(From 2002 until 2005, this mailing list was called the ECCR mailing list)
[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]
[eccr] Fwd: The Weekly Spin, Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Wed Mar 26 09:17:38 GMT 2003
>THE WEEKLY SPIN, Wednesday, March 26, 2003
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>sponsored by PR WATCH (www.prwatch.org)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Weekly Spin features selected news summaries with links to
>further information about current public relations campaigns.
>It is emailed free each Wednesday to subscribers.
>
>SHARE US WITH A FRIEND (OR FIFTY FRIENDS)
>Who do you know who might want to receive Spin of the Week?
>Help us grow our subscriber list! Just forward this message to
>people you know, encouraging them to sign up at this link:
>
>http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>THIS WEEK'S NEWS
>
>1. The Media Giant Behind the Pro-War Rallies
>2. Kurtz Blames Media for War's 'Great Expectations'
>3. War, What Is It Good For? TV Ratings.
>4. 'Embedded' Reporters Key To White House PR Plan
>5. On NPR, Please Follow the Script
>6. Who Lied to Whom About Iraq's Nuclear Program?
>7. Exxon Mobil Urges Oil Industry PR Offensive
>8. Media Conglomerate Funds Pro-War Rallies
>9. Shocking and Awful
>10. Anti-War Reporting Banned in UK Papers
>11. Media Allowed Bush to Mislead the Public Into War
>12. Secret Bids to Rebuild Iraq
>13. Iraqi Warblogs
>14. Homefront Confidential
>15. "Chicago" Wins Hackademy Award
>16. Media Banned from Free Speech Award
>17. Spinning the "Coalition of the Willing"
>18. Courting Al-Jazeera
>19. Making A Killing On War
>20. A Call For Independent Community Media
>21. If You Take The Cash, You Gotta Learn To Love Us
>22. Media Watchdogs Caught Napping
>23. Ozeki's New Novel Features Biotech Food Flacks
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. THE MEDIA GIANT BEHIND THE PRO-WAR RALLIES
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&positio
> Paul Krugman notes that "by and large, recent pro-war rallies
> haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they
> have certainly been vehement. ... Who has been organizing those
> pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being
> promoted by key players in the radio industry - with close links to
> the Bush administration. ... Until now, complaints about Clear
> Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses
> its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and
> contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now
> the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a
> political dispute that deeply divides the nation."
>SOURCE: New York Times, March 25, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048568402
>
>2. KURTZ BLAMES MEDIA FOR WAR'S 'GREAT EXPECTATIONS'
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23739-2003Mar25.html
> Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post asks, "Why did so many people
> think this would be a cakewalk? You'd have to say the media played
> a key role. The pre-war buildup was so overwhelming that it seemed
> like the war should be called off as a horrible mismatch. There
> were hundreds of stories about America's superior weaponry, the
> Bradleys and Apaches and Mother of All Bombs, the superbly trained
> forces. There were so many 'shock and awe' stories that Americans
> could be forgiven for thinking they were in for another video-game
> conflict. There were stories about how Iraqi units would quickly
> surrender, how Iraqi citizens would hail the advancing Americans
> and British as liberators. Some of this was driven by the more than
> 500 embedded reporters, who naturally reflected the confidence of
> the commanders and troops they were covering."
>SOURCE: Washington Post, March 25, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048568401
>
>3. WAR, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? TV RATINGS.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/arts/television/25SHOW.html?ex=1049601050&ei=1&en=74409cbc36d8b45a
> "The start of the war caused business at movie theaters to drop by
> 25 percent on Wednesday as people stayed home to watch the war, and
> snack-food sales and restaurant deliveries thrived. The opening
> salvos of the war had taken the place of prime-time entertainment,
> and television stations did their best to serve up gaudily produced
> coverage: the war in Iraq as the ultimate in reality television, as
> the apotheosis of every favorite Hollywood genre, from the combat
> thriller to the coming-of-age tale to the blow-'em-up,
> special-effects extravaganza. ... Happy-talk anchors ... giddily
> tossed around terms like "MOAB" (Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or the
> "mother of all bombs") and "B.D.A." (bomb damage assessment), while
> fashionistas debated who was this war's hottest Scud Stud and
> Studette. ABC featured ... video-game-like tours of Iraq from the
> air. Fox ran exclamatory headlines like 'The Ultimate Sacrifice'
> and 'Weapons Scandal.' "
>SOURCE: New York Times, March 25, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048568400
>
>4. 'EMBEDDED' REPORTERS KEY TO WHITE HOUSE PR PLAN
>http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=174751&site=3
> "The eruption of war in Iraq last week set in motion a massive
> global PR network, cultivated by the Bush administration during the
> months-long buildup of forces. The network is intended not only to
> disseminate, but also to dominate news of the conflict around the
> world," PR Week writes. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer
> sets "the day's message with an early-morning conference call to
> British counterpart Alastair Campbell, White House communications
> director Dan Bartlett, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher,
> Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clarke, and White House Office of
> Global Communication (OGC) director Tucker Eskew.... The OGC will
> be key in keeping all US spokespeople on message. Each night, US
> embassies around the world, along with all federal departments in
> DC, will receive a 'Global Messenger' e-mail containing talking
> points and ready-to-use quotes.... In a dramatic shift from past
> conflicts, administration officials have made it clear they'll rely
> on independent journalists, 'embedded' by the Pentagon with
> military units, to act as one of their most reliable PR vehicles,"
> PR Week writes.
