What documented examples exist of companies or governments using paid crowds to influence public hearings or media coverage?

1. Corporate hire‑a‑crowd: Entergy and Crowds on Demand in New Orleans

One of the most concretely documented episodes involved Entergy, the utility company, which hired paid participants via the publicity firm Crowds on Demand to appear at a New Orleans city council hearing in support of a controversial gas plant and to oppose renewables; local records and reporting identified that actors were used to create the impression of public backing, prompting public outcry and media coverage that exposed the practice ^{[1] [2]}. Poynter’s reporting showed the episode complicated journalistic coverage, led Entergy to pledge internal restrictions about hiring actors for public meetings, and produced legal and ethical critiques that the tactic undermines democratic deliberation ^[2].

2. The commercialization of crowds: Crowds on Demand and the business model

Crowds on Demand operates openly as a publicity firm that offers hired fans, fake paparazzi, and organized demonstrations across multiple U.S. cities, and reporting over the last decade has traced its expansion from “celebrity experience” gigs into political and advocacy staging—illustrating how a commercial market exists for manufacturing visible signs of support or opposition for clients ^{[1] [3]}. Coverage in outlets such as CNN and The Atlantic documented the company’s services and the logic clients use—media optics and pressure rather than genuine mobilization—while critics warned that paid crowds threaten public trust and complicate reporters’ efforts to assess authentic sentiment ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Donors and local influence: recent reporting on political clients

Investigations have also linked wealthy local actors to the hire‑a‑crowd industry: reporting in 2024 and later identified hotelier and major political donor Monty Bennett using Crowds on Demand to cultivate advocacy networks to influence Dallas politics, showing that crowd‑for‑hire services can be deployed not only for single events but as part of sustained local political strategies ^[1]. Such episodes highlight a hidden agenda at work when paid crowd tactics are fused with political funding: the objective is often to manufacture perceived grassroots momentum to sway officials and media attention, rather than to mobilize organic civic engagement ^[1].

4. State and structural levers: governments shaping coverage through access and finance

Beyond hired crowds, academic work documents how governments and incumbents influence media coverage through strategic control of access, advertising and financial favors—tactics that can bias reporting without visible crowds by rewarding friendly outlets or withholding access from critical reporters, creating a quid‑pro‑quo dynamic that shapes public hearings and narratives indirectly ^[4]. This structural influence differs from actors paid to show up, but it achieves a comparable end: molding what the public sees and hears about contentious decisions by leveraging institutional power over media economics ^[4].

5. Broader context, limits, and contested cases

Reports and scholarship also note many contested instances and limits: accusations of paid protesters have appeared repeatedly—e.g., around Dakota Access and other protests—but large movements are rarely composed entirely of paid actors, and the presence of some paid participants does not negate broader grassroots engagement ^[6]. Journalistic and academic observers emphasize the need to distinguish between event staffing, legitimate paid event labor, and deliberate astroturf campaigns meant to deceive; media literacy and public records requests are the primary tools for documenting wrongdoing, and public reporting to date has frequently relied on such records ^{[2] [3]}.