CMD superman logo.jpg SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy,

depends on donations from people like you!

Click here to make a tax-deductable contribution.

Talk:Front groups

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

Some links to potential front groups. Please check these out and write articles for them.

Should this list be split up?

Given the size of this list (and the fact that it's likely to grow), it would probably be good to split it up into smaller, more focused chunks. Anyone have any ideas for this ? Maybe industry front groups, political front groups, single-issue front groups, etc ? - Tzaquiel 12:10 3 Jul 2003 (EDT)

This site is biased: it says business is bad and government is good

REQUEST: While "PR Watch" and SourceWatch have an excellent collection of "industry" front-groups (where "industry" would be described as a corporation or other market-sector endeavor), there is a corresponding dearth of attention given to "non-industry" front-groups with equally strong vested interests (such as trial-lawyers, government-employee unions, and other recipients of esp. tax-funded largess, etc). Given that "industry" front-groups are invariably defensive (i.e., created to resist existing or proposed government regulation) in nature, it stands to reason that the offiensive entities (which have placed them on the defensive) be subjected to equal scrutiny. -- A collective project such as SourceWatch should, to maintain credibility, attempt to be as objective as possible, and refrain from taking "sides" (as I observe it clearly does in PR-Watch discussion forums, where the prevailing sentiment trends to "business can do no right, while government can do no wrong [save when run by Reublicans who are selling out to business]. Posted by user mike18xx, 11/8/2004

What's wrong with borrowsmart?

I note the addition of www.borrowsmart.org to the list -- at the moment there is no explanation on why they should be considerd a front group. And rather than the website address being listed the correct name is BorrowSmart Public Education Foundation. Rather than revert I'm hoping that an article explaining who the organisation is considered to represent emerges in the next day or two. Or it may be more appropriate for another of the lists. BorrowSmart Public Education Foundation

Right-wing interpreted to be deceptive on this site

Why "For simplicity's sake," does the list include groups "that are not front groups per se but that engage in other deceptive activities"? Simplicity surely dictates that an article on "front groups," a slippery category at best, include a list of, well, front groups. And let's be fair, a list of all organizations that "engage in other deceptive activities" would be as large as the St. Louis phone book.

It's difficult to see why most of the groups are included, either as front groups or as deceptive, unless we take it that anyone who isn't on the Left is, by definition, deceptive. I have my own criticisms of the Cato Institute, but I fail to see that they do anything but promote moderately libertarian views. The SourceWatch entry on Cato offers no information about the group's alleged deception. Information about who funds or comprises the membership of the rest of the groups is readily available to anyone who bothers to check. If there is a group whose membership (or donor base) is secret, then report it. (The entry on the American Council on Science and Health claims that it is one such group.) But this sort of deception is not confined to the groups on the list, or to groups on the Right. Isn't is still true that Public Citizen refuses to reveal its donors? What's good for the goose ....

Then there is the problem of political definition. What is it that puts groups like Cato and Reason on the Right? Is it their opposition to drug prohibition, or their support for abortion rights, or their opposition to U.S. imperialism? Is one to assume that a group or individual is right-wing because he supports free markets, no matter what other positions it or he might hold?

The entire Bernays discussion is laughable. He didn't invent deceipt, it is part of human nature. Groups of every political and culltural persuasion have forever painted themselves with the most favorable gloss. Who is sufficiently naive to believe otherwise? The owner of this site is the Center for Media & Democracy, with no mention of left-wing orientation. Is that deceptive? What are we to assume about a CMD funder calling itself "Educational Foundation of America"? That it wants to improve math and social studies, or that it hides behind a name that blandly reveals nothing?

An article about front groups should be restricted to groups that hide their donors and members names, and it should be sufficiently honest to acknowledge that the practice is limited to neither Left nor Right.

If you want to write articles about left-wing groups funded by ... uh, I'm not sure, the communists, perhaps? Al Qaeda? The French? ... to further their business interests, then go ahead. Mememe 08:35, 20 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Well, I have my own beefs with various corporate sponsored gay groups, as well as the dubious nature of centrist or DLC type liberals. But for the most part I would say that Left wing groups aren't funded by corporations or large, anonymous donors (and when I say left wing I don't mean mainstream political groups..planned parenthood is not "left wing"). Most crackpot Trot groups are funded by newspaper sales, and most anarchist collectives are funded by a combination of personal investment by members, thievery, or mutual aid from abroad. User:SiberioS
OK, well if you find evidence of those links, then I'm sure articles about the organisations and the links will be gratefully accepted. BTW, I've put some questions on your talk page. Mememe 16:48, 21 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Edit note

I have relocated the empty links that have been on the article page for a long time. Perhaps it might be worth having a page for nominated groups worth investigating for inclusion in the front groups index.--Bob Burton 15:34, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

-- I have rolled back the deletion of user dissidentwriter who deleted the inclusion of the Statistical Reference Service. The user asserted that stats.org is not a front group because it discloses the sources of its funding, but the corporations and foundations funding its work are not disclosed on its website, which merely states "We rely on general support from subscribers and viewers like you." Lisa