. Traditional means like writing to forum pages are no longer sufficiently expedient, and alternative means can be just as effective if not more so. In addition, there is less apprehension for direct engagement with the powers that be – even going so far as to tell them in the face that they are disliked and why.
My suggestion to the authorities is: get used to it, get thicker skin, or get up and react positively. The astroturf is no longer as cleanly manicured as it used to be.
By Howard Lee
——-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Good article but the author confuses astroturfing and social activism. The latter is commendable. It is about raising mobilizing people and canvassing for causes you care about. It beats the general Singaporean apathy. The former is more sinister. It is to PRETEND that a lot of people support a cause while they are not. This is done through posting a lot of anonymous comments or creating fake identities so it looks like many people support a point-of-view. In short, if you create an online petition and promote it and a lot of people sign up and support your cause, you have popular support. If you create an online petition and send multiple copies of it signed by fake people, you are a liar and a manipulator thus undeserving of popular support.
They have forgot about the old proverb “NO wind, No Wave”. They think they still can suppress all the wind that has been compressed within the minds of the youngs with all their draconian laws. This is the only way to release the pressure and they just ignore them. Good Luck to our elites.
Iron fist – light grip.
astroturfing?
Why don’t the miw call for the election now? We will let the result speaks for itself and see if it is indeed astroturfing like what they want us to believe or is it the actual grassroots sentiment about their pro-foreigner and other rubbish policies.
The difference in definition is only a matter of benchmark but not intent.
What’s critical is that the views and its intent are suspect (ie fake or astroturf compared to real grass), however its planted or counted.
Its like onlinecitizen article views. There can be 100 persons saying the same thing but how sure are people that its not just 10 planting 10 of the same articles each trying to create or influence. Its still artificial. I use a few computers for posting and with differing IP addresses or IP masking, I could easily post 100 of the same views if I really wanted to. If anyone thinks just based on theonlinecitizen.com views that its reflective of a majority of actual people on the ground, that could be unreliable.
Same thing with how opposition rallies get thousands of people listening in but somehow that doesn’t get translated into votes.
Both sides need to get down to the voters to really listen. Ultimately, in politics, that’s the main thing.
Having said the above, I do think the way news pieces and interviews that theonlinecitizen conducted on the mandatory death penalty does bring forward the views to a more objective level beyond what people can regard as astroturfing. Its a good example of more objective reporting.
what is so difficult for a prime minister to understand?
just because he lived in an ivory tower fully paid (just 1 month of his salary) he ASSUMED all singapooriums can also buy a home with just 1 year earnin$…e rulin party loss the last erections is because the rise in properties where in asia the ninhonjin is the biggest BREAD earner$…
frickin stupid prime minister…somemore the son of leekuanyew….
in japon..th
Don’t get work up cyberspace fellas.
PM Lee and ALL his puppies are only testing waters, its just their way of getting some responses to confirm another thing or other things on their minds.
This is their hallmark smokescreen which they are masters at.
or is it the actual grassroots sentiment?
…………………………………………………….
our prince his highness also ASSUMED that all grassroots leaders must be havin the same salaries as him or havin the same perks just liked him…
he mereLEE think that no grassroots leader would BETRAYed him in ANY circumstances…
if a grassroot leaders cannot serviced his mortgages..the prime minister would assumed that the HDB inc would closed an eye and give face to the prime minister liked sayins… karkee(owned people) largs..no needs to settle outstandin loans….
i hav seen grassroots peeps(this time i give face don’t called them dogs) downgrade from 5 rooms to 3 rooms hdb flat….
Whehter it is astroturfing, open rallying, distributing flyers, making open remarks or overseas jouranlist reportings. Anything that PAP do not wish to hear or rather the truth hurts them is considered offensive to PAP. A true leader should not discard all possibilities of ground sentiments. A bad leader tend to ignore them and continue to live in his dream world and that is when his empire falls and than blame his subordinates for not warning him in the first place. Straits Times & grass roots leaders are one of those puppet subordinates.
