This may shock you, but–are you sitting down??–not everything on the Internet is entirely true. But public relations firms are very good at making harm-producing industries look good. Tobacco, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, petrochemicals, many of which would also like to influence public opinions on climate change. Because if they are successful at making sure most Americans identify themselves within the ‘undecideds’ category, there won’t be calls for action that might harm their clients’ interests (that is, profits). 

This assignment will ask you to investigate a website that, although it may seem to be teeming with patriotism, integrity, science, happy families and healthy children on well-manicured bucolic family farms, common sense, and selfless public advocacy (to name only a handful of strategies in the PR firm’s impressive tool shed), may turn out to be something else. Just keep in mind as you shop for a website on the list (link below) that you are not being asked to judge any of these sites honest or dishonest. They are all dishonest. But in different ways, with different motives, targeting different audiences, but all with one goal in mind–to keep their contracts by serving the interests of their clients, who produce goods and services for the US economy, but also produce poorly quantified harms (many of whom work very hard to keep it that way). 

On the course web page is a list of web sites related to the environment in some way. But names may be deceiving, and content misleading. Choose one of these web sites, and investigate it. There are three parts to this assignment:

1. Who’s behind the website (sponsoring organization(s), industries)? What is their interest in disseminating information, ostensibly about the environment (but possibly about profit motive)? You might want to do some investigating of the sponsors—things on the web are not always what they seem . . . google is good to find out about a site, or about others commenting on the Include history and background. Don’t expect the site to provide the information you need for this assignment. They might be trying to spin a self-serving narrative. There are tools at the bottom of the page that lists potential sites to investigate—use these fact-checking sites to build your critique.
2. Website content. What kinds of content exists, how current is the information, what is the quality of the content (i.e., is it written by the webmaster, by well-known scientists [and how would you find this out?], politicians, PR professionals, ), who seems to be the intended audience, etc.? Does the website represent itself accurately and honestly? Does the information seem ecologically informed? Whose point(s) of view is represented? Are site authors/creators easily identifiable?
3. Functionality. Is the site easy to navigate, intuitive, do you get lost, is there content that is hard to find because of poor design, is it full of commercial ads and banners, pop-ups, , does it look homemade, or is it the product of slick production and web authoring? Is the material current? Are there links for members of the media (always a good indication of who the site’s intended audiences might be)?
4. Conclusions. What did you learn about the site and how it represents environmental issues? Were there any techniques used that were particularly effective, or not? What does this assignment tell you more generally about what you might find on the world wide web? Keep in mind that these sites are in the list for a reason, and it isn’t because they present accurate or credible information.

Critical thinking skills

1. What reference sources does the site use (informational sources, scientific, news, watchdog, googled sources, )? Do they have any undisclosed self-interest?
2. Site history (any clues as to why it was created, either official or from critics?), what organizations/foundations are behind (i.e., funding/supporting) the site? How transparent is the site (how much can you learn about who’s behind it from their own content)? How is it funded?
3. Is the site deceptive? In what ways (concrete examples—think about the sources of information—where do they come from, are they credible/respected, )? Do they use specific techniques of deception, references to patriotism, fear, smearing critics, referring to ‘junk science,’ cherry picking information, etc.? Does it misrepresent itself? To respond to this one, you will have to do some homework and examine some of the claims made by the site, perhaps compare this with the owners/funders/backers of the site, etc. The fact-checking resources should help with that.
4. How effective is the site at communicating its information? What kinds of ‘experts’ are involved? Do they publish in peer-reviewed sources? What are their credentials? Does the site have links for journalists (is it trying to spread a narrative into mainstream news)? Are they hoping politicians will pick up their work and use it to craft legislation that serves the interests of their industries? Do other sites link to this one? Mainstream sites, or other like-minded sites?
5. Production, graphics—is it slick, does it look homemade, like something the Unabomber would do?
6. Describe what you did, what research you undertook, what sources and resources you used (and cite them properly).

