[eccr] Fwd: The Weekly Spin, Wednesday, April 9, 2003

>THE WEEKLY SPIN, Wednesday, April 9, 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. "It's The Policy, Stupid"
>2. Dealing With The Truth
>3. Core Values In Times of Crisis
>4. Bamboozled By Ads
>5. Twisted Language To Justify The Unjustifiable
>6. Propaganda Points
>7. Lives Per Gallon?  Real Patriots Drive Hummers!
>8. Cameraman Killed In Northern Iraq Worked For Pentagon PR Firm
>9. War Is a Rich Time for Students of Propaganda
>10. Chemical Industry To Spend $50 Million For Better Image
>11. The Pro-War Myth of the Spat Upon Soldier
>12. Myths and Misconceptions About the War
>13. Official Story Vs. Eyewitness Account
>14. Battle of the Brands -- Pro & Anti War Sentiment Fuels Boycotts
>15. The Press & The Myths of War
>16. The Honest Thief's Dishonest Publicity Stunt
>17. Using the War to Sell Mustard and Movies
>18. The Fog Of War
>19. Al-Jazeera Gets the Boot
>20. Talking For Turkey
>21. Only One Way To Fight A War
>22. Germans And French See Different War
>23. Big Tobacco Sues CA for "Vilification" in Anti-Smoking Ads
>24. War: Not So Good For PR & US Brands, But TV Ads OK
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. "IT'S THE POLICY, STUPID"
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/opinion/08KRIS.html
>   "The front line in the war for hearts and minds in the Arab world
>   and beyond is here, at the U.S. Central Command headquarters and
>   media center," writes the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof from
>   Doha, Qatar. Kristof gives the Bush administration credit for
>   reaching out to the foreign press, noting that Al Jazeera was
>   assigned a front row seat for press briefings while the Times was
>   in the second row. But he suggests international journalists see
>   through the spin. "This is propaganda," a Chinese journalist told
>   Kristof at a U.S. military briefing in Doha. "I was born and grew
>   up in a propaganda country, and so I know it well." The Chinese
>   journalist continues, "Actually, they do the propaganda very well,
>   better than we do it. We in China can learn from this propaganda."
>   "Moreover, as Raghida Dergham, a columnist for Al Hayat, an Arabic
>   newspaper published in London, notes, 'It's the policy, stupid.'
>   Arab perceptions of America are framed by Mr. Bush's coziness with
>   Ariel Sharon. No amount of spin can soften that; it will take a
>   serious and balanced Middle East peace initiative of the kind that
>   Tony Blair is urging," Kristof writes.
>SOURCE: New York Times, April 8, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049774400
>
>2. DEALING WITH THE TRUTH
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=chi%2D0304070189apr07&section=/printstory
>   "The Office of Global Communications, a controversial agency
>   created by President Bush in January, has blossomed into a huge
>   production company, issuing daily scripts on the Iraq war to U.S.
>   spokesmen around the world, auditioning generals to give media
>   briefings and booking administration stars on foreign news shows,"
>   the Chicago Tribune's Bob Kemper reports. "The communications
>   office helps devise and coordinate each day's talking points on the
>   war. Civilian and military personnel, for example, are told to
>   refer to the invasion of Iraq as a 'war of liberation.' Iraqi
>   paramilitary forces are to be called 'death squads.'" According to
>   Kemper, "Critics are questioning the veracity of some of the
>   stories being circulated by the office and deriding it as a
>   propaganda arm of the White House." Administration officials rebut
>   the charges, saying they "serves a crucial purpose." The Tribune
>   reports that OGC chief Tucker Eskew told Washington Foreign Press
>   Center journalists, "Our executive order, insists that we deal with
>   the truth."
>SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, April 7, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049688003
>
>3. CORE VALUES IN TIMES OF CRISIS
>   "If you want your core values to mean anything, you have to live
>   them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And you cannot simply
>   abandon them in times of crisis," PR Week columnist (and weblogger)
>   Paul Holmes writes in his Holmes Report. "But in the wake of
>   America's invasion of Iraq two weeks ago, some Americans --
>   including some of our leaders -- have engaged in a powerful,
>   coordinated effort based on the apparent belief that while those
>   values are fine when times are good, they are simply too large a
>   burden when times are tough. ... Freedom of speech is the absolute
>   foundation upon which our [PR] profession is built. ... One way to
>   overcome misperceptions about this business -- to counter charges
>   that it is about deceit and mendacity and manipulation -- is to
>   make clear how central advocacy and communications are to
>   democracy. ... How can we deliver freedom to an oppressed people
>   overseas when we are trying so hard to discourage our own citizens
>   from exercising theirs?" Holmes writes.
>SOURCE: The Holmes Report, April 7, 2003
>Web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049688002
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049688002
>
>4. BAMBOOZLED BY ADS
>http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7489/view/print
>   "Are Americans more vulnerable to advertisements, and perhaps less
>   skeptical about them, than, say, Europeans?" TomPaine.com's Sharon
>   Basco asked Jean Kilbourne, author of Can't Buy My Love: How
>   Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel. "The only reason
>   that Americans might be more vulnerable than people from other
>   countries is that we believe we're not vulnerable," Kilbourne said.
>   "There's such a widespread belief in America that we're not
>   influenced by anything really, that you know, we're not culturally
>   conditioned. And in a sense, that makes it more difficult for us to
>   really see the kind of conditioning that does go on all around us.
>   So it's a way in which -- and I think the advertisers really count
>   on this -- that we believe we're not influenced, and therefore
>   we're less alert, in a way."
>SOURCE: TomPaine.com, April 7, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049688001
>
>5. TWISTED LANGUAGE TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE
>http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=394704
>   "Why do we aid and abet the lies and propaganda of this filthy
>   war?" asked the Independent's Robert Fisk. "How come, for example,
>   it's now BBC 'style' to describe the Anglo-American invaders as the
>   'coalition'. This is a lie. ... The Iraqis try to imitate the US
>   Central Command (CentCom) propaganda operations, though with less
>   subtlety. ... Then there's the famous "war in Iraq" slogan which
>   the British and American media like to promote. But this is an
>   invasion, not a mere war. ... [W]e go on talking about an 'air
>   campaign' as if the Luftwaffe was taking off from Cap Gris Nez to
>   bomb London, when not a single Iraqi aircraft has left the ground.
>   So, it's 'coalition forces', a war not an invasion, liberation
>   rather than occupation, and the taking of cities that are 'secured'
>   rather than 'captured', and when captured, are insecure," Fisk
>   writes.
>SOURCE: Independent (UK), April 7, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049688000
>
>6. PROPAGANDA POINTS
>http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280819
>   "If till now the coalition forces have been the ones surprised by
>   the apathy of the Iraqi population and the cool welcome given them,
>   apparently it is now Saddam Hussein's turn to be surprised," writes
>   Zvi Bar'el. "The initial pictures from the battle for Baghdad show
>   Iraqi citizens starting to wave cautiously to the U.S. and British
>   soldiers bearing down on the capital. These encouraging pictures
>   are an important chapter in the propaganda war underway between the
>   coalition forces and Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Said
>   al-Sahhaf, and the reactions of the public have yet to stand the
>   true test of Baghdad." Recent video of Saddam (or his body double)
>   kissing babies in the streets of Baghdad demonstrates "the
>   importance the Iraqi regime is placing on public opinion in advance
>   of the battle in the city."
>SOURCE: Ha'aretz (Israel), April 6, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049605200
>
>7. LIVES PER GALLON?  REAL PATRIOTS DRIVE HUMMERS!
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/05/business/05AUTO.html?ex=1050553883&ei=1&en
>   "While the Humvees are lined up in the desert, their cousins, the
>   Hummers, continue to be Detroit's hottest seller. .... Rick
>   Schmidt, founder of IHOG, the International Hummer Owners Group,
>   said: 'In my humble opinion ... it's a symbol of what we all hold
>   so dearly above all else, the fact we have the freedom of choice,
>   the freedom of happiness, the freedom of adventure and discovery,
>   and the ultimate freedom of expression. Those who deface a Hummer
>   in words or deed deface the American flag and what it stands for.'
