Slashdot Log In
PR Firm Behind Al Gore YouTube Spoof?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Aug 06, 2006 05:11 PM
from the new-intarweb-trolls dept.
from the new-intarweb-trolls dept.
mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI. From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The best PR goes unnoticed" is apt in this case. PR firms wouldnt survive if you knew who paid them.
Read this [prwatch.org] for more information about how PR companies shape America.
In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."83
Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."84
At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
LIBERAL != LEFT.
In our current state of politics in the United States, traditionally classified liberals tend to lean towards leftist ideas, but for some reason we seem to think the two are synonymous. They are not.
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Slavery was never a very good way of doing business. I wrote a paper in college breaking down the economics of slavery and let me tell you it was not that profitable. Depending on the era the slave was bought (import of new slaves was outlawed before slavery was abolished but smugglers still got them into the country) a young male slave would often cost from $40,000-50,000 in 2006 dollars.
Over the course of their lifetime they would produce enough goods to make it worth their original expensive but there were complications. Slaves would run away, get sick, die early, or be injured. Also minor sabotage was very common such as slaves intentionally using their hand tools incorrectly in order to break them (one example is while they were turning soil if they found a rock with their hoe they might break their tool over the rock and claim it was just an accident). Very few people ever afforded to buy slaves with cash and almost 100% of slave owners were in debt due to the loans for buying slaves.
So why did the south want slaves so much if it not only did not produce a good profit and also put them into debt? The answer is that the slave owners were building a way of life. They did not only care about their bottom line which is a business is run today. The slave owners were setting up and maintaining a society where the whites where at the top and even if they were not technically rich on paper they had a comfortable lifestyle living off the work of slaves. Even if someone was never able to pay off their debt they were trying to enter the plantation class which was actually a very small number of people. The poor whites defended the slave owners because it was the dream of many people to eventually become a plantation owner.
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The Chicken-Hawks. Creators of Freedom Fries and the stupid flag thing, they love Jesus, NASCAR and War. Their patron representatives are the conservative republicans. Side-effects of this group include abortion bans, the military-industrial complex, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and the Iraq War. They are scared of, and I quote: "Ragheads, Niggers, Jews, Wetbacks, and 'terrorists'".
2. The Lefties. Creators of the "War on Globalization" and Greenpeace, they love Wicca, Soccer and War. Their patron representatives cannot get elected right now, or ever. They relegate themselves to Indymedia.org and protests. Side effects of this group include Wiretapping initiatives, the rise of the Neo-Cons in '00, coffee houses and the Canada thing. They are scared of Militant Christians, logical debate, and growing up.
3. Everyone Else. Creators of the economy, common sense, the space program, etc., they love to worship whatever they worship in moderation, football and baseball, and Peace. Side effects of this group include a strong American economy, foreign policy that is just the right balance between isolationist and imperialist, and the 50-50 distribution of votes in the last election. These people are having a hard time deciding who they trust, so they vote almost at random based on maybe one hotbed issue that is different for each of them. They are afraid of Chicken Hawks and Lefties.
get a clue (Score:5, Insightful)
No, historically and over the long run, neither label, "Republican" or "Democrat", has had a monopoly on being good or evil: evil people, corrupt people, and incompetent people are attracted to power, whatever label it happens to fall under. It just happens to be that in 2006, they seem to have taken over the Republican party: incompetent foreign policy, abusing the tax system for social engineering, vast expansions of the federal bureaucracy, costly and ineffective wars, violations of human rights, intrusive government, bad economic policies, cronyism, and widespread instituionalized corruption, to name just a few. This administration and this Congress are one of the worst we have ever had in US history, and the damage they are doing to the US will be felt for decades to come.
And if you're saying "no, no, the other party doesn't agree with me on ____", you should find out why. If you can't find a reason why someone disagrees with you, save they're evil, you really need to open your mind.
