CTP0010.1177/2057047320969435Communication and the PublicLits 969435research-article2020

Original Research Article

Communication and the Public 2020, Vol. 5(3-4) 164­–177 © The Author(s) 2020 Detecting astroturf lobbying Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions movements DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047320969435 10.1177/2057047320969435 journals.sagepub.com/home/ctp

Brieuc Lits Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Abstract Astroturf lobbying refers to the simulation of grassroots support for or against a public policy. The objective of this tactic is for private interests to pretend they have public support for their cause. However, omitting to disclose the real sponsor of a message renders the communication unauthentic and undermines democratic and pluralist values. This article seeks to develop a method to detect astroturf movements based on emphasis framing analysis. The hypothesis is that astroturf groups employ different frames than genuine grassroots movements to comply with the private interests they truly represent. The results of the case study on the shale gas exploration debate in the United States show that astroturf groups used frames that differed significantly from authentic non-governmental organizations, which allowed their detection.

Keywords Astroturfing, framing, grassroots, interest groups, lobbying

The term lobbying is often associated with a pejora- is to simulate citizen support for or against a public tive connotation in the eyes of the public (McGrath, policy. This process has been coined astroturfing as 2005). This can be explained by the numerous cases it refers to the manufacturing of grassroots move- where lobbyists have used illegal or unethical strate- ments. Due to the concealed identity of the true gies to exert influence on policymakers. Nonetheless, sponsor of such movements, astroturfing represents when following the letter of the law, lobbying is a threat to democratic and pluralist values. Indeed, legal and is an accepted activity in democracy. when designing or revising pieces of legislation, Milbrath (1960) depicted lobbying as a communica- policymakers supposedly tend to support policies tion process, as an exchange of information between that have broad support in the population, or at least governments and interest groups, here understood as in their constituencies. By masking their true iden- a wide variety of organizations ranging from busi- tity, astroturf movements can lead a policymaker to ness groups to nonprofits. In light of the resource- exchange theory, the purpose of interest groups is thus to provide lawmakers with expert information Corresponding author: Brieuc Lits, Department of Information and Communication regarding an issue to gain access to and influence the Sciences, Université libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F. D. Roosevelt decision-making process (Bouwen, 2004). Interest 50/CP 123, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. groups have different options to do so. One of them Email: [email protected] Lits 165 overestimate private interests over public interests. while it is actually sponsored anonymously by cor- The purpose of this article is to suggest an innovative porate interests. method allowing the detection of astroturf groups Yet, this phenomenon is not limited to political and therefore helping to render public debates and purposes and can take many different forms. It can policy-making processes more transparent. refer to the fact of buying fake followers on Twitter, This article is divided into four sections. The first posting positive comments under a false identity on one presents a literature review of astroturfing. There Tripadvisor, paying citizens to demonstrate in the is a growing body of literature devoted to the phe- street, creating front groups with misleading names, nomenon, but few studies are suggesting methods to and the list goes on. Astroturf efforts have been stud- detect astroturf movements (Keller et al., 2019). The ied from different fields: computer sciences second section develops the methodology that is (Ratkiewicz et al., 2011), economics (Lyon & based on emphasis framing analysis. The underlying Maxwell, 2004), ethics (Bowen, 2013), political assumption is that astroturf groups frame an issue communication (Lits, 2019a), public relations differently than genuine grassroots movements. The (Sisson, 2017), psychology (Cho et al., 2011), and third section summarizes the results of the case sociology (Walker, 2014) notably. Consequently, study. The research design includes a quantitative many definitions of astroturfing exist. Two research- text analysis of documents published by 72 interest ers have strived to suggest a comprehensive defini- groups active on the hydraulic fracturing debate in tion that could be applied when astroturfing is used the United States. The last section paves the way for either for political or commercial purposes. Berkman a discussion about the threat of astroturf lobbying in (2008) defined it as “an attempt by an organization democratic societies. group to spread a predetermined message, but to do so in a manner that makes each message appear Astroturfing and astroturf authentic and original” (p. 7). Boulay’s (2012) defi- lobbying nition is even more systematic as she identified two criteria to qualify a campaign or a movement as Researchers from various fields have contributed to astroturf. According to her, “astroturfing is a com- the current knowledge of astroturfing. However, it munication strategy whose true source is hidden, and appears that the term itself does not always designate that pretends to emanate from a citizens’ initiative” the same reality. Depending on the field of research (p. 61). or on the geographical and political context, differ- Building on the latter definition and applying it to ent meanings coexist. political settings, astroturf lobbying refers to the It is only in 1986 that Lloyd Bentsen, then Senator simulation of citizen support for political purposes. of Texas, coined the term astroturfing to describe a This strategy is not new. Astroturf lobbying is remi- manufactured public relations campaign. His staff niscent of old propaganda techniques and appeared had received an unusually high number of letters long before the term was coined by Bentsen. from citizens who expressed their concerns about a However, the 1960s saw astroturf lobbying taking new policy proposal aiming to regulate the liquor off. One of the reasons behind that is the explosion business. However, it appeared that these public let- of citizen groups at that time in the US political ters actually originated from the liquor industry arena. Those advocacy groups gained momentum itself. The Senator tried to reassure its constituency with symbolic wins on issues such as civil rights or by saying he was able to “tell the difference between the protests against the Vietnam War. Those organi- grassroots and AstroTurf” (Walker, 2014, p. 33). zations often started as spontaneous grassroots Bentsen cleverly qualified this fake grassroots move- movements and gained legitimacy in the political ment as astroturfing in reference to the brand of syn- landscape. Their success attracted some attention thetic grass AstroTurf. Originally, astroturfing thus from business groups who would have loved to gain refers to a communication campaign pretending to the same respect and legitimacy as these movements. emanate spontaneously from concerned citizens As Berry (1993) phrased it, 166 Communication and the Public 5(3-4)