>   '[The war in Iraq] definitely helps,' said Clotaire Rapaille, a
>   consumer research consultant for G.M. and other automakers. 'Put
>   four stars on the shoulder of the Hummer and it will sell better.
>   The Hummer is a car in uniform. Right now we are in a time of
>   uncertainty, and people like strong brands with basic emotions.' "
>SOURCE: New York Times, April 5, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049518801
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049518801
>
>8. CAMERAMAN KILLED IN NORTHERN IRAQ WORKED FOR PENTAGON PR FIRM
>http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6239116%255E910,00.html
>   Australian cameraman Paul Moran, who was killed by a suicide bomber
>   on March 20, had worked for the Rendon Group, a Washington-based PR
>   firm currently being used by the Pentagon, the Adelaide Advertiser
>   reports. At the time of his death, Moran was on an assignment for
>   the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in northern Iraq. According
>   to the Advertiser, Moran worked for Rendon throughout the last 12
>   years as a "freelance subcontractor specialising in audio-visual
>   production." Moran's Rendon jobs included working with the
>   CIA-sponsored Iraqi National Congress, and most recently, producing
>   "public service announcements for the Pentagon which were broadcast
>   into Iraq in preparation for Operation Iraqi Freedom." The
>   Advertiser reports Rendon Group head John Rendon attended Moran's
>   funeral.
>SOURCE: Adelaide Advertiser, April 5, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049518800
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049518800
>
>9. WAR IS A RICH TIME FOR STUDENTS OF PROPAGANDA
>   PR Week commentator Paul Holmes writes that "the 'embedding' of
>   reporters in military units is the most brilliant strategic
>   decision of this entire campaign, since its effect appears to be
>   the transformation of usually intelligent reporters into Pentagon
>   [Public Relations Officers]. As someone in the administration
>   obviously realised, it's hard to hold on to journalistic integrity
>   when you're dependent for continued survival on the people you're
>   supposed to be covering. ... Then there's the brand name for this
>   conflict: Operation Iraqi Freedom. ... It's possible, I suppose,
>   that Iraqi freedom might be a by-product of this campaign, but to
>   pretend that it's what the exercise is all about is intellectual
>   dishonesty at its most perverse. ... But the most Orwellian usage
>   of all has been the recent application of the word 'relevance', as
>   in 'the United Nations faced a test of its relevance, and failed'.
>   Relevance, in this context, means willingness to rubberstamp
>   whatever demands the US makes. If that sounds very much like
>   irrelevance to you, perhaps you don't understand the
>   might-makes-right world in which we are living. ... For a student
>   of propaganda, these are rich times indeed."
>SOURCE: British Edition of PR Week, April 4, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049432405
>
>10. CHEMICAL INDUSTRY TO SPEND $50 MILLION FOR BETTER IMAGE
>http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=37540
>   "Chemical industry trade association the American Chemistry Council
>   said it selected WPP Group's Ogilvy & Mather, New York, and its
>   public relations unit Ogilvy PR for its $50 million advertising
>   account," Advertising Age writes. "The trade group is looking to
>   its agency to develop a more positive image for the chemical
>   industry, which is battling negative views that have been stoked in
>   part by war talk of chemical weapons and bioterrorism. The council
>   wants the ad campaign to improve the public's perception of the
>   contribution of chemicals to improve consumers everyday lives."
>SOURCE: Advertising Age, April 4, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049432404
>
>11. THE PRO-WAR MYTH OF THE SPAT UPON SOLDIER
>http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/03/31/news-burt.php
>   News stories, letters to the editor and speeches at pro-war rallies
>   repeat claims that US soldiers returning from Vietnam were
>   routinely spat upon by peace protesters. Its repeated in large
>   papers like USA Today , on TV talk shows and by radio broadcasters.
>   Don't believe it, its a propaganda myth. Professor and Vietnam
>   veteran Jerry Lembcke's 1998 book  The Spitting Image: Myth Memory,
>   and the Legacy of Vietnam reveals that "stories of war veterans
>   being spat upon occur frequently in modern histories. According to
>   some historians, the image of abused veterans was an important
>   element in the Nazi propaganda that fanned the flames of patriotism
>   and led the German masses into World War II. In the US, the idea
>   that Vietnam veterans had met with malevolence gained prominence
>   during the fall of 1990, when the Bush administration used it to
>   rally support for the Persian Gulf War."
