<!–

–>

October 7, 2023

In the world of public relations and marketing there is a tactic called “third-party validation.” At its most innocent, third-party validation is akin to word-of-mouth advertising, except organized.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

If you know that Bob really knows his steak and Bob says you have to try this new steakhouse, you go because you trust Bob’s judgement — it’s based on that idea.

A group with a specific intended outcome — say, approval of a new shopping center — will build off this concept and ask around town to find out whose word carries weight and ask them to publicly support the project. Therefore, in the mind of the public, the efficacy of the project has been confirmed by someone or something (like the local Chamber of Commerce) they trust — it has received validation from an unbiased third party

And then there are the not-so-innocent versions of this tactic, such as when the developer offers the chamber a new HQ building in exchange for its support or tells a local charity it will get a big donation if the development is approved so they really need to show up in force at that council meeting.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

An even ickier version of this is when the proponents recruit a major respectable non-profit to support their project even when the project is completely unrelated (or even antithetical) to what they do on a regular basis.

An even more icky version is when the proponents literally create their own benign-sounding non-profit and then use that front to push a project, a la “The National Association for Wicker Baskets Full of Yawning Golden Retriever Puppies” publicly declares that burying that toxic waste down the street from the elementary school is really not a bad idea at all.

Much worse is when proponents regularly and intentionally buy support from well-established, very respected groups; say, Big Pharma at least partially funding almost every medical association in the nation. Pfizer’s not doing that for their — let alone your — health.

The ickiest form is when massive non-profit, public-benefit foundations stop doing what they are meant to do and spend all their time, money, and energy pushing a political agenda that will benefit itself and its funders, the public be damned.

Third-party validators remove — or at least distance — the stink of a terrible or dangerous or illegal proposal or project or plan from the proponent.  And they are very convenient things for the media to use when they try to be “fair” but want to make sure the reader clearly understands on which side of an issue they — like the great and good of the world — should be. (Reporters can control content by asking certain groups that they know will respond in a certain way.)

Look at all of these other people who say it’s right — so we must be right.