(From 2002 until 2005, this mailing list was called the ECCR mailing list)
[Previous message][Next message][Back to index]
[eccr] The Weekly Spin, Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Wed Jun 23 05:46:13 GMT 2004
>THE WEEKLY SPIN, Wednesday, June 23, 2004
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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. Thompson Spreads 'Gospel of Personal Responsibility'
>2. Not Wrong, Just Misunderstood
>3. Exxon's Secret Sponsorship of Climate Skeptics
>4. Industry Warned of Activist Threat
>5. Fact-checking Michael Moore
>6. What the President Said
>7. War Is Still Sell
>8. Clamping Down, Down Under
>9. The CIA's Secret Failings
>10. 'NRA News' Seeks to Pistol-Whip McCain/Feingold Law
>11. Mac Attack Down Under
>12. A Load of Manure
>13. Another Setback for the E-voting Lobby
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. THOMPSON SPREADS 'GOSPEL OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY'
>http://www.informedeating.org/newsletters/040615.htm
> The media giants have taken interest in America's obesity epidemic
> - recently sponsoring a three-day conference - but the food
> industry appears to be calling the shots when it comes to dealing
> with the issue. "What I found most striking at the [Time/ABC News
> Obesity Summit] was the utter lack of leadership from our federal
> government officials," writes Center for Informed Food Choice's
> Michele Simon. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy
> Thompson's keynote speech "had all the cheerleading you might
> expect, but none of the substance. He was long on showing off
> government programs ostensibly addressing the problem, but short on
> acknowledging how they could do better. The chilling call to go out
> and 'spread the gospel of personal responsibility' is still ringing
> in my ears. Just as disturbing was the glowing praise for industry,
> including at least one mischaracterization of their promises.
> Contrary to Thompson's statement, Coca-Cola has not vowed to end
> exclusive contracting in schools, and certainly has not done so.
> Moreover, the secretary's glee over the increasing 'low-carb' menu
> options in restaurants (he referenced this 'good news' more than
> once) was especially startling for its nutritional dubiousness,"
> Simon writes.
>SOURCE: The Informed Eating Newsletter, June 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087940682
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087940682
>
>2. NOT WRONG, JUST MISUNDERSTOOD
>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=10381
> When it comes to acknowledging the widespread anti-American anger
> in the Arab World, the Bush administration refuses "to engage in
> self-criticism," according to James Zogby, president of the Arab
> American Institute. "The fault, they insist, must be elsewhere. And
> so they maintain that Arabs are only angry at us because they are
> being taught to hate us and their regimes use that hatred to
> deflect from their own inadequacies. ... While reform in the Arab
> World is, in fact, needed and its need should not be understated,
> the way current US thinking presents that need is not as a
> desirable end in itself - but as an alternative to any change in US
> policy - as in, 'we do not have to change or press Israel to
> change, it is the Arabs who have to change,' and when they do, they
> won't be angry at us anymore. ... In fact, while 'public diplomacy'
> is presented as a way of convincing the Arabs of America's values -
> its real target is self-justification. 'We are not doing anything
> wrong - Arabs just don't understand us,'" Zogby writes.
>SOURCE: Middle East Online, June 22, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087876800
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087876800
>
>3. EXXON'S SECRET SPONSORSHIP OF CLIMATE SKEPTICS
>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
> Despite the best PR efforts of industry, global warming is a
> growing concern to an increasing number of people in the world.
> That's because corporate propaganda addresses only the perception
> of climate change, distorting science and corrupting regulatory
> processes, and not the reality. The new website ExxonSecrets.org
> explores the links between Exxonmobil, think tanks, corporate
> friendly scientists, and government officials. The interactive
> website, sponsored by Greenpeace and based on the research of CLEAR
> (Clearinghouse on Advocacy and Environmental Research), illustrates
> how Exxonmobil has funneled over $12 million dollars since 1998 to
> influencing the global debate on climate change. For example,
> Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works chair James Inhofe
> (R-OK), who once suggested that global warming "could be the
> greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," has ties to
> both the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Annapolis Center
> for Science-Based Public Policy, which jointly account for over $2
> million of Exxonmobil largess since 1998.
