Whack the blogs
Disclaimer:
My entry “Whack the Blogs” is admittedly inspired by a most rabid and fascinating phenomenon of blogosphere, by a persuasively US based group of spin doctors who vehemently try to convince me of them being one single hateful female and not some public relation agency or NGO.
“Whack the Blogs” intends to address the fascinating world of public relations, of lobbying and the manipulation of public opinion by discussing techniques and methods, not real life individuals or groups of people.
Of course, all characters and blogs appearing in this work are purely fictitious and I am certainly not intending to make a pun in the general direction of a living individual or any successful blog. Therefore any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is (of course) purely coincidental.
Having said this, let’s now enter the fascinating world of public relations, of lobbying and the manipulation of public opinion.
In public relations, “spin” is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one’s own favour of an event or situation. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused of spin by their political opponents. Some NGOs do exactly the same.
The term “spin” is borrowed from ball sports such as cricket or baseball, where a spin bowler may impart spin on the ball during a delivery so that it will curve through the air or bounce in an advantageous manner.
Because of the frequent association between “spin” and press conferences, the room in which these take place is sometimes described as a spin room. A group of people who develop spin may be referred to as “spin doctors” who engage in “spin doctoring” for the person or group that hired them.
Spin rooms can also be found on blogosphere, there they are called something like (exemplis gratia)
“The #1 Independent English-language XXX Politics Blog in the World” or
“A Not-for-Profit XXXXXX blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the XXX-XXXXXX XXXXX”.
But languages, as well as countries or nations, are interchangeable and, please do not forget, all characters and blogs appearing in this entry are purely fictitious. Again, any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
So please feel free to replace the “X”es by any country or person (living or dead) to your liking. Why not France ? No, please wait, let’s take Russia. I wouldn’t even mind if you took Germany.
“Whack the blogs” tries to explore the serious theme of manipulation of public opinion, with a comedic sensibility. The title of this entry is taken from the joke:
“Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail was smarter, the tail would wag the dog.”
Some suggest the dog is public opinion, and the tail represents the media or the dog is the media, and the tail is some (whatsoever) campaign.
The dog could also be some foreign president or federal chancellor and the tail might represent some spin doctors, who assume the authority of “whacking” them and the entire nations they govern. Not that I could understand why anybody would possibly want to do this.
Moreover, the expression “the tail wagging the dog” refers to any case where something of greater significance is driven by something lesser. So I am basically talking about “wagging the dog” in this entry but, as we are expressing our views on blogosphere, “whacking the blogs” sounds somehow cuter.
The term “whacking the blogs” is also appropriate, as some spin doctors might be omnipresent on blogosphere. They might not only (exemplis gratia) run three blogs (two on Blogspot.com and one on WordPress.com, one of the two Blogspot-blogs being something like a “backup blog” as it carries the suffix “II” and is empty) but also might extensively flood the comment sections of almost every other blog of their interest.
Interpretations differ as to the motivation of such spin doctors. I am not that much inclined to enter the debate on “why do they do this” as there is too much room for speculations and, without really knowing who may want to hire spin doctors and who wants to fund or pay them, it’s too much of a shot in the dark.
The interesting aspect is “how they do it”. They apply the technique of selectively presenting facts and quotes that support their position, more precisely the position of their principal(s).
This technique is widely accepted being the method of “cherry picking”. The term “cherry picking” is used metaphorically to indicate the act of pointing at individual cases that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict that position.
For example, opponents of “air bags” (in cars) often cite rare cases in which car accident victims were killed, or injured, by an “air bag”, whereas accident statistics suggest that they much more commonly save the life of the passenger (unless used in combination with safety belts and a properly adjusted seat).
When a person is assigned to advocate a particular position, then cherry picking is entirely appropriate. Lawyers in a criminal case are one such example, where it is assumed to be the responsibility of the opposing counsel to present any contrary data.
In addition in common law guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and thus introducing “cherry picked” evidence is entirely appropriate because, while such data may not prove something in general, it may be successful in introducing the needed minimum level of doubt to win the case.
However, when a person with a supposedly neutral position cherry picks, that is inappropriate. Examples would be journalists, scientists and judges.
“Cherry-picking” is a technique where one weighs many relevant pieces of information (that one possesses) at zero and favours the information that is preferred. So there is a large difference between weighing information differently based on its quality to come to a conclusion and outright ignoring information that is not preferred. Spin doctors apply this technique brilliantly.
Another technique spin doctors apply is called “Astroturfing”.
