[eccr] The Weekly Spin, Wednesday, September 22, 2004

>THE WEEKLY SPIN, Wednesday, September 22, 2004
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy (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. Get Out Your Weekly Spin Vote!
>2. A Rather Embarrassing Retraction
>3. Russia: Managing the Message by Drugging the Messenger
>4. PR Lessons From The Campaign Trail
>5. California Lobbyist's Pesky Pesticide Past
>6. The Problem with Polls
>7. PR Firm Out of the Woods
>8. On the Green Stump, Down Under
>9. The Echo Chamber Behind the News Behind the Memos
>10. Iraq: Hoping to Spin the Insurgents Away
>11. Changing the Subject, for Fun and Electoral Profit
>12. K Street: Dems Need Not Apply?
>13. Image Over Substance: Nuclear Energy in the News
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1. GET OUT YOUR WEEKLY SPIN VOTE!
>http://www.prwatch.org/survey/public/survey.php?name=weekly
>   If you haven't yet, please take a few minutes to fill out a brief
>   survey for the Center for Media and Democracy, at the above link.
>   Your input will help us make the Weekly Spin and our website more
>   interesting and useful to you. The deadline for responses -
>   Wednesday, September 29 - is fast approaching, so don't delay! As a
>   small thank-you for your time, everyone who responds before the
>   deadline will be entered in a raffle to win one of ten free copies
>   of the Center's latest book, Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing
>   Is Turning America Into a One-Party State. Feel free to contact
>   Diane at 608-260-9713 or diane AT prwatch.org with any questions.
>   And thanks to those who have already responded!
>SOURCE: Center for Media and Democracy, September 22, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095825600
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095825600
>
>2. A RATHER EMBARRASSING RETRACTION
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html
>   Slate magazine editor Jack Schafer wonders why it took CBS
>   anchorman Dan Rather so long to back away from two now-discredited
>   memos that were part of the documentation for its story about
>   George Bush's National Guard service. Numerous commentators have
>   pointed out that the incident marks the latest example of bloggers
>   successfully challenging the traditional broadcast media. The irony
>   in this case, as Salon.com's Eric Boehlert observes, is the CBS
>   apology obscures the real story about Bush's National Guard
>   service, which has been well-documented already: "What is also
>   already known is that in the spring of 1972, with 770 days left of
>   required duty, Bush unilaterally decided that he was done
>   fulfilling his military obligation," Boehlert writes. "Also in the
>   spring of 1972, Bush refused to take a physical and quickly cleared
>   out of his Guard base in Houston. ... His public records paint a
>   portrait of a Guardsman who, with the cooperation of his Texas Air
>   National Guard superiors, simply flouted regulation after
>   regulation (more than 30 by Salon's count) indifferent to his
>   signed obligation to serve. ... The authenticity of the memos,
>   which contain very few facts about Bush's actual service, is a
>   sideshow in the effort to determine the truth about Bush's military
>   service."
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095779950
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095779950
>
>3. RUSSIA: MANAGING THE MESSAGE BY DRUGGING THE MESSENGER
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p01s03-woeu.html
>   After terrorists besieged the Beslan school, a "semiofficial"
>   document circulated among Russian networks demanded "media
>   self-censorship ... 'Special operation' was prohibited, as was
>   'shahid' [suicide martyr] - a word that, along with the phrase 'war
>   in Chechnya,' has already been prohibited on state TV for a year.
>   ... Analysis of options to save the hostages, of steps already
>   taken, or reasons for the crisis was also forbidden." Russian
>   security forces have been accused of drugging journalists and
>   preventing "two known Kremlin critics" from reaching Beslan. The
>   Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe noted
>   "worrying developments in the relationship between the [Russian]
>   Government and the media."
>SOURCE: Christian Science Monitor, September 21, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095739200
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095739200
>
>4. PR LESSONS FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
>http://www.prweek.com/thisweek/index.cfm?ID=222599&site=3
>   The presidential campaign trail offer lessons to the "public
>   affairs community, the PR people paid to push the issues. But what
>   they're watching isn't so much who wins, but how they do it," PR
>   Week's Douglas Quenqua writes. "Nearly every technique for moving
>   public opinion, every tactic employed by public affairs people to
>   get an issue on the radar or to get legislation passed, traces its
>   roots back to a political campaign - usually a presidential one.
