Concerned Citizens Turn Out to Be Political Theater

Interesting article I just ran across. I can't say I'm particularly surprised, though I am rather disgusted.

In fact, Tyson, who is not from Camarillo, is a self described struggling actor from Beverly Hills and he now believes he was involved in a secretive new industry where actors are hired to try and sway public officials.
In this case, a construction project in Camarillo he says he was hired to criticize.

Some of those scripted lines, he says were provided by recent UCLA graduate Adam Swart, CEO of a company called Crowds on Demand, which will stage rallies and demonstrations for any almost candidate or cause.
Swart says he has employed actors to sway city officials in meetings across the country.
"I have worked with dozens of campaigns for state officials, and 2016 presidential candidates," Swart told NBC4, adding that he won't name any names.

It makes a lot of sense. You can basically control the way the crowd responds, have guaranteed numbers etc.

Swart tells NBC4 he has 20,000 actors across the country and most are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

That surprised me.

Link

I don't know if I think this should be illegal, but I'm leaning that way. It's super unethical at best.

All part of the manufactured reality we live in these days.
It's one very small step to crisis actors which many deny exist.
Not only are there real people being paid to promote certain views but we also have internet personas to spread it all over the web.
This is why I've never trusted the "majority view" which is always brought about by propaganda.

Ethics!
Dear Domo this IS the 21st century after all.
The New American Century?

I did some googling, and there IS a company called "Crowds on Demand" and they provide some pretty interesting services, including on-demand crowds according to Wikipedia.

In this age of smoke and mirrors, where crowds are photoshopped into pictures and cameras staged to make the audience look huge, it's not a surprising development. However, we're fast turning into an oligarchy and this kind of shenanigans is pretty typical of the very wealthy who want attention.

What I *do* find a bit squicky is that they gather signatures for political events.

originally posted by: Domo1
Interesting article I just ran across. I can't say I'm particularly surprised, though I am rather disgusted.

Wow. I'm a little surprised anyone admitted it, but not surprised it's down. Gives a whole new perspective to many of the actors/actresses who take a very public political position, eh? No doubt some -- perhaps even most -- are sincere, and are simply exercising their right to an opinion and to express that opinion. But it makes one wonder...

In fact, Tyson, who is not from Camarillo, is a self described struggling actor from Beverly Hills and he now believes he was involved in a secretive new industry where actors are hired to try and sway public officials.
In this case, a construction project in Camarillo he says he was hired to criticize.

The article doesn't say, but I wonder if Tyson is the one who blew the whistle? Pangs of conscience maybe?

It makes a lot of sense. You can basically control the way the crowd responds, have guaranteed numbers etc.

It sure does make a lot of sense. Not that I like it; but it could be quite effective, and for those whom the ends justify the means, this could be a tool of choice.

Swart tells NBC4 he has 20,000 actors across the country and most are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Unfortunately, it seems non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses are the norm these days. We just don't know about it because, well, no one can talk about it -- and that's why it's done!

I don't know if I think this should be illegal, but I'm leaning that way. It's super unethical at best.

I am all for free speech, but not lying liars at public meetings. I'm open to hearing opposing arguments, but I'm leaning the same way.

a reply to: Byrd

I can deal with people gathering signatures on a petition provided that the petition goes to where they say it goes. I don't like the idea of paid activists inserting themselves where they don't belong. Perhaps the paid actors should be registered, like lobbyists, and somehow identified to the crowd and the venue along with their client.

a reply to: Domo1

Yeah, it's no different than the paid protestors in Ferguson.

Activism has evolved into a career path for many.

a reply to: Byrd

A foreign government hired Crowds on Demand to help generate a positive reception for its newly elected leader during the UN General Assembly. The concern was ensuring that the leader was well received by a US audience and confident for his work at the UN. We created demonstrations of support with diverse crowds. We also used the media primarily local and national outlets to bring more attention to these demonstrations which led to a mostly positive portrayal. The crowds that we deployed drew in more supporters creating a strong presence for this leader at the UN and an improved perception of him by the American public.