I don't know about the GP, but it's no mystery why Republicans disagree with me: the party is dominated by people who are incompetent, power hungry, and, at times, simply corrupt. And since they have excellent PR people working for them, plus wealthy funders to pay for PR, they can convince enough people to vote for them to remain in power. The real problem isn't that there are evil Republicans or that they have power, but that people like you are stupid enough to vote for these kinds of people. I mean, assuming you're somewhere in the 40k-200k income bracket, you're so dumb that you let the current government talk out out of many thousands of dollars that they collect in taxes from you and funnel to their political buddies, and you don't even notice it.
Republicans brought an end to slavery in America.
Yeah, if only anybody could bring those Republicans back. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are the antithesis of that; they have simply latched on to the name in order to give their agenda an acceptable veneer.
Re:Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's surprising is if this can be linked directly to the Republican Party. After all, we know they worked many ways to undermine the last two national elections [gregpalast.com], but a direct link to dirty tricks like this would be hitting an all-new low. (As if cooking elections isn't low enough.)
{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
There is opportunity here to inform the cow-like public that they are being manipulated by assholes. US elections have become a race among liars and crooks. Time to demand better, partly by taking responsibility for one's own role in the process.
If enough of us take the time to care about the social quality of the candidate, we can have a system of honest, compassionate, competent people who are in it because they want us all to do well. A rising tide floats all boats: the greater the common good (ocean), the greater the individual good (your boat).
The only way to have long-term generational success is to ensure we make sure everyone has the opportunity for good health, good education, good standards, and good safety.
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you too young to remember, that one of the big issues during the 1992 campaign. Republicans said that Clinton didn't have the character to make a good president, and Democrats kept pounding home that, "character doesn't matter," making the Republicans out to be old-fashioned 1950's squares who didn't understand that running the country doesn't take integrity.
Fast-forward to a post-Lewinsky world and neither side seems to give a crap about the integrity of their candidates.
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the narrative of the '92 election put forth by the Republicans. While I'm sure in this vast country you can probably find a Democrat that uttered these words, this was just a Republican talking point, a straw argument they attributed to their enemies so they could manipulate the opinions of their base. Looks like it worked in your case.
A more representative Democratic viewpoint on character is this: character matters, but it's complex. Good people do bad things some times. Democrats believe in mitigating circumstances and allowances for human weakness. Republicans do not. Thus, in the Democratic view, a good man man might cheat on his wife in a moment of weakness, but he wouldn't bring up divorce when his wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from surgery. The difference is character: in one case it's a common place flaw, in the other it's wanton self centeredness. The Republican viewpoint makes no allowance for circumstance of human weakness. It's wrong to cheat on your wife, so that's bad. It's unfortunate, but sometimes necessary to discuss divorce, so that's OK.
Yet, the standard issue Republican viewpoint on character is more rotten than merely misguided.
We would do well to remember what a Republican politician who sets himself up as a role model is: a politican. It only makes sense to heed this if you think politicians are suitable ethical role models. They're not. There's too much temptation. I'd even rather set up athletes as role models than politicians.
The reason Bill Bennett gets heat over his gambling problems is because he does not live up to his own professed standards, nor does he alter those standards in light of his personal experience. He remains a self-righteous scold who plies his self-appointed trade as arbiter of moral virtue as a weapon against people who disagree with him. Same with Rush and his drug problems.
You've given us the Republican view of the Democratic view on character. Now let me return the favor.
From the Democratic standpoint, the Republicans view of character consists of burdens they place on others and not themselves, of standards they impose on others with no intention of living up to themselves. It's a logical outcome of a political philosophy forged to defend the special privileges of the powerful and wealthy. In the Vietnam era, it promoted the benefits of anticommunism and wartime spending without the burden of fighting the war. Now, it's the future burden of deficit spending for war profiteering, and the liquidation of the nation's social and economic gains for current profit. Capital is, after all, mobile. Those who make their living from it can exploit the homeland and move the fruits offshore, the way corrupt oligarchies did throughout the twentieth century in countless third world countries.
Now, if the Republicans get to define "character" then I'll stand up and say "Character (as defined by the Republicans is a political ploy. It does not matter."
