I used to do reputation management. I used to to "Press Shaping".
I used to be a cause of fake science. Not quite this same way, but in a lot of ways worse. My fake numbers would end up in WSJ, NYT, Wired, and other places reported as fact.
Say a politician, or a company needs people to believe something is awesome or going to be, they need stats that people believe so I would insert them in to the world.
You make Soy Ice Cream. I would take a study from someone real, and add some non-real stuff too it. The real study on dairy production says dairy production will be down 5% next year. That part is true, but it says the change is because of a reduction in government subsidies . I do a press release for an imaginary company that cites the study but changes the reason to an increased demand for Soy based alternatives to dairy.
Suddenly that is out in the world. The company waits for another story to come out on the topic and the author cites the cause and says it was part of that study they never read because they didn't need to it was cited right?
Now the company cites that high profile author as the source of the data. Their citation is valid even though it is based on incorrect data.
Yes, I was a cold bastard who made people's lives awful.
I reformed. Now I'm a cold bastard who has realized there is more money in exposing the lies of others than there is in helping shape lies to spread.
I used to be a cause of fake science. Not quite this same way, but in a lot of ways worse. My fake numbers would end up in WSJ, NYT, Wired, and other places reported as fact.
Say a politician, or a company needs people to believe something is awesome or going to be, they need stats that people believe so I would insert them in to the world.
You make Soy Ice Cream. I would take a study from someone real, and add some non-real stuff too it. The real study on dairy production says dairy production will be down 5% next year. That part is true, but it says the change is because of a reduction in government subsidies . I do a press release for an imaginary company that cites the study but changes the reason to an increased demand for Soy based alternatives to dairy.
Suddenly that is out in the world. The company waits for another story to come out on the topic and the author cites the cause and says it was part of that study they never read because they didn't need to it was cited right?
Now the company cites that high profile author as the source of the data. Their citation is valid even though it is based on incorrect data.
Yes, I was a cold bastard who made people's lives awful.
I reformed. Now I'm a cold bastard who has realized there is more money in exposing the lies of others than there is in helping shape lies to spread.