most business groups would love to have the respect Australian government’s stand on carbon emissions. that these citizen groups command in the press. For all The rally was actually organized by the National the financial strength at the disposal of oil lobbyists, no Road Freighters Association but presented itself as a representative of the oil industry has as much credibility genuine citizen movement. In Europe, Laurens with the public as a lobbyist for the Natural Resources (2015) has published a paper after following the set- Defense Council. (pp. 35–36) ting up of an astroturf group from the inside. He explained from a sociological perspective how the First scholarly work about the astroturf lobbying evolution of the European political structures and the started to really emerge in the 1990s under the impe- tus of Stauber and Rampton (1995) and Beder need for the European institutions to regain trust (1998). Even though they do not explicitly use the from their citizens lead businesses to try and legiti- term, they shed light on the damn lies that are some- mate their actions through front groups to feed that times used by the public relations industry. Among need of institutional legitimacy. The presence of them, the setting up of front groups and the publica- astroturf groups in Europe has also been studied by tion of scientific reports written by controversial Lits (in press) who showed how the oil and gas expert groups are examples of creative strategies industry deployed an astroturf campaign to influence created to influence public policy outcomes. two specific reports of the European Parliament. Interestingly, McNutt and Boland (2007) The rationale behind astroturfing is for private observed that environmental issues are more likely actors to find an alternate way to convey their mes- to be targeted by astroturfers. The research con- sages with more credibility. The goal is to capture ducted by Cho et al. (2011) supports this assump- the voice of civil society in political debates. In this tion. Based on a psychological experiment on the regard, creating a front group, for instance, opens issue of global warming, their findings suggest that “avenues for businesses to influence policymakers “astroturf organizations are effective in creating the and for wealthy donors to sway political campaigns sought uncertainty in the minds of people exposed and to leave few fingerprints” (Drinkard, 1997, p. to their message” (p. 23). Along the same lines, the 10). Because this strategy is based on deceiving poli- finding of a study conducted by Bsumek et al. cymakers and citizens, it raises concerns about the (2014) demonstrated how the coal industry devel- democratic aspect of the public policy process oped astroturf campaigns in the United States to (Fitzpatrick & Palenchar, 2006). These concerns are defend their interests. The findings show that the all the more pressing that astroturf lobbying has coal industry’s strategy is to propose a multi-front developed as a distinct industry that sociologist corporate advocacy campaign, which includes the Walker (2014) qualified as grassroots for hire to use of front groups. The authors define this strategy depict how easy it has become for public affairs con- as corporate ventriloquism and explain how the sultants to manufacture public participation. industry has adapted its rhetoric to challenge and In sum, astroturf lobbying aims to manufacture undermine the voice from genuine grassroots citizen support for or against an issue to influence movements. policymakers, the media, or public opinion. It can be Even though most research has been conducted in done by setting up a bogus non-governmental organ- the United States so far, scholars from other coun- ization (NGO), by paying people to demonstrate in tries also had a look at the phenomenon, possibly the streets, by hiring actors to go to public hearings, due to the growing number of detected cases in by sending petitions signed with fake names, or by recent years. For example, Wear (2014) analyzed the purchasing followers on Twitter. By keeping the link between populism and astroturfing when decon- identity of the actual sponsor of the strategy secret, structing the campaign The convoy of no confidence astroturf lobbying raises ethical questions. It could that took place in Australia in 2011. The idea behind indeed endanger the functioning of policy-making this campaign was to create a citizen movement, processes in democratic societies, which should be symbolized by a trucking convoy, to oppose the based on authentic communications. The next Lits 167 section outlines the method that has been designed to interest groups are framers (Baumgartner, 2007). detect astroturf movements. Framing has a long and debated history. As from the 1970s and onwards, the concept of framing has been How to detect astroturf widely used and defined by an ever-growing number of scholars from various research traditions. Two movements? main schools of thought have emerged over the In an attempt to look like a grassroots movement, years: the sociology-rooted and the psychology- private interests not only violate most of the norma- rooted traditions. In this article, the concept of fram- tive theories of communication and political science ing is understood and mobilized in light of the but also most codes of ethics of public relations and sociological tradition. Gitlin (1980) was one of the public affairs. A critical objective is thus to find a first scholars to introduce the concept of framing in way to uncover them and ascribe them to their true communication and media research. He offers a defi- origins and financial ties, despite the possible verac- nition of frames and media frames, which has led to ity of the content of the message. The objective of the concept of emphasis framing that is used in this this article is, therefore, to design a method to reveal article: astroturf endeavors and make public debates and policy-making processes more transparent. Frames are principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters. Media An underlying assumption based on frames, largely unspoken and unacknowledged, emphasis framing organize the world both for journalists who report it and, in some important degree, for us who rely on their Scholars who have studied astroturfing acknowledge reports. Media frames are persistent patterns of the problem of concealment, but few are suggesting cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, solutions. In fact, according to Boulay (2015), astro- emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol-handlers turf activities are most often denounced by journal- routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual. ists in the course of their investigations rather than (pp. 6–7) by academic researchers. There is an emerging aca- demic focus on astroturf detection that focuses on Subsequently, Gamson and Modigliani (1989) computational propaganda and the use of bots on developed research on framing with a construction- social networks. For example, Ratkiewicz et al. ist approach and applied it to the analysis of media (2011) were pioneers in the field and designed a pro- discourse and public opinion on nuclear energy. gram called Truthy, which helps detect smear cam- Here, frames are perceived as “a central organizing paigns and astroturf cases on Twitter. Along the idea or storyline that provides meaning to an unfold- same lines, the Computational Propaganda Project at ing strip of events. The frame suggests what the con- the University of Oxford also analyzes algorithms troversy is about the essence of the issue” (p. 143). and automation on the microblogging website to find Along the same line and more recently, Van Gorp bots that relay misinformation and manipulate pub- (2007) advocated for considering the cultural dimen- lic opinion. sion of framing that is often overlooked when study- These initiatives are of course welcome and much ing framing effects. As the essence of framing is in needed in a time of political misinformation but social interaction, culture plays an integral part in solely take into consideration social media such as how frames are built. Facebook and Twitter. The question of uncovering To influence policymakers, interest groups active alternate astroturf tactics, such as front groups, has on an issue thus have to define what is problematic however been overlooked by the scientific commu- and suggest a solution. They have to frame their nity. This study aims to fill that knowledge gap. position by selecting arguments and by omitting or The method suggested in this study is based on discrediting others. Recent research has shown that the concept of framing, with the postulate that different factors can explain how interest groups 168 Communication and the Public 5(3-4) choose the frames to emphasize: the logic of influ- Case study on hydraulic ence and the