Astroturfing 101
“Astroturfing is an English-language term referring to political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous, popular “grassroots” behavior…
————
so if i was the government and want to increase voter popularity in reaction to my manipulation of supply-demand inflating housing prices, i would:
- control the media and reinforce the view with multiple, and often, repeated statements by high-ranking political figures to the effect that this inflation is a good thing.
- use the media to pick examples of people who believe this inflation is a good thing
- every sunday, feature people who own property and are living a fine life. they are not quoted saying that inflation is a good thing, but invariably, 2 numbers will be quoted: “price property was bought” and “what it is seemingly worth now”, and this inevitably draws the conclusion that this inflation is good, to most people who have not thought the issue through.
- deliberately not draw attention to the fact that public housing property statistics measure prices of average units, and not prices of floor area, which is the common measure of property. i.e. price has gone up from 400k to 440k (but 400k was a 100sqm unit, and 440k was a 95sqm unit – this means when you take floor area into account, price has gone up MORE than 10%)
- spend lots of money commemorating the successes of HDB but failing to address the social implications of manipulating and inflating public housing prices, as well as contrasting with other scenarios such as the one we are used to over the last 5 (FIVE) years – which was a very much lower opportunity cost, or the converse, a super high price. instead, just harp on the fact that the state we are in currently is STILL OK (30% affordability, repeat after me)
- if you do all this well, you would have succeeded in Astroturfing. Congratulations.
What is he actually trying to say? Is he trying to say, when one person says the whole is flat, he is a genius; but when ten people say it’s round, they are all insane? Or are they somehow in league with the Freemasons, Opus Dei and the Mickey Mouse club? Is that what he is trying to say?
I really don’t understand.
I think most people here and elsewhere have already decided as a matter of finality on the real value of what he has to say about the internet and how politics is conducted online.
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the Brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)
its a wonder why people don’t understand that when a opposition gives a rally in the precinct it will be contesting, horde of supporters came from all over the island to hear and cheer and to see what they offer. These supporters does not necessarily vote within that precint, but elsewhere, reason why votes do not tally with horde.
it just confirmed what we know, that they have a rigid mind (cannot think outside of a box) as some of us have suffered in some way with their policies.
we may need to get more thinkers and supporters to so call astroturf and maybe change the future slowly.
it (the gov) just confirmed what we know, that they have a rigid mind (cannot think outside of a box) as some of us have suffered in some way with their policies.
I am sure the MSM never ever have propaganda articles right? i am sure, but how to prove this?
James To, much tks for your comments. I did have a sneaking suspicion that there was something wrong about this article after submitting it, but could not quite finger it until I read your comments. Prob not a good idea to start an article at 1am… :)
To clarify, my intent was not to conflate astroturfing with social activism, particularly with the use of template letters. Rather, my bigger gripe was with how, I believe, the ST article has conveniently associated template letters with astroturfing.
What I was suggesting – and it’ll be good if someone can take issue with this and argue to the contrary – is that there are social/political movements out there that use tools similar to those employed by astroturfers. Let’s face it, if I can sign up for 100 free email accounts and replicate a letter, how different will that be from 100 genuine entries using a form letter I described? How about 1000? Or if I hire 10 guys to do 1000 each? Problem is, both stand a good chance at being labeled astroturfing, and the truth is, astroturfing is near impossible to pinpoint.
On a more positive note – It is not to say that genuine social activists should just give up on anything that remotely resembles astroturfing to stay “clean”. Rather, much as the power elite need to assess feedback across multiple channels, those pushing for change should also consider campaigns across channels. Playing traditional media against new would only reinforces the same power relationship.