>SOURCE: Orange County Weekly, April 4, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049432403
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049432403
>
>12. MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR
>http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030404.html
>   Since the beginning of the Iraq war, write Brendan Nyhan and Bryan
>   Keefer, "politicians and the American media have continued to
>   circulate misinformation, much of which has gone largely
>   unchecked." On the Spinsanity.org web site, they have compiled a
>   list of "myths and misconceptions about the war." Examples include:
>
>        * Iraq has launched Scud missiles at coalition forces and
>   civilians in Kuwait.
>        * The coalition against Iraq is larger than the one that
>   conducted the first Gulf War.
>        * Evidence found at the Ansar Al-Islam camp ties Al Qaeda to
>   Saddam Hussein.
>        * No one in the administration ever claimed the war in Iraq
>   would be easy.
>SOURCE: Spinsanity.org, April 4, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049432402
>
>13. OFFICIAL STORY VS. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT
>http://www.fair.org/press-releases/najaf.html
>   "A recent Washington Post article describing the killing of
>   civilians by U.S. soldiers at a checkpoint outside the Iraqi town
>   of Najaf proved that 'embedded' journalists do have the ability to
>   report on war in all its horror. But the rejection by some U.S.
>   outlets of Post correspondent William Branigin's eyewitness account
>   in favor of the Pentagon's sanitized version suggests that some
>   journalists prefer not to report the harsh reality of war,"
>   Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting writes. According to the Post's
>   account, the military did not give adequate warning to the civilian
>   vehicle to stop and instead opened fire. In the Pentagon's version,
>   the military followed all warning proceedures. Many U.S. papers
>   acknowledged the discrepancy between the Post's version of the
>   story and the Pentagon's, according to FAIR. Several news outlets,
>   however, including the New York Times and National Public Radio's
>   "All Things Considered," failed to mention that the Post's story
>   contradicts the official report. Meanwhile, the Sydney Morning
>   Herald reports the incident as "a distressing tale of a family
>   fleeing towards what they thought would be safety, tragically
>   misunderstanding instructions," based on interviews with survivors.
>   The Herald does not report that warning shots were fired.
>SOURCE: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, April 4, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049432401
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049432401
>
>14. BATTLE OF THE BRANDS -- PRO & ANTI WAR SENTIMENT FUELS BOYCOTTS
>http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/iraq/2003-04-03-backlash_x.htm
>   USA Today reports on "a surge of anti-Americanism that threatens to
>   erode the global dominance of American brands. ... Nike, Coca-Cola
>   and McDonald's are just a few examples of U.S. companies that sell
>   more than half their products abroad. Their value and the prices
>   they can charge depend strongly on their brand image. And though
>   Coke, Levi's, Budweiser and the like have nothing to do with the
>   Bush administration's foreign policy, they become de facto targets
>   for protesters lashing out at the USA's dominance. ... The same is
>   true in the United States, where some people are pouring French
>   wine down the drain and steering away from German Volkswagen
>   cars... A recent survey showed that 47% of Americans were 'very' or
>   'somewhat' likely to substitute products made elsewhere for German
>   products, according to the joint poll by the public relations firms
>   of Wirthlin Worldwide and Fleishman-Hillard."
>SOURCE: USA Today, April 4, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049432400
>
>15. THE PRESS & THE MYTHS OF WAR
>http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=hedges
>   Veteran military correspondent Chris Hedges writes that "when the
>   nation goes to war, the press goes to war with it. The blather on
>   CNN or Fox or MSNBC is part of a long and sad tradition. The
>   narrative we are fed about war by the state, the entertainment
>   industry and the press is a myth. ... The coverage of war by the
>   press has one consistent and pernicious theme--the worship of our
>   weapons and our military might. Retired officers, breathless
>   reporters, somber news anchors, can barely hold back their
>   excitement, which is perverse and--frankly, to those who do not
>   delight in watching us obliterate other human beings--disgusting.