Re:{old,new} news (Score:5, Insightful)
While republican pundits and gop congressmen were tearing their own shirts in self-righteous indignation over the result of an $80 million investigation over real estate deals (a stained blue dress), the rest of the world didn't snicker at Clinton's peccadilloes, they in fact snickered at "the ridiculousness of those american prudes, so hung up about sex".
And then, the ringleader of the impeachment movement, Newt Gingrich, resigned his post on the eve of Larry Flynt publishing in Hustler the nine extramarital affairs Gingrich had been involved in during the previous twenty years.
And then, Gingrich's replacement, Robert Livingstone, who promised to continue the good fight for morals, integrity and decency, withdrew when Mr. Flynt uncovered one of his extramarital affairs.
And then, the largest mouthpiece against Clinton's sins, thrice-divorced comedian Rush Limbaugh, is caught with industrial quantities of OxyContin and, later, unprescribed Viagra while returning from a caribbean vacation.
These hypocritical imbeciles are seen as 'martyrs' and/or 'heroes' in republican twisted family values circles, while Clinton is viewed as The Devil Himself. Yeah, right.
What many people do not get is that Clinton did not parade a stained blue dress in front of all the american public, children included, republicans did. Clinton did not flaunt and wave the image of a soaked cigar in front of the american public, republicans did. And then they tore their shirts in moral indignation at how the minds of children are being poisoned with decadence and depravity.
Under republican so-called standards of decency:
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and that would be Bill Clinton.
Maybe this link will work. (Score:4, Informative)
And if any PR company produced that, they're seriously over paid.
Re:Maybe this link will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Afraid you're missing the point. YouTube is largely community-produced content, often full of drunken dancing / buffoonery and clips from TV shows, etc. This clip was designed to "fit in" and look as amateurish as the rest of the tripe on YouTube to pass the smell test for most of the content there.
I'd say they did their job brilliantly.
Re:Maybe this link will work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if they make it look too stupid, it just reflects badly upon their side...
Continuation (Score:5, Insightful)
The real troubling thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
By reporting about this incident, these outlets are providing the video a vast amount of exposure that it otherwise would not receive.
I'd bet anything that WSJ didn't stumble upon this story randomly - someone at DCI surreptitiously helped them along because DCI knew that they could get media outlets to unwittingly distribute their propaganda.
And at the end of the day, it's still considered good PR for all parties involved - Exxon got their point out to millions of viewers, DCI got paid, and ABC/WSJ/Slashdot did a good job of uncovering the "truth" of the situation, which pleases their readers and viewers just as much as any other story.
All of this is just an elaborate game to get you to view an anti-Gore advertisement.
Sad that this is how the media works today.
Au contraire... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you link to this video while telling the whole story, then the user does not see a video mocking Gore, he/she sees a video created to deceive them, created by a firm and falsely posted as Jhon Doe... as the receptiveness of the people changes, the thing that they see differs completely.
Horrible movie anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm aware of the psychological roots of this method, but I still find it detestable. Instead of arguing like an adult, the oil firms reduce themselves to the political equivalent of taunting the guy who gets high grades and/or is knowledgeable about many subjects because he's a "nerd".
Come on, oil companies, argue bravely and responsibly. If you think Gore is wrong, show us the proof. Don't just close your ears and shout "la la la la, I'm not listening!"
Re:Horrible movie anyhow (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that THEY think Gore is wrong, they KNOW he is right. It's that they want YOU to think he is wrong. Otherwise it makes no sense not to just lay the fact smackdown on him from the start. This kind of thing is just to "convince" people who are already sort of in the mood to be contrary anyway who will then go and make a lot of noise and thus turn the debate into, "Oh, don't worry, it's just those two crackpot extrememist groups at it again... Boy it's hot, pass me another gin and gasoline please".
Again and again, such firms need to be closed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is NOT democracy. Anyone who tells that this is democracy, are probably other paid propagandists.
YouTube search (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Al Gore's Penguin Army [youtube.com]
Al Gore's Penguin Army - Propaganda [youtube.com]
'Al Gore's Penguin Army' Misuses Linux Mascot! [youtube.com]
CMD vs DCI? (Score:5, Interesting)
"They want it to look like this came from someone who really believes this, who is really critical of Al Gore and global warming," Farsetta said.