logic of membership (Klüver & fracturing Mahoney, 2015; Schmitter & Streeck, 1999). The former means that interest groups behave in accord- The research design follows four steps, from the ance with the target of their lobbying campaign. The identification of a suitable issue to the identification same frames do not work as efficiently when trying of astroturf movements thanks to quantitative text to influence Democrat or Republican representatives analysis of interest groups’ positions. for instance. The latter supposes that the interest groups mobilize frames in accordance with the Issue identification members they represent. For example, corporate lobby groups would rely more on economic frames Cobb and Elder (1971) defined an issue as “a con- and citizen groups on public frames such as the envi- flict between two or more identifiable groups over ronment or public health. procedural or substantive matters relating to the dis- The case of astroturfing is interesting considering tribution of positions or resources” (p. 82). The how framing is used strategically. In the public arena selection of the issue for this case study has been model, public attention is a scarce resource which guided by the literature review on the astroturf phe- leads to a competition between political actors to nomenon. First, the literature tends to show that the recognize what social problems deserve media and United States is the cradle of astroturfing and is public attention (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Public deemed a breeding ground for astroturf efforts, thus deliberation is here understood as a collective pro- improving the likelihood of encountering them as, cess where actors exchange views on a public policy, according to Financial Times journalist Fontanella- and where political actors use discursive devices in Khan (2013, June 26), astroturf has become the norm order to influence the deliberation. Framing there- rather than the exception in the United States. Then, fore becomes a strategic action for interest groups to the observations from McNutt and Boland (2007) attract attention and to shift the focus of a debate have been taken into consideration to focus on an (Pan & Kosicki, 2001). environmental issue. That led to the divisive issue However, there is a dilemma for astroturfers, that that is shale gas exploration. Indeed, over the years, is, the way they will frame the issue at hand. Astroturf two camps have formed regarding the use of hydrau- groups represent private interests while appearing lic fracturing for supplying energy in the United like a genuine grassroots movement. Will they use States. On the one hand, interest groups advocate for the frames from the interests they truly represent? the exploration of shale gas, given the favorable Will they try to counter-frame the ones suggested by impact it can have on the US economy and industry. genuine grassroots movements? Or will they try to On the other hand, an opposing coalition has emerged reframe the issue entirely? and expresses environmental concerns regarding this The assumption on which the method to detect technology. astroturf has been designed is based on this paradox. The purpose is to determine whether framing strate- Interest groups identification gies used by lobbyists resorting to astroturf differ significantly from those used by real grassroots According to how they present themselves on their movements so as to open the possibility to instru- websites, two major group types have emerged: the mentalize those differences to detect and unmask ones representing business or professional interests astroturfing. These differences can be observed and and the ones that are nonprofits. Different labels measured by looking at and mapping the interest have been used by researchers to mark the differentia- groups depending on their framing, and to isolate the tion between the two. Some prefer to separate groups fake grassroots. In other words, the assumption is with specific interests or with diffused interests (Gais that astroturf movements rely on different frames & Walker, 1991; Kollman, 1998; Schlozman & than genuine civil society organizations. Tierney, 1986). Others rather distinguish sectional Lits 169 groups from cause groups (Klüver, 2011; Stewart, identify the frames invoked by the interest groups 1958). Finally, Binderkrantz (2005) differentiates and mention which frames have been most used by business groups and public interest groups. All these each interest group. Three clusters have been identi- dichotomies refer to similar realities with slight fied through this process. Table 1 shows a list of the semantic changes. As this study looks at astroturfing 20 words that are likely to appear in an interest and the problem of faking citizen participation, the group document based on the frame that it has classification to describe interest groups in this arti- invoked. cle distinguishes business groups and grassroots Cluster 1 contains words that refer mostly to the groups. These terms allow emphasizing the differen- risks of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as the latter tiation between groups that are defending corporate term is indeed highly prominent in the definition of interests and the ones having a bottom-up approach this cluster. The words used by the interest groups with the spontaneous implication of citizens. show concerns regarding the technology: contami- To make up a corpus of relevant documents, the nate, dangerous, health, toxic, pollution, harm, and websites of the identified interest groups are scruti- the list goes on. In light of this, it can be deduced that nized to find a page presenting the issue and suggest- the interest groups relying on this cluster of words ing a solution. The criteria for selecting the documents are invoking an environment frame. Cluster 2 com- making up the corpus are thus that an interest group prises terms referring to the technology of hydraulic must have a website and must have a specific section fracturing. These words are used to describe the pro- on its website where it addresses the issue of shale cess involved in exploiting gas: drilling, fluid, sand, gas and hydraulic fracturing. These sections often fracture, ground, cement. This cluster of words can had titles such as “About Shale Gas,” “What is be interpreted as a technical frame used by interest Fracking?” or “Position on the Hydraulic Fracturing groups to explain how hydraulic fracturing works Issue.” Based on these criteria, 72 interest groups from a scientific perspective. Cluster 3 is made up of have been kept for making up the corpus (30 business words that revolve around the economic benefits of groups and 42 grassroots groups). The framing analy- exploring shale gas in the United States. Indeed, spe- sis of the documents is based on quantitative text cific interest groups highlight the economic conse- analysis and is performed with the software package quences that hydraulic fracturing can have on KH Coder, which processes data using R. American society. Terms like economy, job, benefit, and development are prominent in that cluster, which Frames identification can be interpreted as an economic frame. The environment and economic frames were Interest groups are framers. They emphasize certain expected to emerge in the discourse brought forward aspects of an issue in their messages while omitting by different interest groups as it is the bone of con- others. To identify the frames used by the interest tention of the issue. As explained earlier, camps are groups in this case study, a cluster analysis is per- forming between interest groups who perceive shale formed on the corpus. As Klüver et al. (2015) gas as a modern-day gold rush, which includes clean explain, the underlying argument is that “words that energy, energy independence, and lower energy co-occur in similar contexts tend to have similar prices (Metze & Dodge, 2016), and others who meaning and documents that contain similar word frame the issue in terms of environmental risks, and patterns tend to have similar topics” (p. 488). By a fight between David and Goliath (Bomberg, 2017). looking at the words forming a cluster, it is thus pos- The cluster analysis performed by KH Coder ena- sible to interpret the clusters as frames (Schonhardt- bles to find which documents contain similar words. Bailey, 2005). The software allows to find and In other words, for each cluster of words identified analyze which groups of words have similar appear- by the software, interest groups are automatically ance patterns. Importantly, it is possible to assign assigned to one of them. Table 2 shows the lists of the interest group documents to a single cluster. It interest groups for each cluster: 25 interest groups means that the quantitative text analysis permits to have been assigned to the environment frame, 17 to 170 Communication and the Public 5(3-4)