“Astroturfing” is a term for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising that seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behaviour. Hence the reference to “AstroTurf” (artificial grass) is a metaphor to indicate fake grassroots support.
The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the agenda of a client 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 anything from an individual pushing their own personal agenda through to highly organised professional groups with financial backing from large corporations or “NGOs”.
Being a form of propaganda, Astroturfing attempts to affect selectively the emotions of the public, whether trying to win a campaign, be the top music record seller, be the top book seller, or to be
“The #1 Independent English-language XXXXXX Politics Blog in the World”.
Astroturfing techniques usually consist of a few people discreetly posing as mass numbers of activists advocating a specific cause. Or, as in other cases, a highly professional and well funded group of spin doctors discretely posing as one single hateful female on a crusade.
“Supporters” (or employees ?) will manipulate the degree of interest through letters to the editor, e-mails, blog posts, blog comments, crossposts, trackbacks, etc.
They are instructed on what to say, how to say it, where to send it, and how to make it appear that their indignation, appreciation, joy or hate is entirely spontaneous and independent. This makes their campaign seem “real” rather than the product of an orchestrated campaign.
Newspapers are often victims of Astroturfing when they publish letters identical to those received and printed by other newspapers. The same goes for blogosphere, where (almost) identical comments are posted to a larger amount of blogs and contain a stereotype text.
It has become easier to structure an Astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail or to post a commentary is so low.
NGOs may use a boiler room full of computers and telephones where hired activists locate people and groups that create enthusiasm for the specified cause.
Also, the use of psychographics allows hired supporters to persuade their targeted audience. This correlates with the merge-purge technique that combines information about an individual from multiple databases.
NGOs can then turn hypothetical supporters into activists for the cause. This leads to misuse of the Internet, for one person is able to play the role of a whole group of like-minded people.
Although I am convinced that “spin doctors” are always a group of people, a well funded and skilled troop of NGO activists, I’d also like to point out that there is also the possibility that, my purely fictional
“Not-for-Profit XXXXXX blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the XXX-XXXXXX XXXXX”
could be the product of a sock puppet.
A “sock puppet” (sometimes known also as a glove puppet, shadow puppet, mule, troll or “alternate identity”) is an additional identity of an existing blogger or contributor to an on-line media to invent several separate user.
This may be used for fictional support of separate people in a vote or argument by falsely using the “identity” as a separate user, or for acting without consequence to one’s “main identity”.
But as spin doctors sometimes run, as I’ve pointed out, two - three blogs themselves and flood a large number of other blogs with their comments on a daily and tremendous basis they can’t possibly all be a “sock puppet”.
As our earthly day has 24 hours only and even the most determined individual must eat, sleep, take a shower, go to work (assumed that this “sock puppet” is no full time “astroturfer” being paid for what it does)and certainly wants to have some kind of a “private life” those 24 hours are simply too short to permit a single individual to produce such an “output”. So let’s continue to assume that spin doctors usually appear in a flock and not in the form of “sock puppets”.
Spin doctors are particularly worried about their on-line reputation.
One’s on-line reputation is similar to the conventional concept of reputation, but in cyberspace / blogosphere. There, reputations can be easily made due to the high transfer of information.
But they can also be easily broken, due to the lingering, semi-permanent nature of the world wide web, especially the general existence of sock puppets.
An on-line reputation is often achieved while in a pseudonymous state. A digital reputation can be useful in situations where credibility must be established, but exposure of one’s real life identity is undesirable or possibly hazardous.
A good example of this is in the novel “Ender’s Game”, in which Peter and Valentine utilize their pseudonymity to great effect on the most influential political discussion forums, despite their youth.
Spin doctors also often apply a technique adopted from the Japanese. This technique is called the “Nekama Technique” and has to be seen in context with the on-line reputation.
Nekama is a Japanese term initially used to describe a kind of internet sock puppet used on dating and personal sites. The word is a combination of the Japanese words “netto” (internet), and “okama” (an effeminate gay man, a male cross dresser), and means a man who posts a personal advertisement using a female identity.
Nekama range from the blatantly obvious, for example those using a photo scanned from a men’s magazine and a sexually provocative message, to the subtle and hard to spot. There are many Japanese web sites dealing with nekama and how to spot them.
Nekama may be gay males, but this term also refers to heterosexuals who attempt to form friendships with females by pretending to be women, and people who simply enjoy tricking others.
To stress my purely fictional
“Not-for-Profit XXXXXX blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the XXX-XXXXXX XXXXX”
again, such a blog could very well be the product of a nekama.
