(From 2002 until 2005, this mailing list was called the ECCR mailing list)
[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]
[eccr] Re: The Weekly Spin, Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Wed Jul 02 06:09:14 GMT 2003
At 05:00 2/07/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>THE WEEKLY SPIN, Wednesday, July 2, 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. Advertising 'Essential 2' Chemical Industry Image
>2. "Consumer Freedom's" Corporate Funding Exposed
>3. The Big Lie Tactic Keeps on Working
>4. War Is The Toughest Story In Journalism
>5. Military Recruitment Ads Focus On Parents
>6. Supreme Court Won't Rule On Corporation's Right To Lie
>7. Toxic Sludge Is NOT Good For You
>8. The "Left-Wing" Media?
>9. Major Media 'Kiss Ass' For Deregulation
>10. Post-war Iraq: Quagmire or Master Plan?
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. ADVERTISING 'ESSENTIAL 2' CHEMICAL INDUSTRY IMAGE
>http://pubs.acs.org/cen/today/july1.html
> The American Chemistry Council is considering an advertising
> campaign by ad giant Ogilvy & Mather "that would convey to the
> American public how essential the chemical industry is to modern
> life." The chemical industry trade association saw the campaign
> proposal, which could cost several hundred thousand dollars, at its
> recent exclusive membership meeting, reports Michael McCoy in
> Chemical & Engineer News. Ogilvy's initial market research "shows
> that the campaign could really 'move the needle' on the public's
> dim view of the industry. ... The campaign's central theme is the
> word essential, which is linked in print to other key words with a
> subscripted 2, as in essential2knowledge, essential2makebelieve,
> essential2economicgrowth. ... A typical ad, titled
> 'essential2security,' shows a man holding a shooting target over
> his chest. Accompanying text informs us that the chemical industry
> is 'Fibers that make aircraft invisible to radar. Cloth that stops
> bullets. High-strength carbon fibers that build satellites. Nylon
> for parachutes and ropes,'" McCoy writes.
>SOURCE: Chemical & Engineering News, July 1, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1057032002
>
>2. "CONSUMER FREEDOM'S" CORPORATE FUNDING EXPOSED
>http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
> Through a whistleblower, the Center for Media & Democracy has
> obtained a list of financial contributors to the "Center for
> Consumer Freedom," a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and
> liquor industries that represents itself as an advocate for
> consumers' rights. Highlights of the list, which we have added to
> the group's profile on our Disinfopedia, include $200,000 apiece
> from Coca-Cola, Excel/Cargill, Monsanto, Tyson Foods and Wendy's
> International; $164,000 from Outback Steakhouse, and $100,000 from
> Pilgrim's Pride Corporation.
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1057032001
>
>3. THE BIG LIE TACTIC KEEPS ON WORKING
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2856210,00.html
> A favorite PR trick of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels is
> known as the Big Lie tactic -- repeating a falsehood over and over
> until most people believe it . Unfortunately, as we relate in our
> new book Weapons of Mass Deception, the Big Lie tactic worked well
> for the Bush administration in selling the war on Iraq. The
> Associated Press reports that "7 in 10 people in a poll say the
> Bush administration implied that Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein
> were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States.
> And a majority, 52 percent, say they believe the United States has
> found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with
> the al-Qaida terrorist organization. The number that believes this
> country has found weapons of mass destruction is 23 percent, down
> from 34 percent in May, according to a poll conducted by the
> Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of
> Maryland. Prewar assertions by the Bush administration about
> al-Qaida's ties to the Iraqi government have not been proven, and
> weapons of mass destruction have not been found since the invasion
> of Iraq."
>SOURCE: Associated Press, July 1, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/July_2003.html#1057032000
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1057032000
>
>4. WAR IS THE TOUGHEST STORY IN JOURNALISM
>http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,987506,00.html
> "War, unlike any other news event, asks profound questions of
> journalists," writes Roy Greenslade in the Guardian. "How do we
> separate truth from propaganda? How do we overcome the dilemma of
> political and military leaders controlling access to vital
> information? What value do we place on what we see on the frontline
> as against what we are told back at headquarters? ... These
> questions hovered over last week's Media Guardian forum on war
> coverage as reporters and desk-bound decision-makers explained how
> and why they acted as they did. By coincidence the forum took place
> while the prime minister's director of communications, Alastair
> Campbell, was appearing in front of a Commons committee to explain
> the provenance of his "dodgy dossier" which had persuaded many
> people, including MPs, that invasion was essential to prevent
> Saddam Hussein from using his supposed weapons of mass destruction.
> ... Perhaps the most perceptive and witty comment of all came from
> James Meek, who in spite of observing battles in the desert, said:
> 'I felt I missed the war because I hadn't seen it on TV.'"