Table 1. Most prominent words distinguishing clusters process of this study. Indeed, the documents were in the US hydraulic fracturing debate. selected because they defined the issue of shale gas. Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 However, hydraulic fracturing is a technical issue in essence. Therefore, an interest group, be it an NGO Contaminate Require Economy or a trade association, has to explain the technical Fracking Sand Job process to communicate to their public. Moreover, Frack Size Reduce the professionalization of interest representation has Dangerous Casing America led non-profits organizations to develop their com- Health Fluid Energy petencies on highly technical matters. The scientific Toxic Percent Economic debate of an issue is not the prerogative of the indus- Climate Public Fuel try anymore. There is thus a certain logic to see Community Drill Emission grassroots and business groups framing the issue in Problem Formation Manufacturing terms of technical arguments. Air Drilling Use The most surprising results come from the third Cause Area Benefit Ban Begin Development cluster. Stressing the economic benefits of hydraulic Stop Fracture Resource fracturing in terms of jobs and growth is expected Wastewater Typically Natural from business groups, as profits are their rationale. Ban Bear Nation On the other hand, to see grassroots invoking eco- Chemical Steel Source nomic reasons in the debate sounds paradoxical, or Water Completion Support at least suspicious. This analysis seeks to see whether Pollution Cement Percent they could actually be backed up by the industry and Harm Ground Provide act as astroturf groups. Waste Protection US Astroturf identification the technical frame, and 30 to the economic frame. Following the cluster analysis, a correspondence All groups invoking an environment frame are grass- analysis is conducted to assess the dimensionality of roots groups (25). The 30 business groups identified the issue. Policy debates usually encompass differ- previously are employing either the economic frame ent dimensions (Slapin & Proksch, 2014). In the case (19) or the technical frame (11). Interestingly, they of the hydraulic fracturing debate in the United do not have the monopoly of these frames since States, three main clusters of words have been iden- grassroots groups also invoke them, with 11 grass- tified and make up three frames: environmental, roots group using an economic frame, and six, a technical, and economic. Correspondence analysis is technical one. a multidimensional scaling technique permitting to These results are interesting on different levels. represent spatially and visually the relationship First, as one could expect, the environmental argu- between the frames on a two-dimension graph ments highlighting the risks of fracking are brought (Greenacre, 1984). To put it simply, KH Coder cre- to light by grassroots organizations. This echoes ates a matrix of words from the same text corpus as Kollman’s (1998) observations on outside lobbying for the cluster analysis and provides a measure for and grassroots mobilization. Spontaneous move- each word depending on their frequency and their ments are set up to signal and expand conflict. In this variance. Based on these data, KH Coder provides a case, the risks of fracking on public health are two-axis graph presenting the most frequent words, deemed concerning by citizen groups such as excluding stop-words (Figure 1). American Against Fracking or Greenpeace who call In such a graph, words that tend to appear together up for a ban on fracking. in documents are placed near to each other, and the The variety of interest groups using a technical words that are rarely co-occurring are placed far frame can be understood from the data selection away from each other. Also, the words that are close Lits 171