Main Stream Media, always draws a chuckle.
look at what they did printing that big graph of mah bow tan’s only to have it identified as statistical manipulation. then the journalist jessica cheam did not even come out to re-analyse the data, but instead it gets quietly acknowledged by another reporter, and the whole thing gets swept under the carpet.
there was no same treatment as what we read on Hazel Poa’s blog. no alternative graphs drawn.
just quietly disappears, as if Mah did not make this (yet another) mistake at all …
amazing, isn’t it.
Main Stream Media.
one paper, cost how much again?
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_516511.html
says:
Beware the ill effects of astroturfing
MR ZAKIR Hussain’s report (“When ‘groundswell of opinion’ is deceptive”, April 10) makes for disturbing reading.
Policymakers depend on accurate public feedback to craft sound policies. Astroturfing distorts public feedback and jeopardises the policymaking process.
In an information war, truth is the first casualty.
I appreciate the efforts taken by our political leaders over the past decade to make themselves more accessible to the public through electronic media.
For busy Singaporeans, this media is certainly more convenient to use compared to face-to-face meetings.
Unfortunately, the increasing prevalence of astroturfing will cause policymakers to treat online public feedback with scepticism.
The trust between citizens and elected officials may become the second casualty because of the irresponsible actions of a few.
Han Tau Kwang
what do you call the fake opinion and groundswell generated by concerted mainstream media?
the public depend on accurate information to craft sound opinions.
this morning, straits times mentioned that 900000 are happy that their homes have inflated in prices so that they are condemned never to upgrade and better their lives.
ok, the newspaper did not mention the second half of the sentence. i think the author didn’t want them to figure it out until after the elections in 2011.
http://wealth1688articles.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/property-do-something-drastic-or-do-nothing/
Here’s the article. if we did not educate the 900,000 people on the ill-effects of inflation and the diversion of their savings into the sunk cost of property, and we say they are “probably not” disgruntled, is that another form of Astroturfing?
We thank the government for teaching us what their strategy has always been. now we have a word for it.
More fire to the astroturf - http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_516511.html
Seriously, I wonder how long ST can keep this up based on a rather weak (read: partisan) def of astroturfing. Needles to say, even respondents are against it…
thanks to lee hsien loong, we now know what the PAP strategy for the last 45 years is called … all this left newspaper patting right newspaper on the back, this government agency patting the other one, all the grassroots leaders eagerly gathering around their white-decked MP for group photo … amazing. there is a name for this phenomenon.
i suppose now instead of reading, listening to all this astroturfing, we can hear each other out on the net. their astroturfing has been going on for far too long …
In reality, they want to trace IP addresses and clamp down on the anonymous cyber activists in Singapore.
But fearing a backlash from the netizens and being likened to China, they instead choose to “rationalize” via mouthpieces like Straits Times and make the cyber activists look bad (without admitting that they intense culture of fear created by the PAP is the reason why many of us choose to remain anonymous in the first place).
There is this Fixed IP thingie going on right?
enuf sed. cannot sed too much.
HL,
Your article is an interesting read. However, I would like to point out that Wikipedia, by using the word “popular” in its definition, has given due regard to the importance of number in an astroturfing campaign. Thus, while ST is not correct to construe too narrow a definition to astroturfing, they are not entirely wrong either.
Astroturfing in their MSM (also = “Mama Serves Mama”) all these years? Didn’t papa astroturfer said that he would do it using the MSM in 1956 using “Repression..”:
“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love – it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.” – Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October 1956.
Is quoting pap also a SIN???
@James TO I agree. I think ‘astroturfing’ is too vague a term, and the specific conditions of a particular incident must be explored to see if the case is one of genuine aggressive social activism or of manufactured, exaggerated evidence in support of a cause by fewer people than it is made to seem. For one thing, do all the ‘activists’ consent to have their ‘views’ seen? Are they aware at all that they are being used to advocate a cause? In the case of RWS at least people who submitted their email addresses knew what they were in for. Whether that’s considered astroturfing or not is immaterial; semantics aside, whether the ‘activism’ is genuine or a clear overstatement of agreement in terms of number or influence is more important.