Interesting. Man that could really sway the narrative. Media picks it up, crowd seems happy, media reports that, other people figure if that many people attended and were positive they should be too.

I'm aware there is a ton of shady behind the scenes stuff, just surprised they're being so candid.

From their website

Isn't it just a corruption of capitalism to sway opinion in your favor thru deceptive advertising? Advertising is BS anyway.

Cops use agent provocateurs all the time in crowds....what's the difference?

I'm an actor...i take gigs you wouldn't believe. Union scale rocks....

This kind of thing goes way back:

The Committee on Public Information, also known as the CPI or the Creel Committee, was an independent agency of the government of the United States created to influence U.S. public opinion regarding American participation in World War I. Over just 28 months, from April 14, 1917, to June 30, 1919, it used every medium available to create enthusiasm for the war effort and enlist public support against foreign attempts to undercut America's war aims.

Ever hear of the "Four Minute Men"?:

It recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," volunteers who spoke about the war at social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention span was judged at the time to be four minutes. They covered the draft, rationing, war bond drives, victory gardens and why America was fighting. It was estimated that by the end of the war, they had made more than 7.5 million speeches to 314 million people in 5,200 communities.

source

These were intended to look like impromptu remarks made off the cuff by concerned citizens. They weren't.

Reminds me when Donald Trump used Extra Mile Casting to hire actors to be at his announcement to run for POTUS.

And the Brooks Brothers Riot during the Bush-Gore Florida recount in 2000.

The "Brooks Brothers" name reinforces the allegation that the protesters, in corporate attire, sporting "Hermès ties"[4] were astroturfing, as opposed to local citizens concerned about counting practices.

They were GOP operatives.

And the "babies being thrown out of incubators hoax", an acting job before Congress, set up to sell Bush Sr's Gulf War.



a reply to: BiffWellington

Very interesting! Did not know that.

Actors. Well paid Wannabes, Professional Posers and now Legal Liars. Great. Just what the world needs.

I prefer to call actors by their actual professional names though like waitress or busboy.

You know what I always found fun. Working on a set as a Scab actor n watching the "Real" actors in SAG flip out.
Or the extras that all fight to be in the front of the crowd so they might actually be in focus. The actor who thinks he's more important than everyone else. Or the other extras going "yeah, last week they moved me from playing security guard number 7 to security guard number 4!!! I had lines and every thing!"

"Oh yeah what were they?"

"Hey! Stop!"

Weird. my whole family is in that industry and/or actors and I have some weird aversion to what they do for a living. Something about not wanting to participate in the Bread and Circus that's become the opium for the masses.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Actors. Well paid Wannabes, Professional Posers and now Legal Liars. Great. Just what the world needs.

I prefer to call actors by their actual professional names though like waitress or busboy.

That's funny, because when I have dinner in a nice restaurant in Manhattan, I'm always shocked at how beautiful the waitresses and waiters are. Now I see. They are actually actors. (I think it's sweet.)

a reply to: angeldoll

A lot of them are struggling or failing actors.

I've been around that scene my whole life. I can walk into a restaurant and point out exactly whos an actor working as a waiter by day.

My advice if people want to become actors in Hollywood. Nepotism.

I personally know a few actors. Almost none of them got there on their own. Same thing for the music industry if you are top 40. There's more actual talent from the street that make it in that industry than in the hollywood scene, but you'd be shocked to find out which musicians are related to whom or have lots of family money already and were born into wealthy society. So I'm not surprised at all that there is some scumbag who started a company called Crowds on Demand.

Hey ever want to see something funny go to a MTV Video awards and see the crowds they hire to look remotely interested and not bored. If the camera ever panned back from more than just the first 4 rows. you'd see everybody bored to tears or nearly mocking the event.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

So I'm not surprised at all that there is some scumbag who started a company called Crowds on Demand.

In fact any agency that supplies background extras will provide a crowd for any event. Pay the money, they provide the bodies. Capitalism in action.