There's an interesting assumption here: that the people criticizing Al Gore believe what he has to say but don't want to admit it - that Big Oil, Big Business, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, etc. are lying when they say that they don't think "global warming" is happening. Or alternately, that only the "little people" can have valid opinions on the subject.,/p>
How does that make sense? If I, as an average citizen, espouse the opinion "Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard", I am being honest, but once I do something like rise to the presidency of my company or amass more than a million dollars in personal net worth, suddenly a statement like "I think Al Gore is a boring, irrelevant blowhard" is disingenuous?
Re:CMD vs DCI? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the average citizen is a disinterested party. The head of a company that pumps billions of tons of carbon into the air (directly or indirectly) has a lot more to lose (short term, we all lose long term) if Al Gore is right.
Re:CMD vs DCI? (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps English is not your first language. This is one of those subtle aspects of English that give non-native-speakers quite legitimate fits.
"Dis-interested" in this context means that you do not have a financial interest in a given position.
The CEO of a company that is embedded in the hydrocarbon economy--an oil, coal or automobile company, to name but a few examples--has an interest in convincing people that global warming is nothing to worry about, because their company's profits and the CEO's fat bonus and golden handshake depends on it.
The average
"Dis-interested" does not mean "has no opinion." It means, "has no non-rational (financial , religious or similar) reason for pushing a particular opinion over others."
Manbearpig (Score:4, Funny)
Even wierder: The Megaphone Desktop Toolbar (Score:5, Interesting)
There are wierder online PR things. See the Megaphone Desktop Toolbar. [giyus.org] This is a piece of software designed to pump up pro-Israel responses in online polls and blogs. The toolbar pops up "alerts" when some central site sends them out. Nothing new there. But when it tells the user about a poll, the options are to vote their way, automatically, or not to vote at all. Site-specific scripts do the voting for you. Cute.
It is supposedly distributed on behalf of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs [standwithus.com]. That's a new development - government sponsored adware. But that may be a fake endorsement. The "gyius.org" site itself has a "cloaked domain", and the "standwithus.org" site with the endorsement has phony domain registration info. There's no real contact info for either. There's an EULA with no real company name, and mention of a remote update capability. So this may be some clever scheme to get people to install adware/spyware.
Somebody in the security business or the press really should chase this down. There's been an article in The Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com], but it's not about the technology.
Can a climte change skeptic answer (Score:5, Interesting)
So can one of the climate change skeptics around here tell me exactly which stage of the following logical chain it is you disagree with? Who knows, you might even convert me if your argument is convincing.
One. It is fact that burning fossil fuels gives out carbon dioxide. The amount can be calculated from the amount of fossil fuels burned. This goes into the atmosphere, and since the rate at which the World's fauna is converting this back into Oxygen is reasonably static (or even decreasing, since we're cutting down vast amounts of the rainforest every year), the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will rise.
Independant confirmation of this is given by...
Alternative One. The fact that carbon dioxide levels are rising has been measured many times by laboratories around the globe (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/88/Mauna
Two. It is fact that greater levels of carbon dioxide lead to greater trapping of the Sun's energy. This is settled science, and can be independantly confirmed by anyone with a cylinder of carbon dioxide, a temperature probe, and an inquiring mind.
Three. Greater trapping of the Sun's energy will lead to a reasonably predictable rise in global average temperature. The calculation is not hard once you know the relevant specific heat capacities. Again, should the logical chain not be enough, there is independant confirmation of this from temperature stations around the globe, which fairly closely matches predictions made using the previous links in the chain (e.g. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/f/f4/Instr
Four. It is fact that water expands when heated. The calculation is, again, easily performed, and will lead to a rise in sea level, which will cover predictable parts of the world, especially affecting places like Bangladesh (where large areas of the country are less than one meter above sea level). The rise in temperature will also lead to the glaciers receding, and higher sea temperatures will also increase the number and severity of hurricanes. Ocean currents will also be affected, severely changing the climate in parts of the world which depend on them.