You’ll be evaluated on your description and analysis. Some things to include:

1. Description of the site. The above should serve as a guide. Don’t get bogged down in details—keep it relevant to the objectives of the assignment.
2. Using evidence, making your case from available sources. Have you drawn on evidence from articles/websites/online lecture material to support your points/conclusions?
3. Recognizing authority. Have you evaluated the author’s / authority’s points of view and the credibility they claim (what are their credentials? Are they respected? Where do they get their funding)?
4. Recognition of multiple dimensions of an issue. It isn’t enough to pick apart the website—all of these have valid points to make as well, and it is your job to explore the complexity of some of these issues—they are not black and white, and some are way more subtle than others in how they craft or spin a narrative—and to show me you understand both sides of an argument (you may disagree violently with one side, but you must show me you understand it). Most of these sites, while deceptive, are claiming to do some socially redeeming things as So I’m looking to see if you can understand what gives the site some legitimacy, and what makes it at the same time deceptive, if not completely illegitimate.
5. A note on spelling/grammar. I expect your paper to be proofread and free of spelling and grammar If errors get in the way of understanding the points you’re trying to make, you could lose up to a letter grade (see rubric below). Have someone you trust proofread your draft. And the course expectations hold—no A.I. to do your thinking or writing. If you do use it in any capacity, cite what agent and how you used it.

This project will require detective work on your part—you need to find out what the sites are all about, what individuals or groups or corporations/industries are behind them, what other sources may think or be writing about them (the point of a google search, but also use those fact-checking resources), what kinds of activities they engage in (e.g., do they specialize in natural resources, they fall on the political spectrum (e.g., liberal, conservative, partisan, libertarian) or ethical spectrum (e.g., free market, conservation, preservation, ecocentric). You’re being asked to critically evaluate the site, but you should also try to understand how the casual web user might interpret its content and imagery.

Paper length should be 4-5 pages (double spacing and margins), with mostly analysis—not summaries of content on specific pages. Ratio of description to analysis should be about 1/3:2/3. Use site content to support points you’re making, not to fill up the page. Supporting your conclusions with evidence is essential for doing well on this assignment. On the list of websites are other web-based resources that will help you do some of this work (at the bottom of the page), but I’d also recommend spending some time searching the Library or Web. Again, this is critical analysis and detective work. Some combination of the following resources will be indispensable in doing this assignment:

The following sites will help you ask some critical questions about the site you’ve chosen:

• California University at Berkeley Library page on evaluating web resources
• From Victoria University’s Library

Resources to investigate the site

On the website sign-up sheet, at the bottom, is a list of resources that are indispensable for doing this assignment. I would start from the top and work your way down. Some of them will help you understand how ‘front groups’ operate and how to identify them, others to decide whether the information being presented is legitimate and backed by credible science and scientists. You can’t do this assignment well without using some of them.

I will be looking to see that you used outside sources to analyze your website and write your papers. You should cite all of the sources, web-based or otherwise, that you use at the end of your paper. APA style is fine (EOU Library has this resource).

Points will be assigned based on the following rubric:

1. Thoughtful analysis: 25 points
2. Good research, use of credible sources to investigate: 25 points
3. Covered all of the elements of the assignment: 5 points
4. Documented sources (if in doubt use APA): 10 points
5. Writing (needs proofreading, coherent organization): 5 points

Guidance and goals to shoot for:

Criteria	Developing	Adequate	Proficient
Thoughtful analysis	Demonstrates partial understanding of how the website uses deception/ persuasive tactics	Shows basic understanding of how to critically examine site content	Analysis is thorough and demonstrates ability to critically examine site content
Good research, use of sources	Few if any outside sources are used or cited	Some use of outside sources to investigate site content and claims	Shows command of resources used effectively to investigate the site and its claims
	40-49 pts	50-59pts	60-70 pts

60 points possible (15% of point course total). Due November 2. Submit in Canvas. This is a major assignment—take it seriously. Many of the consequences of public misunderstanding or ignorance of environmental issues stems from a susceptibility to carefully crafted propaganda and persuasion. And if you learn how it works on environment-related sites, you will be much better at spotting it, truly, all over the web, especially in the age of A.I