>SOURCE: PR Week, March 24, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048482004
>
>5. ON NPR, PLEASE FOLLOW THE SCRIPT
>http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0324-03.htm
> "Last week I found out that National Public Radio wants the
> opinions of antiwar activists -- as long as we follow the right
> script," writes University of Texas journalism professor and
> co-founder of the Nowar Collective Robert Jensen. "After the first
> question, it was clear [NPR's Scott] Simon expected me to follow a
> script that would go something like this: Yes, I'm against this
> war, but I know that Saddam Hussein is such a monster that nothing
> short of war can deal with him. Yes, I'm against this war, but now
> that the president has made this decision we should unify as a
> nation. Yes, I'm against this war, but -- in the end -- I realize
> that I should acknowledge that I am a naive and foolish person who
> can't deal the harsh realities of a harsh world. Well, I didn't
> follow the script, and it wasn't long before it was clear in
> Simon's voice that he wasn't pleased. ... I don't expect ever to be
> invited back on a show hosted by Scott Simon. He might argue that
> is because my ideas are so crazy that they don't deserve a hearing.
> But what Simon either doesn't know -- or doesn't want to know -- is
> that the analysis I offered that night is hardly unique to me.
> Simon should acknowledge that millions of people around the country
> and the world share a radical analysis of this war for oil and
> empire. And they are growing increasingly weary of the
> condescension of liberals."
>SOURCE: Commondreams.org, March 24, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1048482003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048482003
>
>6. WHO LIED TO WHOM ABOUT IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM?
>http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
> Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh asks, "Why did the
> Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq's nuclear program?" How
> did the misinformation end up in the President's State of the Union
> address, and who has been fooling whom to make sure the US attacked
> Iraq?
>SOURCE: The New Yorker, March 24, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048482002
>
>7. EXXON MOBIL URGES OIL INDUSTRY PR OFFENSIVE
>http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/03/24/rtr916858.html
> " Exxon Mobil ... issued a call to arms on Monday, asking other
> energy firms to work harder to help it combat Big Oil's dirty
> reputation. The oil giant's vice president of public affairs,
> Kenneth Cohen, told attendees at the annual National Petrochemical
> and Refiners Association conference in San Antonio that ... 'In
> truth our industry has not done nearly enough to communicate the
> essential role we play and how we go about providing energy and
> products that contribute to economic growth ... and help improve
> the lives of millions of people around the world,' he said. ...
> More recently, the industry has suffered through accusations from
> anti-war activists that the U.S.-led attack on Iraq was motivated
> by a desire to control oil wealth..."
>SOURCE: Reuters, March 24, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048482001
>
>8. MEDIA CONGLOMERATE FUNDS PRO-WAR RALLIES
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/international/worldspecial/24RALL.html?ex=1049561451&ei=1&en=345dec41eb6ea043
> "These demonstrators wore shorts and ball caps, pushed strollers
> and carried American flags, but what most set them apart was the
> support they displayed ... for the American-led war in Iraq. ... It
> was meant as ... an angry protest against the antiwar sentiment
> that has been more visible elsewhere, particularly in large cities.
> 'Don't let these peace protesters confuse you,' Glenn Beck, a
> conservative radio host from Philadelphia, told the crowd estimated
> at 10,000 here today. ... Over the last few weeks, Mr. Beck, whose
> three-hour program is heard five days a week on more than 100
> stations, has helped promote many similar demonstrations under the
> banner of Rally for America. Some have been financed by radio
> stations owned by his employer, Clear Channel Communications, the
> nation's largest owner of radio stations, in an arrangement that
> has been criticized by those who contend that media companies
> should not engage in political advocacy."