Table 2. List of interest groups classified by frames.

Environment frame Technical frame Economic frame 350.org Anadarko Petroleum Corp. American Clean Skies Foundation American Against Fracking Athens Country Fracking Action America’s Energy Forum Network Breast Cancer Action American Petroleum Institute American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Center for Health, Environment & Antero Resources Corp. American Gas Association Justice Center for Biological Diversity Big Green Radicals America’s Natural Gas Alliance CREDO BHP Billiton American Public Gas Association De Smog Blog Ban Michigan Fracking Big Green Radicals Don’t Frack Maryland Conoco Phillips BP Environmental Action Energy in Depth Business Roundtable Earth Justice EOG Resources Consumer Energy Alliance Environmental Working Group EQT Corp. Chesapeake Energy Frack Action Marcellus Shale Coalition Chevron Friends of the Earth New Mexico Oil & Gas Assn Climate Mama Food & Water Watch Shale Country CONSOL Energy Green America Shale Test Energy Citizens Greenpeace United for Action Environmental Defense Funds MoveOn.org US Oil & Gas Association Environmental Policy Alliance National Nurses United Western Energy Alliance Energy Tomorrow Organic Consumers Association ExxonMobil Oil Change International Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Penn Environment Independent Petroleum Association of America Rainforest Action Network Natural Gas Supply Association Sierra Club Natural Gas Vehicles for America Waterkeeper Alliance Phillips 66 What the Frack? Colorado Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association Repsol Shell Statoil United Shale Advocates Your Energy Virginia to the origin were not significant in defining clusters. of astroturf groups. The assumption is that astroturf It means that words like state, emissions, new, or, groups, which by definition pretend to be grassroots work were used by most interest groups, regardless groups, would use a different frame from genuine of their type. On the other hand, words like cost, grassroots groups. This is explained by the logic of fracking, or fluid were highly significant in defining membership (Klüver & Mahoney, 2015; Schmitter clusters. & Streeck, 1999), which postulates that interest The objective is now to use the information from groups frame an issue in accordance with the mem- the correspondence analysis to help in the detection bers they represent. In the case of astroturf groups, 172 Communication and the Public 5(3-4)