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087858783
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087858783
>
>4. INDUSTRY WARNED OF ACTIVIST THREAT
>http://www.prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=214332&site=3
> "One of the most compelling speakers at the recent Biotechnology
> Industry Organization conference ... wasn't a researcher or a
> venture capitalist, but a representative of a special agency with
> the FBI," Paul Holmes writes for PR Week. Conference attendees were
> warned that "most of their companies were on a list of more than
> 1,000 potential corporate targets circulating among activists" and
> urged "to take a more public stand on the issue." Radical animal
> rights groups were described as "the country's leading domestic
> terrorist threat." While industry trade groups like BIO are
> confronting activists, Holmes writes, they "are often reduced to
> responding to angry rhetoric and graphic images with dry facts
> about the benefits of research. To counter the emotional appeal of
> the activists, the industry needs individuals - both researchers
> and the patients whose lives they have saved - to tell their
> equally powerful stories." Corporate activist and PR guru Ross
> Irvine suggests that PR people have taken the "easy way out" by
> avoiding confrontations with activists. Ross advises PR folks to
> take a look at how "activists take a much broader and more complex
> approach to communicating issues than corporate PR folks. ... It
> shows what can and needs to be done to if corporate PR folks want
> to battle activists successfully."
>SOURCE: PR Week, June 21, 2004
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087790400
>
>5. FACT-CHECKING MICHAEL MOORE
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/movies/20SHEN.html
> Michael Moore's previous films have generated a cottage industry of
> conservative commentators eager to find examples of sloppiness and
> exaggeration, but as New York Times reporter Philip Shenon
> observes, "if 'Fahrenheit 9/11' attracts the audience Mr. Moore and
> his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of
> fact-checking unlike anything he - or any other documentary
> filmmaker - has ever experienced. After all, White House officials
> and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of
> them had seen it." Shenon, who has spent a year covering the
> federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, viewed the
> film's premiere and says, "it seems safe to say that central
> assertions of fact in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are supported by the public
> record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have
> closely followed Mr. Bush's political career)." To make doubly
> sure, Moore has hired outside fact-checkers to vet the film.
>SOURCE: June 20, 2004
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087704000
>
>6. WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/18/MNGP278BI61.DTL
> The White House is spinning furiously in response to the 9/11
> commission's recent report, which contradicts one of the
> administration's key arguments for war with its finding that there
> was no working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush still
> insists that "there was a relationship," while adding, "This
> administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated
> between Saddam and al Qaeda." But even that's a lie. Here's what he
> told Congress in March 2003: "I have also determined that the use
> of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States
> and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions
> against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
> including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned,
> authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
> on September 11, 2001."
>SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, June 18, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087531200
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087531200
>
>7. WAR IS STILL SELL
>http://news.findlaw.com/news/s/20040617/securitycommissioncheneydc.html
> The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
> reported, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda
> cooperated." Will Bush administration officials and other
> Republican politicians now stop saying there's a connection? "Hell
> no!" replied one official, when asked whether Dick Cheney would
> retract his recent statement that Saddam Hussein had "long
> established ties with al Qaeda." George Bush maintained, "The
> reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq
> and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship
> between Iraq and al Qaeda." House GOP members are also sticking to
> their story. "The common link is that they hate America," said Rep.
> Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. According to Rep. Chris Shays, al Qaeda and
> Iraq are "like peas in a pod." Rep. Dana Rohrabacher did admit, in
> response to a question about the wisdom of hyping a highly
> conjectural Osama bin Laden - Saddam Hussein link, "Was it a
> well-thought out sales pitch? Probably not."
>SOURCE: Reuters, June 17, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087444800
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087444800
>
>8. CLAMPING DOWN, DOWN UNDER
>http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/minister1.nsf/content/government_ngo_relationship.htm
> The Australian government is using a report by the right-wing think
> tank Institute for Public Affairs to determine "the most effective
> ways to ensure that the transparency of the growing engagement
> between Government and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) is
> maintained." The report, titled "Managing Relations with
> Non-Government Organisations," maintains that NGOs enjoy
> "privileged positions which are not accorded to other members of
> the community." It suggests that "information [be] made public
> about both the relationship itself, and about the NGO with which
> the Department has a relationship." Report co-author Gary Johns
> wrote in an opinion piece, "If the far more complex matter of
> corporate performance can be presented in simple terms, the same
> can be achieved for charitable NGOs."