>SOURCE: New York Times, March 24, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048482000
>
>9. SHOCKING AND AWFUL
>http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Shock_and_awe
> Pundits have depicted the U.S. military strategy of "shock and awe"
> in largely sanitary terms, suggesting that the high accuracy of
> laser-guided "smart bombs" will make it possible to decapitate the
> Iraqi command and control structure while leaving the country's
> infrastructure intact and limiting civilian casualties. Like other
> examples of doublespeak, however, this term obscures the human cost
> of war even as it contemplates the massive use of deadly force. As
> we document in the PR Watch "Disinfopedia," the strategy of "shock
> and awe" is based explictly on past military strategies such as the
> Nazi blitzkriegs and the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki.
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1048363806
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048363806
>
>10. ANTI-WAR REPORTING BANNED IN UK PAPERS
>http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=2060
> "Sir Ray Tindle, the editor in chief of over 100 weekly newspapers
> across Britain has informed all his editors that they can no longer
> report any anti-war stories in their newspapers," reports Andy
> Rowell. Jeremy Dear of the UK's National Union of Journalists,
> condemned the move: " So much for the right to know, free speech
> and all those other rights which our forefathers fought to
> establish and which Sir Ray Tindle seeks to demolish at the stroke
> of a pen," Dear stated.
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048311744
>
>11. MEDIA ALLOWED BUSH TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO WAR
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/international/worldspecial/22MEDI.html?ex=1049562895&ei=1&en=d6bc1696b195864d
> "Critics of the war ... blame the news media, asserting that they
> failed to challenge the administration aggressively enough as it
> made a shaky case for war. In an interview, Eric Alterman ...
> argued, 'Support for this war is in part a reflection that the
> media has allowed the Bush administration to get away with
> misleading the American people.' ... The strongest indictment of
> the press, many of these critics argue, are recent polls that
> suggest many Americans see Iraq as being responsible for the Sept.
> 11 attacks. The Bush administration's assertion of a connection
> between Iraq and Al Qaeda was an important part of its case for
> military action against Saddam Hussein, but that link was a matter
> of some dispute. Still ... nearly half of Americans said they
> believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept.
> 11 attacks" and "half said they believed at least some of the 19
> hijackers on Sept. 11 were Iraqis. None were."
>SOURCE: New York Times, March 22, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048309201
>
>12. SECRET BIDS TO REBUILD IRAQ
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_rebuilding_contract030322.html
> "Weeks before the first bombs dropped in Iraq, the Bush
> administration began rebuilding plans," reports ABC News, which has
> obtained a copy of a 99-page contract worth $600 million from the
> U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) - the most money
> the agency has ever spent in a single country in a single year.
> Among the companies believed to be bidding are Bechtel, Fluor,
> Parsons, the Washington Group and Halliburton, Vice President Dick
> Cheney's old firm," ABC reports. "All are experienced. But in
> addition, all are generous political donors - principally to
> Republicans."
>SOURCE: ABC News, March 22, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048309200
>
>13. IRAQI WARBLOGS
>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/21/BU272657.DTL&type=printable
> Independent weblogs are "changing not only the way the new war will
> be waged, but also the way citizens can get information about the
> conflict," reports Dan Fost. Christopher Albritton, an independent
> journalist who used to work for AP and the New York Daily News, is
> offering independent reporting on the war on his weblog, including
> a well-written recent essay titled "War - What's This One Good
> For?" Another journalist, CNN correspondent Kevin Sites, posted
> chatty accounts from Iraq on his personal "warblog" until March 21,
> when CNN asked him to suspend writing. However, archives of his
> earlier writings are still available. And while foreign
> correspondents have mostly fled Baghdad, someone who lives there is
> posting vivid accounts of life in that city before and during the
> outbreak of war."
>SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1048280397
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048280397
>
>14. HOMEFRONT CONFIDENTIAL
>http://www.rcfp.org/homefrontconfidential/
> The Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press has issued an
> updated report showing "how the war on terrorism affects access to
> information and the public's right to know." The report includes
> sections on "covering the war," "military tribunals," "domestic
> coverage," and "the USA PATRIOT Act." The World Press Institute has
> just issued a similar report. "The situation for journalists has
> become even more dangerous," states its 2002 World Press Freedom
> Review.