>   We are folding in on ourselves, losing touch with the outside
>   world, shredding our own humanity and turning war into
>   entertainment and a way to empower ourselves as a nation and
>   individuals. ... I doubt the journalists filing the hollow reports
>   from Iraq, in which there are images but rarely any content, are
>   aware of how they are being manipulated. They, like everyone else,
>   believe."
>SOURCE: The Nation,  April 3, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049346004
>
>16. THE HONEST THIEF'S DISHONEST PUBLICITY STUNT
>http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,58319,00.html
>   An executive who claimed to have developed an online file-trading
>   service that intentionally violated copyright protection laws now
>   says that he made up the whole thing to sell his book. Pieter
>   Plass, author of The Honest Thief, calls it an "April Fool's joke,"
>   but his PR firm, the Alliant Group, isn't laughing. They fell for
>   the hoax and helped spread it, as did the Wall Street Journal,
>   Business Wire, CNET, and Wired News.
>SOURCE: Wired.com, April 3, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049346003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049346003
>
>17. USING THE WAR TO SELL MUSTARD AND MOVIES
>http://www.madison.com/wisconsinstatejournal/local/45877.php
>   George Hesselberg writes, "let me be the 500th columnist in the
>   United States to jump on the French's Mustard public relations
>   people for the company's astounding press release that got --
>   congratulations -- national press last week. The company wanted
>   everyone to know that 'The only thing French about French's mustard
>   is the name!' ... And leave it to Hollywood to make the peace sign
>   a commercial symbol. The comedy movie, What a Girl Wants, is
>   advertised picturing the lead actress ... flashing the peace sign.
>   ... Now, Warner Brothers is removing the peace sign because it
>   might be seen as a political message and THAT might cost them
>   customers. ... These are the acts of companies trying to cash in on
>   the war, creating a spin where there is none."
>SOURCE: Wisconsin State Journal, April 3, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049346002
>
>18. THE FOG OF WAR
>http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,921649,00.html
>   "'Fog' is the watchword of this war, with the lines between fact
>   and propaganda being blurred on a daily basis. The demands of
>   round-the-clock news means military claims are being relayed
>   instantly to millions without being confirmed or verified only to
>   be refuted later by reporters on the ground or by fresh military
>   updates," the Guardian writes in an article examining contradictory
>   claims made in first two weeks of war on Iraq. "In due course,
>   questions will be asked about the clashing interests of the
>   military and the media and the role of war propaganda in the
>   pursuit of a swift victory against Saddam's regime."
>SOURCE: Guardian (UK), April 3, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049346001
>
>19. AL-JAZEERA GETS THE BOOT
>http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,928893,00.html
>   Al-Jazeera reporter Tayseer Allouni has been ordered out of Baghdad
>   by the Iraqi government, which is unhappy with his reporting. In
>   response, the Arabic satellite network has suspended reporting from
>   the country until it gets an explanation. The action comes at a
>   time when, according to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, U.S.
>   journalists are "pumped" by reports of a POW rescue and news of
>   fresh U.S. military advances.
>SOURCE: Guardian (UK), April 3, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049346000
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049346000
>
>20. TALKING FOR TURKEY
>   "Turkey, which agreed on April 2 to let the U.S. transport supplies
>   through its territory to coalition forces in Iraq, used its large
>   team of American lobbyists to get its message of long-term
>   friendship and strategic importance across to members of Congress,"
>   O'Dwyer's PR Daily reports. "The lobbyists were sent into action
>   after some members of Congress, who were upset over Turkey's
>   refusal to let U.S. troops go through its country to get to the war
>   with Iraq, had been making noises about cutting $1 billion in aid
>   to Turkey that is included in the Bush administration's war
>   supplemental funding request." According to O'Dwyer's, The
>   Livingston Group, which gets $1.8 million a year from Turkey, "was
>   helpful in getting Turkish officials into meetings with U.S.
>   lawmakers, keeping track of what the country's opponents might be
>   doing legislatively and helping Turkey navigate the American
>   political scene."