Figure 1. Correspondence analysis presenting the most frequent words in the US hydraulic fracturing debate. the real interests they represent are private. Therefore, whether a group presents astroturf features or not. it is expected that astroturf groups invoke a framing On this topic, it is important to define specific crite- close to the ones from business groups. It is in that ria before labeling a group as astroturf. In this study, sense that a correspondence analysis can help to the two criteria that are considered are the ones identify potential astroturf groups. enunciated by Boulay (2015): the group pretends to A caveat that must be expressed at this stage is emanate from a citizen’s initiative and the real iden- that the correspondence analysis does not allow to tity of the sponsor is concealed. automatically identify a group as astroturf. In other Moreover, it is understood in this study that astro- words, the quantitative analysis provides results giv- turfing must not be apprehended on a binary basis. ing indications about where to look, but it is up to the Interest groups can also be described as hybrid, in researcher to conduct a subsequent analysis to say the sense that they might present features from both Lits 173

2,5

2

1,5

1

) 0,5

0 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 00,5 11,5 2

-0,5 Dimension 2 (9,76%

-1

Grassroots Groups -1,5 Business Groups -2

-2,5 Dimension 1 (19,91%)

Figure 2. Mapping of the interest groups according to their type. grassroots and astroturf movements. It might start as Based on that figure, different grassroots groups a bogus campaign that attracts support from real citi- seem to frame the issue differently from the core on zens, or it might start as a genuine political commu- the left-hand side and their environmental frame. nication campaign that is boosted by hiring actors Ten grassroots groups are indeed positioned in the for a demonstration for instance. The term astroturf economic cluster and five in the technical cluster. It is used in this study to describe the groups that are is thus these 15 groups that are investigated to see if not entirely genuine grassroots. they are astroturf or not. The investigation aims to The first step in the process is to identify the confirm the two criteria that would qualify them as groups that are more likely to present astroturf fea- astroturf. tures. For that purpose, a schematic representation of The process of confirming that these groups pre- the correspondence analysis shows the interest sent themselves as emerging from a citizen initiative groups according to their group types (Figure 2). The was already performed during the interest groups circles represent the groups presenting themselves as identification stage of this case study. Indeed, the grassroots, and the diamonds represent the business website of each group has been scrutinized to cate- groups. gorize them between business or grassroots groups. 174 Communication and the Public 5(3-4)

The 15 grassroots groups that are outliers from the analysis confirms this assumption as among the 72 others thus fit the criterion of presenting themselves interest groups identified as active on the shale gas as such. debate, 12 groups have been detected as astroturf. The method for confirming the second criterion These results have implications on the understand- involves an investigation from the researcher. The ing of the astroturfing phenomenon, and more objective is to see if the group is actually financed by globally from a theoretical and methodological other interests than grassroots and if that sponsorship perspective too. is hidden or concealed. For this purpose, the method The interpretation of the results produced with that has proven more fruitful was to look at the the framing analysis sheds light on the reasons why financing sources of the groups. The process was private interests set up astroturf groups in their lob- helped by the previous work of investigative journal- bying strategies. The question of legitimacy and ists and watchdog groups. As one can imagine, data credibility is essential for an interest group to com- on group funding is difficult to track down. For this municate and to persuade the public about their purpose, a website such as https://www.opensecrets. arguments. Genuine grassroots movements capital- org/ offers much data about money in US politics. ize on this legitimacy as their network of volunteers Their work substantiated the investigation as they defend public causes (i.e., the environment, human provided more evidence about certain groups for rights) by dedicating their own time and energy which conclusions were circumstantial at first. (Boulay, 2015). Private interests do not enjoy such The results from this investigation were outstand- credibility when communicating on a topic like ing as no less than 12 interest groups presenting hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, they create front themselves as grassroots movements were actually groups that appear as NGOs to disseminate their linked to private interests to a certain extent. Figure 3 messages. By so doing, these new voices are com- shows the results on a graph, and it is apparent that all peting with the ones from genuine grassroots in the the grassroots who were on the right-hand side of the public sphere. graph show astroturf features. Namely, the astroturf In this case study, the framing analysis shows the groups are American Clean Skies Foundation, type of messages sent by the astroturf groups. On the America’s Energy Forum, Big Greens Radicals, one hand, groups like Energy Citizens, United Shale Consumer Energy Alliance, Energy Citizens, America, or Your Energy Virginia highlighted the Environmental Defense Fund, Energy in Depth, economic benefits of exploring shale gas. The co- Environmental Policy Alliance, Energy Tomorrow, occurrence of words such as economy, creating jobs, Shale Country, United Shale Advocates, and Your growth, U.S., or benefits clearly shows an economic Energy Virginia. The position of these astroturf frame. Using astroturf to communicate this way can groups on the graph is therefore not coincidental, be perceived as a strategy by the industry to simulate and it demonstrates an emphasis framing analysis a consensus about the benefits of hydraulic fractur- can be helpful in detecting astroturf movements. ing. They tried to make their coalition look bigger and more diverse, as to say that both the industry and Discussion environmental groups had agreed on that topic and shared a common position. On the other hand, groups The objective of this article is to elaborate a method like Energy in Depth and Shale Country aimed to based on the framing theory to detect astroturf downplay the risks assimilated with hydraulic frac- groups. The case study selected for this purpose was turing by mobilizing a technical frame. Those groups the issue of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. represented another channel through which the The reason behind this choice is that the literature industry could spread the studies corroborating their tends to show that the US is the cradle of astroturfing worldview and by so doing, trying to capture the sci- and that environmental issues are deemed a breeding entific debate surrounding the issue. ground for astroturf efforts, thus improving the like- The framing analysis is also telling about the lihood of encountering them. The outcome of the nature of the competition between actors who are Lits 175