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1048147669
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048147669
>
>15. "CHICAGO" WINS HACKADEMY AWARD
>http://www.oncology.com/plwc/Shared/plwc_ArticleViewPrint/1,1890,26634,00.html
> The movie musical "Chicago" may be in line for the Best Picture
> award at this year's Oscars, but it gets a "Thumbs Down" Hackademy
> Award from the American Lung Association (ALA) for its numerous
> scenes involving cigarette or cigar smoking. Two of the main stars
> of the movie smoke regularly throughout the film. Catherine
> Zeta-Jones smokes even while dancing, even though very few women
> actually smoked during the period when the movie was set.
> "Thousands of girls are going to start smoking because of that
> movie," said physician and anti-tobacco activist Stanton Glantz
> citing the "That's going to go down as one of the classic
> pro-smoking movies in history. If they had eliminated every single
> bit of tobacco from that film it could have been just as good."
> Glantz believes that tobacco company "product placement" - where
> corporations pay producers to include their products in films - has
> helped fuel a cinematic tendency to depict smoking as glamorous.
>SOURCE: Reuters, March 20, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1048136405
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048136405
>
>16. MEDIA BANNED FROM FREE SPEECH AWARD
>http://www.newsday.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=ny%2Dusjust203181643mar20§ion=%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fnation
> Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcast media from
> his speech on March 19 at an appearance where he received an award
> for supporting free speech. "That was one of the criteria that he
> had for acceptance," said James Foster, executive director of
> Cleveland's City Club, which gave Scalia its "Citadel of Free
> Speech Award."
>SOURCE: Associated Press, March 20, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048136404
>
>17. SPINNING THE "COALITION OF THE WILLING"
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1325-2003Mar20?language=printer
> "The Bush administration has frequently compared the level and
> scope of international support for its military operations in Iraq
> to the coalition that fought the first Persian Gulf War," reports
> Glenn Kessler. "But the statements are exaggerations, according to
> independent experts and a review of figures from both conflicts."
> The so-called "coalition of the willing is almost entirely a
> U.S.-British campaign, with virtually no military contribution from
> other countries except Australia. "It's a baldfaced lie to suggest
> that" the coalition for this war is greater than that for the 1991
> war, said Ivo H. Daalder, a former Clinton administration official
> who supports the war against Iraq. "Even our great allies Spain,
> Italy and Bulgaria are not providing troops."
>SOURCE: Washington Post, March 20, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1048136403
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048136403
>
>18. COURTING AL-JAZEERA
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/international/worldspecial/20JAZE.html?pagewanted=print
> "Bush administration officials once referred to Al Jazeera, the
> Arab satellite network based here, as 'All Osama All the Time' for
> its regular showings of Al Qaeda video tapes and frequent
> appearances by anti-American commentators," write Jane Perlez and
> Jim Rutenberg. Last week, however, several U.S. officials accepted
> an invitation to a barbecue in at the home of Al-Jazeera's news
> director. "The party was one sign of how aggressively the Bush
> administration has embraced Al Jazeera as Washington fights the
> propaganda front of the Iraqi conflict. With all but one of the
> major American television networks now out of Baghdad - only CNN
> remains - Al Jazeera is likely to become a major source for Baghdad
> coverage."
>SOURCE: New York Times, March 20, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1048136402
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048136402
>
>19. MAKING A KILLING ON WAR
>http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008
> "As the first bombs rain down on Baghdad, CorpWatch has learned
> that thousands of employees of Halliburton, Vice President Dick
> Cheney's former company, are working alongside United States troops
> in Kuwait and Turkey under a package deal worth close to a billion
> dollars. According to US Army sources, they are building tent
> cities and providing logistical support for the war in Iraq in
> addition to other hot spots in the 'war on terrorism,'" CorpWatch
> writes. "While recent news coverage has speculated on the post-war
> reconstruction gravy train that corporations like Halliburton stand
> to gain from, this latest information indicates that Halliburton is
> already profiting from war time contracts worth hundreds of
> millions of dollars."
>SOURCE: CorpWatch, March 20, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048136401
>
>20. A CALL FOR INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY MEDIA
>http://www.indymedia.org
> "The new US war on Iraq has begun: arguably the greatest moral
> tragedy of a generation, an unprecedented failure of diplomacy and
> international order, and a profound crime against the principles of
> democracy," the Independent Media Center wrote in a statement
> calling on citizens to seek out news from and create news stories
> for their nearest IMC. "The Bush administration pushed relentlessly
> towards this war with a long series of incredible lies about
> virtually every aspect of the current conflict--US intentions,
> international law, weapons inspections, Iraq's likely military
> status and the amount of international support for Bush
> administration aims. Applauded by American corporate interests and
> cheered on by media institutions, the Bush administration's
> unilateral drive to war has been actively opposed by most of the
> world's people, governments and international institutions. Nobody
> on Earth will wake up safer tomorrow than they did today."
