According to Politico, the web site devoted to mocking and attacking Michelle Rhee was not the spontaneous act of a group of disgruntled citizens, but was actually created on a computer registered to the American Federation of Teachers. Reporter, Ben Smith, writes:
Rheefirst.com, the anonymous website bashing former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, was created by a computer registered to the American Federation of Teachers.The site, which refers to Rhee as “the Sarah Palin of education” among other things and is the main online source of attacks on Rhee, was launched in February. An tracking tool traces the IP address back to the AFT’s offices in D.C. The site has since jumped to several other IP addresses….The site is the latest in a series of seemingly grass-roots education movements that are actually backed by unions and union members. Last month, we reported that the Save Our Schools March presented itself as a grass-roots event but failed to publicly list the union members involved in its executive committee.
This sort of thing is known among internet hipsters as sock-puppetry — you make it seem like there are many independent voices saying the same thing, but really it’s just somebody’s hand up the business end of an old sock.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
Astro…critics? Not surprising.
Umm, I think setting up a site that’s designed to appear as if it’s a spontaneous expression of popular sentiment, i.e. a grassroots phenomenon would most properly be called “astroturfing”.
Very true. Would it be fair to say that they are astroturfing by engaging in sock-puppetry? I suppose one could astroturf by other means, such as when the unions funded the SOS Rally.
Nowhere on RheeFirst does it say it represents disgruntled citizens,
Nowhere. It doesn’t say who it represents. It posts articles and videos produced by others in the media, many from major sources such as USA Today, the Washington Post and and the New York TImes.
Jay Greene is the only one who is misrepresenting RheeFirst – either based on his own mistaken ideas or as a purposeful act.
Mr. Greene – Please correct your error.
I did not say that the web site explicitly claimed to represent disgruntled citizens. I said that it “was not the spontaneous act of a group of disgruntled citizens,” which is true.
You should also note that nowhere on the web site does it disclose that it was set up by the American Federation of Teachers to advance their side of policy disputes with Michelle Rhee.
Anonymity is generally bad on the internet. People should disclose who they are and take responsibility for what they say (unless of course safety concerns would make that unwise, e.g. dissidents in Syria or Libya).
You also have a big photo of a wacky looking sock puppet on your article. Is it acceptable journalism to mislead your readers this way?
RheeFrst is also not the spontaneous act of communism sympathizers or of tea party activists. Why not mention other possibilities, unless your goal was to steer readers to the idea that RheeFirst had most likely been organized by disgruntled citizens, or that you believe it would have more credibility if it had been organized by disgruntled citizens
As far as I can see there are no comments on the site from disgruntled citizens and many of the references are to articles from mainstream media outlets and respected research organizations.
The fact that it does not represent itself as a particular group means it isn’t being a sock puppet for a group.
You’re wrong about that.
I do note that the site’s origin isn’t noted and agree that anonimity doesn’t help, but the quality of RheeFirst’s articles stands on its own merit.
Check them out.
Actually, Efavorite, the only thing I can see clearly standing on its own merits to help us understand the proper context of this attack blog is the selection bias of the articles chosen. That and perhaps the small amount of original content introducing the home page. Given the effort it takes to sift through the available media to organize this much tailored material, it’s hard for a reasonable person not to conclude that such fingerprints on the puppet lead to a teachers union. Just sayin’.
It’s not surprising that a teachers union is behind the site – if only because who else would have the money to do it.
I would bet that StudentsFirst figured as much, but kept quiet about it because it did not want to bring attention to the site.
Please check out the articles — don’t assume “selection bias” Certainly you will not see the usual encomiums to Rhee there, but you will see original research from respected organizations and well-researched articles from other newspapers, including the Washington Post which often praised Rhee. Any repository of articles about Rhee would include this type of fact-based information.
As someone from DC who has followed Rhee’s reform efforts for several years, the site doesn’t have much that I hadn’t already seen elsewhere.
Is it an anti-rhee site? Yes. Is it making unfounded, untrue claims about her? I don’t think so. Check it out and show me one. Many of the articles themselves are not anti-Rhee – they simply present information about Rhee and her reform efforts that is not flattering.
Go ahead, read them
Who cares who did it. It is hilarious and nails a know-nothing educational ego on steiroids that has little or nothing to contribute to the debate because she is just not very deep.