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

(9,76%) 0 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 00,5 11,5 2 ion 2 -0,5 Dimens

-1 Grassroots Groups

Business Groups -1,5

Astroturf Groups -2

-2,5 Dimension 1 (19,91%)

Figure 3. Astroturf groups in the US hydraulic fracturing debate. engaged in a discursive contestation. As explained could prove helpful in collecting data on astroturf earlier, framing is a strategic action to bring issues to efforts on a larger scale. The results of the corre- the political agenda and to influence the public delib- spondence analysis were significant to raise a red eration about a public policy (Pan & Kosicki, 2001). flag on potential astroturf groups. However, one of In this case, astroturfing is used as strategic framing the limits of this study is the generalization of the by private interest in order to sponsor a specific frame results, or the lack thereof. The hydraulic fracturing or worldview, to make certain aspects of the issue debate is considered as highly polarized, which more salient, and to contest opposing frames. could explain the results in terms of framing (Lits, The results also have important methodological 2019b). An emphasis framing analysis focusing on a implications. Research on astroturfing is still at a less divisive issue could present results that are less nascent stage. One of the main obstacles lies in the significant. The replication of this model could collection of data. Interviewing astroturfers proves therefore be interesting to further test the method of to be difficult, notwithstanding potential biases. This this article and to be able to generalize results across is why the method elaborated in this dissertation sectors and to build theories about the phenomenon. 176 Communication and the Public 5(3-4)

ORCID iD communication (pp. 21–43). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137433749_2 Brieuc Lits https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1057-8100 Cho, C. H., Martens, M. L., Kim, H., & Rodrigue, M. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always References greener on the other side of the fence. Journal Baumgartner, F. R. (2007). EU lobbying: A view from the of Business Ethics, 104(4), 571–587. https://doi. US. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 482– org/10.1007/s10551-011-0950-6 488. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701243830 Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of Beder, S. (1998). Public relations’ role in manufactur- agenda-building: An alternative perspective for mod- ing artificial grass roots coalitions. Public Relations ern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), Quarterly, 43(2), 21–23. 892–915. https://doi.org/10.2307/2128415 Berkman, R. I. (2008). The art of strategic listening: Drinkard, J. (1997, December 19). “Astroturf” lobbyists Finding market intelligence through blogs and other overshadow grassroots efforts. The Detroit News, pp. social media. Paramount Market. 10–15. Berry, J. M. (1993). Citizen groups and the changing Fitzpatrick, K. R., & Palenchar, M. J. (2006). Disclosing spe- nature of Interest Group politics in America. Annals cial interests: Constitutional restrictions on front groups. of the American Academy of Political and Social Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 203–224. Science, 528, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1803_1 Binderkrantz, A. (2005). Interest group strategies: Fontanella-Khan, J. (2013, June 26). Brussels: Astroturfing Navigating between privileged access and strategies takes root. Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/ of pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694–715. https:// content/74271926-dd9f-11e2-a756-00144feab7de doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00552.x Gais, T. L., & Walker Jr, J. L . (1991). Pathways to influ- Bomberg, E. (2017). Fracking and framing in transatlan- ence in American politics. Mobilizing Interest Groups tic perspective: A comparison of shale politics in the in America, 103, 104–110. US and European Union. Journal of Transatlantic Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse Studies, 15(2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/147 and public opinion on nuclear power. American 94012.2016.1268789 Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. Boulay, S. (2012). Usurpation de l’identité citoyenne dans Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. University l’espace public: astroturfing et communication poli- of California Press. tique [Usurpation of the Citizen Idendity in the Public Greenacre, M. J. (1984). Theory and applications of cor- Sphere: Astroturfing and Political Communication]. respondence analysis. Academic Press. [Doctoral dissertation]. Université du Québec. http:// Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of www.archipel.uqam.ca/4466/ social problems: A public Arenas model. American Boulay, S. (2015). Usurpation de l’identité citoyenne Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78. https://doi. dans l’espace public: Astroturfing, communication org/10.1086/228951 et démocratie. [Usurpation of the Citizen Identity in Keller, F. B., Schoch, D., Stier, S., & Yang, J. (2019). the Public Sphere: Astroturfing, Communication and Political Astroturfing on Twitter: How to Coordinate a Democracy]. Presses de l’Université du Québec. Disinformation Campaign. Political Communication, Bouwen, P. (2004). Exchanging access goods for access: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.16618 A comparative study of business lobbying in the 88 European Union institutions. European Journal Klüver, H. (2011). The contextual nature of lobbying: of Political Research, 43(3), 337–369. https://doi. Explaining lobbying success in the European Union. org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00157.x European Union Politics, 12(4), 483–506. https://doi. Bowen, S. A. (2013). Using classic social media cases org/10.1177/1465116511413163 to distill ethical guidelines for digital engagement. Klüver, H., & Mahoney, C. (2015). Measuring interest Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 28(2), 119–133. group framing strategies in public policy debates. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2013.793523 Journal of Public Policy, 35(2), 223–244. http://doi. Bsumek, P. K., Schneider, J., Schwarze, S., & Peeples, J. org/10.1017/S0143814X14000294 (2014). Corporate ventriloquism: Corporate advocacy, Klüver, H., Mahoney, C., & Opper, M. (2015). Framing the coal industry, and the appropriation of voice. In in context: How interest groups employ ­framing J. Peeples & S. Depoe (Eds.), Voice and environmental to lobby the European Commission. Journal of Lits 177