Climate change sceptics are happy to look at the predictions of that last point and say that it's rubbish. But when I look at the points, I see a reasonably watertight chain of logic. So which point are you disputing?
Re:Can a climate change skeptic answer? (Score:5, Interesting)
In this, I entirely agree with you. However, you seem to be a bit confused as to which way round the analogy works. In Kansas, all the scientists are united on one side (evolution) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the Bible doesn't support it). With the climate change debate, all the scientists are united on one side (climate change exists) against those who have an external reason for disbelieving it (the oil companies will make less profit if people start to try and combat it).
Don't believe me that all scientists are united on the side that it's climate change exists? You don't have to. Pick up ANY scientific journal -- Nature or Science are rather dense for non-scientists, so try New Scientist or Scientific American or any one of countless others. Attend scientific conferences. Go to lectures. Look at the graphs. Read the reports produced by any of the major scientific bodies, either US-based or international. Or the G8. Or the UN. They all say the same thing.
>The inability for the reader to understand the science means that magical forces must be at play.
The ability of someone to igonore all debate, evidence, and logic in favour of mechanically asserting that they are right certainly exists, but is more psycological than magical.
The simple fact is the sun is a variable star. The earth has been both hotter and colder than it is currently, all without the intervention of man.
True, it's called the ice ages (incidentally, it's not yet considered settled that the cause of them is the variability of the sun). However, the problem is that the current changes are far above the usual cyclic fluctations due to ice age cycles (see http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Carbo
Lets remember that you get what you pay for. Pay for a bunch of yes men academics to produce papers saying what you want isn't the same as real science.
Who on Earth is paying scientists to produce evidence showing that climate change exists? No-one stands to benefit in the least. Are these strange people paying the entire, vast scientific community around the world? Is this some sort of global consipracy?
Don't be ridiculous. The academic papers are being produced by scientists trying to bring the issue into the wider understanding. If you want an example of people paying to produce material on a side of the issue, I suggest you consult TFA.
The one thing you still seemingly refuse to do is answer my original post. In case you can't find it, it's still at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193278&cid=15
Re:Disclosure? (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, maybe you should go see "An Inconvenient Truth." There's a lot of needless Gore biography, but the major point is that we can reduce a lot of CO2 emissions WITHOUT changing our lifestyles. Instead we need to stop being cheap bastards (and stop glad-handing our corrupt and inefficient industries) and pony up for some simple investments and regulations (like matching European and Asian fuel efficiency and investing in something other than coal power).
Re:Disclosure? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Disclosure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try googling carbon-neutral gore [google.com], and hang your carbon filled head in shame. The man is more consistant and does more to act on his convictions than probably anyone here. (Of course if you still are buying the "invented the internet" misquote there's not much chance you're looking for real information.)
One thing I'm curious about though. What do you people who spout this non-sense think Gore's motivation is? Trying to drum up business for his fat-cat environmentalist friends that he's in the pocket of? Surreptitiously trying to destroy the United States, covert operative for The Terrorists that he is? Ah no, i remember now. Sorry, I'd forgotten the 2000 election smear campaign. He's just simply a raving lunatic (raving in a wooden, personality-less sort of way, that is, of course).
Sigh. Go see the movie. At least you'll have some idea what you're talking about then. (Of course it will do no good to mention that scientists [wired.com], all except the one prominently being funded by the oil companies, seem to think the movie was pretty much, with just a few quibbles, completely accurate.)
Well, sorry to have bothered you. I'll let you get back to your stem-cell research now.
Hello Mr Orwell? Call for you on line 3! (Score:5, Insightful)
War is Peace. Hate is Love. Oil Companies are a LOT richer than they were 5 years ago. All is well.
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Linux Penguin (Score:4, Insightful)
The image is also protected by copyright but the copyright owner says: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks." The key bit here being "if someone asks".
Someone should consult a lawyer... (Score:5, Interesting)
The non-comercial nature of this video, and the way in which the trademark is used is unlikely to create that sort of impression, so no trademark violation here.