>SOURCE: Indymedia.org, March 20, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1048136400
>
>21. IF YOU TAKE THE CASH, YOU GOTTA LEARN TO LOVE US
>http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/17/1047749720560.htm
> The CEO of the Business Council of Australia, Katie Leahy, citing
> Nike and McDonalds as examples, said that companies could be
> forgiven for wondering why they should make philanthropic
> contributions if they only became the subject of increased
> community criticism. "There is a concern among businesses that they
> don't necessarily receive the acknowledgment they think their
> efforts should bring them. ... I think some businesses got into
> philanthropy to improve their reputation and yet there is enough
> evidence around now to say that the reputation of big business is
> going backwards," she told a conference organised by Philanthropy
> Australia.
>SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, March 18, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1047963602
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1047963602
>
>22. MEDIA WATCHDOGS CAUGHT NAPPING
>http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,58056,00.html
> In the run up to war in Iraq, foreign news websites are seeing
> large volumes of traffic from America, as U.S. citizens
> increasingly seek news coverage about the coming war. "Given how
> timid most U.S. news organizations have been in challenging the
> White House position on Iraq, I'm not surprised if Americans are
> turning to foreign news services for a perspective on the conflict
> that goes beyond freedom fries," said Deborah Branscom, a Newsweek
> contributing editor, who keeps a weblog devoted to media issues.
>SOURCE: Wired.com, March 17, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1047877202
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1047877202
>
>23. OZEKI'S NEW NOVEL FEATURES BIOTECH FOOD FLACKS
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/16/RV91510.DTL
> Ruth Ozeki's second novel, All Over Creation, is praised today in
> separate reviews in both the San Francisco Chronicle and the New
> York Times. Her first novel, My Year of Meats, skewered the beef
> industry's PR efforts to promote its product in Japan and examined
> the health hazards of growth hormones. This time Ozeki again looks
> at food and PR, specifically the the genetic engineering of
> potatoes. The lengthy, entertaining and educational novel features
> a number of frightening flacks working for a company much like
> Monsanto.
>SOURCE: SF Chronicle, March 16, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1047790802
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1047790802
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The Weekly Spin is compiled by staff and volunteers at PR Watch.
>To subscribe or unsubcribe, visit:
>http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
>
>Daily updates and news from past weeks can be found at the
>Spin of the Day" section of the PR Watch website:
>http://www.prwatch.org/spin/index.html
>
>Archives of our quarterly publication, PR Watch, are at:
>http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues
>
>PR Watch, Spin of the Day and the Weekly Spin are projects
>of the Center for Media & Democracy, a nonprofit organization
>that offers investigative reporting on the public relations
>industry. We help the public recognize manipulative and
>misleading PR practices by exposing the activities of
>secretive, little-known propaganda-for-hire firms that
>work to control political debates and public opinion.
>Please send any questions or suggestions about our
>publications to:
>(editor /at/ prwatch.org)
>
>Contributions to the Center for Media & Democracy
>are tax-deductible. Send checks to:
> CMD
> 520 University Ave. #310
> Madison, WI 53703
>
>To donate now online, visit:
>https://www.egrants.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2344-0|1118-0
>_______________________________________________
>Weekly-Spin mailing list
>(Weekly-Spin /at/ prwatch.org)
>http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/weekly-spin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpentier Nico (Phd)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel - Free University Brussels
Studies on Media, Information & Telecommunication (SMIT)
Centre for Media Sociology (CeMeSO)
Office: C0.05
Pleinlaan 2 - B-1050 Brussels - Belgium
T: ++ 32 (0)2-629.18.30
F: ++ 32 (0)2-629.28.61
E-mail: (Nico.Carpentier /at/ vub.ac.be)
W1: http://smit.vub.ac.be/
W2: http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~ncarpent/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
ECCR-Mailing list
---
To unsubscribe, send an email message to (majordomo /at/ listserv.vub.ac.be)
with in the body of the message (NOT in the subject): unsubscribe eccr
---
ECCR - European Consortium for Communications Research
Secretariat: P.O. Box 106, B-1210 Brussels 21, Belgium
Tel.: +32-2-412 42 78/47
Fax.: +32-2-412 42 00
Email: (freenet002 /at/ pi.be) or (Rico.Lie /at/ pi.be)
URL: http://www.eccr.info
----------------
[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]