European Public Policy, 22(4), 481–498. https://doi. conference companion on World Wide Web (pp. 249– org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1008550 252). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1963301 Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized Interest Group strategies. Princeton University Press. interests and American democracy. Harpercollins Laurens, S. (2015). Astroturfs et ONG de consommateurs College Division. téléguidées à Bruxelles: Quand le business se crée Schmitter, P. C., & Streeck, W. (1999). The organization une légitimité « par en bas » [Astroturfs and Remote- of business interests: Studying the associative action Controlled Consumers NGOs in Brussels: When of business in advanced industrial societies (Mpifg Business Creates Bottom-Up Legitimacy]. Critique discussion paper no. 1–95). https://pure.mpg.de/rest/ Internationale, 67(2), 83–99. items/item_1235421_1/component/file_1235419/ Lits, B. (2019a). Astroturf lobbying in the EU: The case content of shale gas exploration. Networking Knowledge: Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2005). Measuring ideas more Journal of the Meccsa Postgraduate Network, 12(2), effectively: An analysis of Bush and Kerry’s 3–18. https://doi.org/10.31165/nk.2018.112.521 national security speeches. Political Science & Lits, B. (2019b). Forging grassroots mobilization: Politics, 38(4), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Detecting astroturf movements and measuring their S1049096505050195 lobbying success [Doctoral dissertation]. Université Sisson, D. C. (2017). Inauthentic communication, libre de Bruxelles. https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bit- organization-public relationships, and trust: A con- stream/2013/284008/3/Dissertation.pdf tent analysis of online astroturfing news coverage. Lits, B. (in press). Exploring astroturf lobbying in the Public Relations Review, 43(4), 788–795. https://doi. EU: The case of responsible energy citizen coalition. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.05.003 European Policy Analysis. Advance online publica- Slapin, J. B., & Proksch, S.-O. (2014). Words as data: tion. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1086 Content analysis in legislative studies. In S. Martin, Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2004). Astroturf: Interest T. Saalfeld, & K. W. Strøm (Eds.), The Oxford hand- group lobbying and corporate strategy. Journal of book of legislative studies (pp. 126–144). Oxford Economics & Management Strategy, 13(4), 561–597. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1430-9134.2004.00023.x Stauber, J., & Rampton, S. (1995). Toxic sludge is good McGrath, C. (2005). Towards a lobbying profession: for you: Lies, damn lies and the public relations Developing the industry’s reputation, education and industry (1st ed., 2nd Printing ed.). Common Courage representation. Journal of Public Affairs, 5(2), 124– Press. 135. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.14 Stewart, J. D. (1958). British pressure groups: Their role McNutt, J., & Boland, K. (2007). AstroTurf, tech- in relation to the House of Commons. The Clarendon nology and the future of community mobiliza- Press. tion: Implications for nonprofit theory. Journal of Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach Sociology and Social Welfare, 34, Article 165. to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Metze, T., & Dodge, J. (2016). Dynamic discourse coali- Communication, 57(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/ tions on hydro-fracking in Europe and the United 10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00329.x States. Environmental Communication, 10(3), 365– Walker, P. E. T. (2014). Grassroots for hire: Public affairs 379. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1133437 consultants in American democracy. Cambridge Milbrath, L. W. (1960). Lobbying as a communication University Press. process. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(1), 32–53. Wear, R. (2014). Astroturf and populism in Australia: Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic The convoy of no confidence. Australian Journal of action in public deliberation. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Political Science, 49(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: 1080/10361146.2013.864598 Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 35–65). Taylor & Francis. Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Gonçalves, Author biography B., Patil, S., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Brieuc Lits is a Researcher and a Lecturer at the Université Truthy: Mapping the spread of astroturf in microblog libre de Bruxelles where he earned a PhD in information streams. In Proceedings of the 20th international and communication.