Here the spin doctors could very well insist, besides being a single person and not a group of NGO activists, to be a female and not a male or group of males.
Why ? As the political world, as well as the world of political bloggers, is a world dominated by men (which I deeply regret as we desperately need the female EQ in politics), many spin doctors prefer to appear being rather female than male. Highly educated political scientists and economists are usually well-behaved and polite, the products of good families and elite schools which have high moral standards and values.
Spin doctors, although they often apply rude manners and offensive language themselves, want to be treated with respect and good manners. They usually seem to feel easily offended and then vigoursly demand apologies, not because they are really offended but by wanting to bring discussions to an abrupt stop by claiming to be offended, particularly when these discussions reach a point where the spin doctors are cornered or running out of arguments.
Spin doctors simply know that no “gentleman” wants to offend a lady and rather withdraws from the debate then risking to hurt the feelings of a tender female psyche.
Would I be a NGO spin doctor and run the fictitious
“Not-for-Profit XXXXXX blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the XXX-XXXXXX XXXXX”
blog, I would not only claim to be a female but also suggest(subconsciously)to be a female belonging to an ethnic group which has been harassed and pursued in the past.
I know that it is extremely dangerous for a German national to say this, but would I run such a blog together with my fellow NGO spin doctors, I would give our nekama a name similar to “Sharon Rubinstein”, “Sandra Cohen”, “Susanne Weinfeld” or “Kim Zeugfeld”.
This would be a smart move as the supposed female gender in addition to a Jewish sounding name would not only enable us to label a potential critic being a sexist, we could as well label him being a anti-Semite. We would have a double protective “criticism-prove vest” for our NGO operated and spin doctored blog.
Maybe the dedicated reader of “Whack the blogs” will understand the effectiveness of such a “Gender-bait”, a term coined by William Gibson in his 2003 novel “Pattern Recognition”.
But I also highly recommend the consideration of the “Sollog-Case”.
Sollog (born 1960 as John Patrick Ennis) is an American numerologist, mystic, and self-proclaimed psychic. He is also a self-published author and a self-described artist, musician, poet, and film-maker.
Sollog refers to himself by what he calls the “religious name” of Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni (the first name is sometimes fully capitalized: SOLLOG). Howard Altman, a reporter for the alternative weekly newspaper Philadelphia City Paper, has written that Sollog stands for “son of light, light of God,” although Sollog has asserted that Altman is incorrect.
Sollog states that the name is derived from “Sol” and “Logos”, literally “the word of the sun”. The last part of his name, Adonai-Adoni, is Hebrew for “God (Adonai)—My Master (Adoni).” Sollog also provides an alternative explanation on page 29 of his e-book “Jesus is Not God”: “L LOGOS or the word of God in Greek is a Greek PI or word jumble of the word Sollog! Sollog is a hidden name that means the word of God!”
Well, although pretending to be a Jewish-American intellectual female is more success-promising for politically motivated NGOs than claiming to be a religious Messiah, some of the spin doctors might still want to chose such an identity, particularly when operating in the American “bible belt”.
Let me give away a little bit about myself. I have a business school degree in economics, studied some politics, some legal aspects of economics and also psychology. Regarding psychology I have to admit that these studies only addressed the “psychology of advertisement”. So I am certainly not Sigmund Freud.
During my military time, I served the “infamous” German Luftwaffe. No, I am too young for being responsible for “the blitz”. But old enough to have received my “lessons” on PsyOps (Psychological Operations) and on “Psychological Warfare”.
In my business life I was employed, and still am commissioned by, mayor European and American companies. There I learnt a hell of a lot about lobbying and “how to convince decision makers with costumers, clients and contractors”. I never did lobbying on a governmental level. I am very active in politics, learnt to think global and to act local. Friends of mine are members of the European Parliament, are members of the German “Bundestag” (our national assembly) or the regional parliament of the federal state I live in.
I could have went for a career as a politician, I somehow didn’t feel like doing this. I rather remain being a self employed business person. Although I am a member of a political party I rarely attend political meetings.
After all, I know how “spin doctors” and NGOs work and I recognize them when I see, hear or read them. I honestly hope you will enjoy reading this entry on my blog.
As a final remark let me please say, should there be anybody out there wanting to hire me for a
“Not-for-Profit XXXXXX blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the XXX-XXXXXX XXXXX” or
“The #1 Independent English-language XXX Politics Blog in the World” ,
forget about it. Although the “spin doctors” of some NGO have already promised to ignore me one never knows. I have no idea how much they stick to their promises made in the comment sections of political blogs.