>SOURCE: Guardian (UK), June 30, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2003.html#1056945601
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1056945601
>
>5. MILITARY RECRUITMENT ADS FOCUS ON PARENTS
>http://washingtontimes.com/business/20030629-103831-9213r.htm
> The U.S. Department of Defense has launched a new $1.7 million ad
> campaign designed to convince parents and other adults to encourage
> young people to join the military. The Washington Times reports
> that campaign features five successful veterans, highlighting
> "qualities such as commitment and perseverance" that the vets have
> gained from service. "We focus on the more emotional aspects the
> military has to offer," George Rogers, vice president of the agency
> that created the ads, told the Times. "It's a branded ingredient to
> a successful life." The Times reports, "12-page insert featuring
> five veterans ran in Sports Illustrated and People magazine last
> week and was scheduled to appear in Time this week. Full-page ads
> will continue to run there and in Newsweek until August."
>SOURCE: Washington Times, June 30, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1056945600
>
>6. SUPREME COURT WON'T RULE ON CORPORATION'S RIGHT TO LIE
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/politics/26CND-NIKE.html
> The U.S. Supreme Court voted, 6 to 3, to dismiss Nike's appeal of a
> California Supreme Court decision on commercial speech. The Court
> said the case raised "novel constitutional questions" but was not
> ready for the high court's attention. The case, Nike v. Kasky,
> centered on whether or not Nike violated California's
> truth-in-advertising laws with its statements about the working
> conditions in its overseas factories. Nike and its corporate
> supporters claim the suit was a First Amendment issue. They charge
> that corporations' abilitites to defend themselves publicly is
> limited by the California Supreme Court decision. Kasky and public
> interest activists say the issue is whether corporation have the
> right to lie. They say the dismissal is a "victory for democracy
> and the truth. It also marks a notable sidestep after five decades
> of Court decisions granting more legal power to corporations."
>SOURCE: International Herald Tribune, June 26, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2003.html#1056600002
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1056600002
>
>7. TOXIC SLUDGE IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU
>http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1995Q3/index.html
> Eight years ago, in 1995, PR Watch broke the stunning story of how
> the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promoted the use of
> toxic sewage sludge as cheap farm fertilizer . The major media
> failed to report the story. This EPA scandal became a long chapter
> in our 1995 book Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, documenting the
> deceptive EPA PR campaign. We're glad to see that the New York
> Times is discovering the toxic sludge issue, but it's a little late
> because today most sewage sludge (including New York city's) is
> spread onto farmland. One serious error in the Times article is the
> false and misleading statement that "organic farmers prefer
> biosolids [the EPA's PR term for sludge] over chemical
> fertilizers." In fact, the only way to avoid crops and animals
> raised on sewage sludge is to buy certified organic food. Consumers
> and organic farmers defeated the EPA's efforts to allow food grown
> in sludge to be called "organic."
>SOURCE: New York Times, June 26, 2003
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2003.html#1056600001
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1056600001
>
>8. THE "LEFT-WING" MEDIA?
>http://monthlyreview.org/0603editr.htm
> "If we learn nothing else from the war on Iraq and its subsequent
> occupation, it is that the U.S. ruling class has learned to make
> ideological warfare as important to its operations as military and
> economic warfare," write Robert W. McChesney and John Bellamy
> Foster in this excerpt from their upcoming book, The Big Picture:
> Understanding Media through Political Economy. "A crucial component
> of this ideological war has been the campaign against 'left-wing
> media bias,' with the objective of reducing or eliminating the
> prospect that mainstream U.S. journalism might be at all critical
> toward elite interests or the system set up to serve those
> interests."
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2003.html#1056600000
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1056600000
>
>9. MAJOR MEDIA 'KISS ASS' FOR DEREGULATION
>http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,984897,00.html
> American TV networks gave the Bush administration glowing coverage
> of Iraq war in exchange for the relaxation of media ownership
> rules, according to Michael Wolff, a media commentator and New York
> Magazine columnist. "Ass kissing has gone on to a profound degree.
> It's pervasive throughout all these news organisations. They need
> the FCC to behave in certain ways. In order to do this we have got
> to go along to get along," said Wolff, who delivered the keynote
> speech at a MediaGuardian forum on war coverage. Wolff also was
> critical of the system of the Pentagon embedding journalists with
> troops. "I have difficulty in understanding why somebody didn't
> say: 'You're not becoming a war reporter, you're becoming a PR
> guy'," Wolff said.
>SOURCE: Guardian (UK), June 25, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1056513601
>
>10. POST-WAR IRAQ: QUAGMIRE OR MASTER PLAN?
>http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16254
> How did the U.S. end up in the growing Iraq quagmire? "One theory
> is that the neocons, like many in power before them, tend to
> believe their own propaganda .... The degree to which they helped
> twist the intelligence about Iraq has become increasingly clear
> over the past few weeks, as angry intelligence professionals have
> taken their complaints to the press," journalist Jim Lobe writes.
> "But hints of a second, not unrelated reason may be found in
> recent, plain-speaking comments on the enormous budget deficits the
> administration is running up, even as it continues its drive to cut
> taxes. 'The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum,' declared a
> Financial Times editorial last month. The sentiment was seconded by
> Harvard [sic] economist Paul Krugman in his New York Times column.
> Krugman, like the Financial Times, argues that the administration
> ideologues are deliberately creating a fiscal crisis in order to
> achieve their goal of dismantling a social and economic system that
> ensured domestic tranquility since the New Deal."
>SOURCE: Alternet, June 24, 2003
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1056427201
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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]
