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). 

I will post on the course web page a list of websites (here is a pdf of the list–access in Canvas) related to the environment in some way. Choose one of these websites, and investigate it. There are three parts to this assignment, plus a concluding paragraph:

1. Who’s behind the website (sponsoring organization(s), funders)? What is their interest in disseminating information about the environment? You will want to do some investigative searching to check up on the sponsors—things on the web are not always what they seem . . . Some of the resources here (see the bullet list at the bottom) will be helpful as well. Often you will get some clues in the name of the organization. ‘Americans for.’ ‘Citizens against.’ ‘Concerned American Citizens for Balanced Energy Policy.’ You get the drift. History and background go in this section. Do not expect the site to give you all the information you need for this assignment–they may be trying to conceal the sources of money and political affiliation. What kind of ethical viewpoint(s) is(are) represented? If you’re very good, you might even track down the PR firm with the contract (Center for Media Democracy can be helpful, it was founded by public relations professionals). Note: You cannot accomplish this without exploring content much less self-serving that that on the website.
2. Website content. What kinds of content exists, how current is the information? This page shows how many of these ‘astroturf’ organizations have a short shelf life, often for a political campaign, or until there’s a change in the White House or Statehouse, and they may die an unceremonious death or morph into something akin to old win in new bottles. Other key questions include 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, ), what seems to be the target audience, etc.? Does the website represent itself accurately and honestly? Is it true to its name? Does it give the reader multiple perspectives to consider? Again, use some of the resources to verify and fact-check content. Is the information ecologically informed? Whose point(s) of view is represented? Are the authors/creators of the site easily identifiable (i.e., is the site transparent)? If you can’t find much information on the board, the funding mechanisms, the officers, there is probably a good reason. If the site looks cheesy, or is full of award-winning photography, there’s probably a good reason.
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)? Are there ‘members only’ sections? Beware–often times the sites that are easiest to navigate are the ones developed and maintained by public relations firms for industry or corporate clients, who remain very far in the background.
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?

Critical thinking skills–Elements of the paper

1. Critical thinking skills, summarized
   1. What reference sources does the site use (informational sources, scientific, news, watchdog, googled sources, )? Do they contain 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? Most of this will require external investigation.
   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,’ 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. Greg Craven’s credibility spectrum may be useful here.
   4. How effective is the site at communicating its information? By ‘effective,’ you should be thinking ‘persuasive’ more than ‘informative.’ What kinds of ‘experts’ are involved? Does it have links for journalists (is it trying to work its way into mainstream news)? 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 have done?
   6. Describe what you did, where you went, what research you conducted.

You’ll be evaluated on your description and analysis:

1. Description of the assignment 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/evidence. 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 within the scientific community–use some of the investigative tools from the bottom of this page to investigate? 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 to show me you understand both/all sides of an argument (you may disagree with some or much of the content, but you must show me you understand it). Most of these sites, while deceptive, are claiming to do some socially redeeming things. So I’m looking to see if you can understand what gives the site some appearance of legitimacy, and what makes it at the same time deceptive, if not entirely illegitimate. Note: If you’ve gone through your site and think there is nothing deceptive about it, you need to do more work or choose a different site. Because this assignment is about how people get taken in by deceptive information and propaganda, falling prey yourself will not earn you a passing grade.
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). Make sure you have someone proofread your draft.

This will obviously require some sustained detective work on your part—show us what the sites are all about, what individuals or groups or corporations are behind them, what others may think or be writing about them (the point of a sustained search), 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). Do they seem overly focused on politics and policy?

You will need to scour available resources to learn about your chosen site. And you would be surprised how many students, despite the precautions here (which perhaps they didn’t read, or didn’t read thoroughly enough), will be taken in by their chosen sites. That is the opposite of critical thinking, and will impact a student’s grade.

Paper length should be 4-5 pages, with maybe a 2:1 ratio of analysis to summary of content. Use content to support points you’re making, not to fill up the page. Supporting your conclusions with evidence from the website is essential for doing well on this assignment. I want to know what the organization or website is all about, its audience, its strategy/techniques for communicating to its audience, etc. Are they who they appear to be, or are they hiding behind a green-sounding name? 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 serious effort searching the Web. Again, this is 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 may be useful for doing this assignment. Each student should look this page over, I would be surprised to find none of these sites used in a non-gratuitous way on a student’s paper. I would start from the top and work your way down. Ignore them at your own peril (for the course …).

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, or you can use the format I use when citing articles or web pages.

Point breakdown:

1. Thoughtful analysis: 30 points
2. Good research, use of sources: 25 points
3. Covered all of the elements of the assignment: 10 points
4. Documented sources (if in doubt use APA): 5 points
5. Writing (needs proofreading, coherent organization): 10 points

Rubric for assessing analysis and use of sources (60 possible out of 80 pts):

80 points possible. Final paper is due February 10. Papers should be 4-5 pages, double-spaced–I’ll stop reading after 6 pages. Submit in Canvas. This is a major assignment—take it seriously, I do. I have seen students wreck their A’s on this one, mainly because they did not engage in critical analysis. Be forewarned. Occasionally a student is so uncritical they end up praising the site and information. Yikes.