Republicans hope to use education wars to turn purple suburbia red. In one Pennsylvania district, that backfired

"Monster Liberty": That's how the otherwise excellent closed-captioning service in the auditorium at Pennridge High School interpreted "Moms for Liberty," while one of several dozen citizens who had waited in line to lambast the group spoke at the podium. A chuckle rose up among the parents in the crowded school board meeting, held on a late August evening after the first day of classes for the Pennridge School District in suburban Bucks County, Pennsylvania. "Fair enough," one mother whispered to another.

  • 30mag@lemmy.worldEnglish
    431·
    1 year ago

    a right-wing “astroturf” organization

    What characteristics mean an organization is not an astroturf organization?

    • Neve8028@lemm.ee
      50·
      1 year ago

      Astroturfing is:

      The disguising of an orchestrated campaign as a "grass-roots" event

      • 30mag@lemmy.worldEnglish
        223·
        1 year ago

        That definition seems overly broad to me. I wouldn't consider a labor union to be an astroturfing organization but, depending on the details, I think you could argue that by the letter of the definition, some of them are. I think there is a more suitable definition with a narrower scope.

        Thanks for your help. I'm just rambling and pondering semantics. I don't have anything meaningful to say.

        • gsfraley@lemmy.world
          23·
          1 year ago

          It's a rough definition, but astroturfing is usually rooted in goals separate from or even counter to the stated movement. E.g. in your example outside support for a labor movement wouldn't necessarily be astroturfing if it's genuinely supporting labor. A fake labor movement sprouted by the companies themselves to take the wind out of the sails of real labor movements would.

          • 30mag@lemmy.worldEnglish
            15·
            1 year ago

            It’s a rough definition, but astroturfing is usually rooted in goals separate from or even counter to the stated movement.

            I think that is a red flag, absolutely. That's a good indicator of an astroturfing campaign.

            E.g. in your example outside support for a labor movement wouldn’t necessarily be astroturfing if it’s genuinely supporting labor.

            Right. A big donation to the AFL-CIO doesn't turn it into an astroturfing organization.

        • Neve8028@lemm.eeEnglish
          17·
          1 year ago

          Wikipedia has a more specific definition in the first paragraph:

          Astroturfing is the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial backers.

          I think it's pretty hard to argue that labor unions can be astroturfing. It's not like they have a lot of wealthy donors who are secretly trying to push narratives to encourage workers organizing.

          • 30mag@lemmy.worldEnglish
            14·
            1 year ago

            I think it’s pretty hard to argue that labor unions can be astroturfing.

            If the definition for astroturfing is:

            The disguising of an orchestrated campaign as a “grass-roots” event

            You only have to show there is organized action to prove astroturfing is taking place. That is an extremely low bar. I think it is too low, in fact. What political organizations would not meet that standard?

            The definition you provided from wikipedia is much better.

            Astroturfing is the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source’s financial backers.

            I don't know why I didn't look at wikipedia in the first place.