While IAmNotALawyer, I believe that if (as alleged) the video was produced as paid propoganda, even if the distribution was non-commercial it would then be hard to argue in court that the use was non-commercial.
The image is also protected by copyright but the copyright owner says: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks." The key bit here being "if someone asks".
So (my puckish [boldoutlaw.com] side chortles), if one calls the firm rumored to have done the work [sourcewatch.org] and ask them if they used this image in the video, it would seem they must either admit to doing so (which they apparently are loathe to do), or deny it... violating the use license and (ergo) copyright. That could be a problem....
Re:This was less interesting when I submitted it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, the editors (using that term loosly here) probably got 1000 submissions of the story, and picked the one they prefered, instead of just the FIRST ONE, which probably wasn't yours (but somebody else before you) anyhow.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
You must not frequent youtube.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to make it look as if there is a grassroot movement.
It's like the prefab letters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3190934.s
It's like producing thousands of letters-from-the-public to look to be genuinely written by granny's. ("In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing [wikipedia.org])
It's like writing that Indians will be oh so happy with GMO cotton (http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?action=fullne
That's LYING and CHEATING for profit. That's the problem.
Re:Politicians lying to people? No, just Republica (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Playing God and the Devil (Score:5, Insightful)
To make matters even more decetful, these rapist advertise everywhere, then argue that if we don't like it we can walk to work.
The oil companies aren't forcibly raping us. We're bending over, spreading our cheeks, and taking it without lube from them!
We drive unnecessarily huge, inefficient cars. We live in comparatively big houses which are often poorly designed (read: no passive solar heat in winter, no convection ventilation in summer) even if well insulated. We oppose the construction of new nuke and hydro power plants: not in my backyard! We commute to work by car from 40 or 50 miles away. We don't complain when our employers put up a new headquarters in the middle of nowhere. We haven't electrified our railroads in order to move freight without using oil.
This isn't rape. This is a consensual masochistic activity on the part of the US.
-b.
Re:The oil companies love Al Gore. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many people out there who 'walk the walk'. However, you are never going to hear from them because they live frugally on their farms and don't have access to the media that Gore does.
Yes, Gore is a politically active member of the American upper class. Like most other members of the American upper class, he uses lots of energy. Unlike them, however, he also works to get the message out about global warming. In return for his hard work, he gets called a hypocrite, while his equally energy-using do-nothing peers all skate by without a second look. No good deed goes unpunished, of course... but I for one am glad that someone with the resources to make a real difference also has to balls to do so -- even if it does mean taking flack from the peanut gallery.
False equivalence, and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
These people pretend to be someone else while they snipe at Gore and his movie. They don't debate or argue his claims, they don't find fault with his methods or supporters-- it's pure assassination, and they do it from hiding.
If you're sure you want to draw a lesson here, please do. I suspect you're too busy cheerleading to do so.
Re:False equivalence, and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
Gore's "one-sided view of the 'facts', presented as truth" was an argument. That's how you make an honest argument: You draw a conclusion from facts, you present the facts that support your conclusion along with your sources for them, and you do it under your own name and with your own motivations on the table.
Flinging snarky personal insults while pretending to be someone else is not argument, and it's not honest.
Re:False equivalence, and you know it (Score:5, Insightful)
When you base your argument on facts, and you present the facts that support your argument, and you provide the sources for those facts, and you do it under your own name, you're not just propagandizing.
When you take baseless jabs at the other side, without bothering to argue the facts or the other side's reasoning, well, then you are just propagandizing.
It takes either shameless disingenuousness or ethical bankruptcy to claim that Gore's methods and DCI's are the same. Whichever afflicts you, I hope you get over it. I just wanted to make sure that your post didn't go unrefuted, so I'm done here.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is quite clear that you have no idea what propaganda actually is, and therefore simply label everything propaganda. Congratulations - you're at best an idiot, and at worst, morally bankrupt (to pick up the terminology of another poster). Yup, this was an insult. Yup, it was who me said it. Wanna take a wild guess and say what the difference between my post, "An Inconvenient Truth" and this little YouTube video is?