>SOURCE: Press release, Australian Family and Community Services, June 16, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087358403
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087358403
>
>9. THE CIA'S SECRET FAILINGS
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/politics/16repo.html
> "The Central Intelligence Agency has ruled that large portions of a
> report by the Senate Intelligence Committee that is highly critical
> of the agency includes material too sensitive to be released to the
> public," reports Douglas Jehl.
>SOURCE: New York Times, June 16, 2004
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087358402
>
>10. 'NRA NEWS' SEEKS TO PISTOL-WHIP MCCAIN/FEINGOLD LAW
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/16/national/16nra.html
> "In a direct challenge to federal limits on political advocacy, the
> National Rifle Association plans to begin broadcasting a daily
> radio program on Thursday to provide news and pro-gun commentary to
> 400,000 listeners. The group says its jump into broadcasting with
> its program, 'NRANews,' means that it should be viewed as a media
> organization that does not have to abide by provisions of a
> sweeping campaign finance law from 2002. That law stops
> organizations from using unregulated 'soft' money to buy political
> advertising that directly attacks or praises federal candidates in
> the weeks before federal elections and primaries." The N.R.A. says
> its three-hour program constitutes news and commentary, not
> advertising. As a result, when other advocacy groups are required
> to stop running political commercials, "NRANews" intends to
> continue broadcasting its reporting and commentary against
> politicians who favor gun control to Nov. 2.
>SOURCE: New York Times, June 16, 2004
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087358401
>
>11. MAC ATTACK DOWN UNDER
>http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/13/1087065034025.html
> In Australia, McDonald's launched an unprecedented, multi-million
> dollar advertising and PR campaign to counter the release of the US
> documentary "Super Size Me," which follows filmmaker Morgan
> Spurlock on a month long McDonald's binge. Until recently, the
> fast-food giant chose to ignore the hit movie. But McDonald's now
> fears for its reputation. Its advertisements feature McDonald's
> Australia chief Guy Russo, saying Spurlock's 30-day McDonald's diet
> is "stupid."
>SOURCE: The Age, June 14, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087185604
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087185604
>
>12. A LOAD OF MANURE
>http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/6/prweb133293.htm
> A university study comparing the amount of bacteria on
> conventionally-grown and organically-grown produce found that the
> level of the common bacteria E. coli on certified organic produce
> was "not statistically different from that in conventional
> samples." Alex Avery, of the right-wing Hudson Institute's project
> the Center for Global Food Issues, attacked the researchers for
> their pro-organic "bias" in an editorial posted on the USDA's Food
> Safety Research Information Office's website. Avery claims, "The
> concern about manure and bacterial contamination of organic foods
> was originally raised in 1997 by a physician with the Centers for
> Disease Control." That would be Dr. Robert Tauxe, who told the New
> York Times in August 2000, "The big question is how to properly
> compose manure ... but our concern applies to both organic and
> conventional farms."
>SOURCE: June 14, 2004, PR Web
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087185603
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087185603
>
>13. ANOTHER SETBACK FOR THE E-VOTING LOBBY
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-14-league-women-voters-redux_x.htm
> Bowing to the demands of hundreds of angry members, the League of
> Women Voters has rescinded its support of paperless voting
> machines. About 800 delegates who attended LWV's biennial
> convention in Washington voted overwhelmingly in favor of a
> resolution that supports "voting systems and procedures that are
> secure, accurate, recountable and accessible."
>SOURCE: Associated Press, June 14, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/June_2004.html#1087185602
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
> http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1087185602
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Katholieke Universiteit Brussel - Catholic University of Brussels
Vrijheidslaan 17 - B-1081 Brussel - Belgium
T: ++ 32 (0)2-412.42.78
F: ++ 32 (0)2/412.42.00
Office: 4/0/18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vrije Universiteit Brussel - Free University of Brussels
Centre for Media Sociology (CeMeSO)
Pleinlaan 2 - B-1050 Brussels - Belgium
T: ++ 32 (0)2-629.18.30
F: ++ 32 (0)2-629.28.61
Office: C0.05
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
European Consortium for Communication Research
Web: http://www.eccr.info
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: (Nico.Carpentier /at/ kubrussel.ac.be)
Web: 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]
