EPA committed 'covert propaganda' social media campaign on American public, auditors find

[xeni]

[Read the post]

[Daedalus]

The person to be angry at here seems to be the folks at the EPA who thought this was acceptable / a good idea. This seems foolish, and a good example of what’s at stake when people on the right side of an issue, with the best of intentions, fail to hold themselves to a higher bar than their foes. It may be an honest mistake made in pursuit of a good cause, but it has the consequence of more illness and death for all the people that law was meant to help. This stuff is too important to leave vulnerable to social media shenanigans!

[anon55609254]

It would be nice if there was some sort of sympathetic “news” show that could prominently feature scientists explaining how air and water pollution are bad etc. But I guess we’d all recognize that as mere propaganda and dismiss it.

[Boundegar]

This story is a great example of how a well-intended campaign for public good can go terribly, horribly wrong…

Terribly!

Horribly!

They were admonished by the GAO!

Remind me, has anybody ever been punished in any way for the selling of the Iraq War? Just wondering.

[Haystack]

Okay, but can we go after the DEA now?

speaking_out.pdf

[mewse]

unused article title:

EPA Criticised For Use Of Astroturf.

[Shash]

The two instances quoted in the NYT article, I think hardly show gross illegality or misuse.

The effort violated federal law, the G.A.O. said, because as it ricocheted around the Internet, many people who received the message would not have known that it was written by the E.P.A., making it covert propaganda. The E.P.A. disputes this finding, noting that it sent out the original Thunderclap message and was hardly hiding its role.

If other people obscure the fact that the EPA originated it, is it a violation committed by the EPA themselves?

The agency is also said to have violated the anti-lobbying law when one of its public affairs officers, Travis Loop, wrote a blog post saying he was a surfer and did not “want to get sick from pollution.” That post included a link button to an advocacy group that discussed the danger that polluted water posed to surfers and, at least at one point, also included text that said “Take Action,” telling the public to “tell Congress to stop interfering with your right to clean water.”

At what point does a blog post become propaganda? Especially when it is argued right out there in public?

Especially when the other side is a well-funded propaganda effort…

[bolamig]

Having that feeling like when 1984 got coopted into 1984.

[jamesnsc]

I’m a bit confused, the EPA == Bad because it wanted to protect water quality so we can continue to live on this marble. Specifically, because it didn’t have disclaimers attached to social media posts?

This is my not giving a fsk face because on the scale of problems we currently have in this country this ranks really, really, really far down there.

SCOTUS just fskd consumer rights up the arse, apparently the majority this mass shootings are now just business as usual, Red Lobster’s Endless Shrimp is powered by slavery & the Red Cross has been eviscerated by greedy scum - but yea, GD EPA.

Edit: @&$! Mobile

[NickSay]

• Illegal surveillance - no problem.

• Unlawful detention - no problem.

• Police violence and killing - no problem.

• Corporate cartels fixing prices - no problem.

• Improper promotion of important environmental legislation that benefits all flesh-Americans - THERE’S GONNA BE HELL TO PAY!