>SOURCE: O'Dwyer's PR Daily, April 2, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049259603
>
>21. ONLY ONE WAY TO FIGHT A WAR
>http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3369&sectionID=15
>   "There is only one way to fight a war now," MIT professor Noam
>   Chomsky told VK Ramachandran on Frontline India. "First of all,
>   pick a much weaker enemy, one that is defenceless. Then build it up
>   in the propaganda system as either about to commit aggression or as
>   an imminent threat. Next, you need a lightning victory. An
>   important leaked document of the first Bush Administration in 1989
>   described how the U.S. would have to fight war. It said that the
>   U.S. had to fight much weaker enemies, and that victory must be
>   rapid and decisive, as public support will quickly erode. It is no
>   longer like the 1960s, when a war could be fought for years with no
>   opposition at all."
>SOURCE: ZNet
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049259602
>
>22. GERMANS AND FRENCH SEE DIFFERENT WAR
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17427-2003Apr3?language=printer
>   "Germans appear to be viewing the war through a prism that
>   highlights the human costs, difficulties and risks. Media and
>   political analysts say that perspective springs from three
>   interconnected sources: public attitudes against the war, the
>   German government's opposition to it and the occasionally antiwar
>   tone of German media coverage," the Washington Post's Robert J.
>   McCartney writes. TomPaine.com commentator Nina Burleigh writes
>   that the most "mesmerizing" and "frightening" coverage of the war
>   has been the "long swaths of unedited war footage" broadcast on
>   France's Euronews under the words "No Comment." Burleigh writes,
>   "Euronews is receiving the same video imagery as the other two
>   networks. The difference is, viewers can get it straight, in media
>   res. Nothing is explained. ... On 'No Comment' Euronews, we realize
>   that for the participants, war really is unspeakable. Order is an
>   illusion conjured up by the generals and then knitted together for
>   us by the running yak of our anchormen and women."
>SOURCE: Washington Post, April 2, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/April_2003.html#1049259601
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049259601
>
>23. BIG TOBACCO SUES CA FOR "VILIFICATION" IN ANTI-SMOKING ADS
>http://www.journalnow.com/wsj/MGB7XSLD1ED.html
>   "Two of the nation's largest cigarette manufacturers have sued the
>   state of California to stop state-sponsored ads that exceed the
>   authority granted to the state by voters and are intended to vilify
>   the tobacco industry. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard
>   Tobacco Company filed the suit in U.S. District Court in
>   Sacramento, seeking an injunction halting some of California's Prop
>   99 advertising. ... As noted in the proposition itself, Prop 99 tax
>   proceeds are to be used primarily for tobacco-related health
>   education programs and medical care for indigent citizens. The
>   plaintiffs claim that, instead, California inappropriately began a
>   series of radio, TV, billboard and print ads, which California
>   officials openly acknowledge are intended to vilify the tobacco
>   industry."
>SOURCE: Associate Press, April 2, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049259600
>
>24. WAR: NOT SO GOOD FOR PR & US BRANDS, BUT TV ADS OK
>http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=37489
>   "Following a disastrous 2002 for the public relations industry, the
>   war in Iraq now threatens to blight 2003," Advertising Age writes.
>   "The most immediate problem for PR agencies is the shrinking news
>   hole -- a vital element of campaigns -- now that it appears the war
>   will go on for longer than some expected." Bad news for PR, but
>   advertisers need not worry. "A majority of U.S. consumers say they
>   favor a TV network return to regularly scheduled commercial
>   programming during the ongoing war in Iraq, according to an
>   exclusive Advertising Age survey. In a poll ... 83% of consumers
>   said it is appropriate for the networks to run prime-time
>   entertainment during the first weeks of the war," Ad Age writes.
>   Meanwhile marketers of the largest U.S. brands "are going on the
>   offensive to combat war-related boycotts of American products in
>   hot spots around the globe. In markets from Egypt and Argentina to
>   Europe, U.S. companies are plotting strategy, usually focusing on
>   how to emphasize their ties to local communities and economies," Ad
>   Age writes. Representatives from Procter & Gamble, Heinz, Pepsi,
>   Coca-Cola, Xerox and McDonald's met recently with U.S. Embassy
>   officials in Cairo to discuss the boycotts.
>SOURCE: Advertising Age, March 31, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/March_2003.html#1049086804
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1049086804
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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
----------------