>   It's become Washington vogue in recent decades to run public
>   affairs campaigns in the electoral style: treating an issue like a
>   candidate, branding it, organizing constituencies, managing
>   messages, even setting up rapid response operations, or 'war
>   rooms.' All of these techniques were first devised and perfected by
>   presidential campaigns; these days, you can't run a public affairs
>   campaign without them."
>SOURCE: PR Week (sub. req'd.), September 20, 2004
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095652803
>
>5. CALIFORNIA LOBBYIST'S PESKY PESTICIDE PAST
>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pesticide18sep18,1,1063656.story?coll=la-headlines-california
>   A former farm lobbyist will become California's top pesticide
>   regulator, despite complaints from environmentalists. Gov. Arnold
>   Schwarzenegger appointed Mary-Ann Warmerdam, who worked for the
>   California Farm Bureau Federation from 1981 to 2001, to head the
>   state's Department of Pesticide. Warmerdam currently is a lobbyist
>   for Pacific Gas & Electric. The Los Angeles Times reports that in
>   August nine environmental groups wrote Schwarenegger questioning
>   the appointment to top pesticide regulator of someone who worked
>   two decades for "an organization that has a long tradition in
>   California of fighting efforts to protect public health and the
>   environment from pesticide use."
>SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2004
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095652802
>
>6. THE PROBLEM WITH POLLS
>http://counterpunch.org/price09202004.html
>   "Something has methodologically gone awry when polls are swinging
>   about this wildly," writes David Price, about presidential campaign
>   polling. "We Americans simply don't answer our phones like we used
>   to." Because of caller ID and cell phones, "those profiled as being
>   most prone to answering phone surveys tend to be: (more) White,
>   (more) older, and (more) male." The Wall Street Journal reports
>   that how likely (as opposed to registered) voters are identified
>   may also skew results. "Those models tend to [tilt to] a little
>   older, a little more white, a little more affluent and a little
>   more Republican voters," said GOP pollster Bill McInturff.
>SOURCE: CounterPunch, September 20, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095652801
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095652801
>
>7. PR FIRM OUT OF THE WOODS
>http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=222483&site=3
>   Congressional investigators with the Government Accountability
>   Office concluded that the U.S. Forest Service did not violate any
>   laws by hiring the PR firm OneWorld Communications. The unusual
>   $90,000 contract for the "Forests with a Future" campaign promoted
>   new policies increasing logging in California's Sierra Nevada
>   forests. Environmentalists called the campaign misleading; others
>   questioned whether the contract "violated laws against spending on
>   publicity without Congressional consent." The GAO ruled, "While the
>   Forest Service policy is controversial, the materials explaining
>   the policy do not constitute prohibited publicity or propaganda."
>SOURCE: PR Week (sub. req'd.), September 20, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095652800
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095652800
>
>8. ON THE GREEN STUMP, DOWN UNDER
>http://www.terradaily.com/2004/040917075342.aq1a9uzg.html
>   The environment is "the sleeper issue of Australia's October 9
>   election," and Prime Minister John Howard, "once regarded as the
>   nemesis of conservationists - [is] vigorously courting the green
>   vote." Howard pledged Aus$2 billion for "the country's ailing river
>   systems, prompting Labor leader Mark Latham to respond with a
>   billion-dollar package of his own." At the same time, Howard's
>   Deputy Prime Minister attacked the Green Party, saying they're
>   "like a watermelon, green on the outside and red [socialist] on the
>   inside." Greenpeace Australia's campaign director expressed
>   cynicism but said, "If we can use the situation to force [the major
>   parties] into some meaningful commitments, we'll do so."
>SOURCE: Agence France-Presse, September 17, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095393601
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095393601
>
>9. THE ECHO CHAMBER BEHIND THE NEWS BEHIND THE MEMOS
>http://prweek.com/news/news_story.cfm?ID=222586&site=3
>   The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's PR firm, Creative Response
>   Concepts, "used right-wing blogs and news sites to turn a CBS
>   report casting doubt on President George W. Bush's National Guard
>   service into a potential black eye for both the network and the
>   Democrats." CRC client Cybercast News Service "called typographical
>   experts, got them on the record that these papers were fishy, and
>   posted a story"; "immediately" contacted Matt Drudge; and worked
>   with the Media Research Center "to push the story into the
>   mainstream press." The Los Angeles Times reports that the first
>   forgery charge "did not come from an expert in typography," but
>   from "an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican
>   causes."
>SOURCE: PR Week (sub. req'd.), September 17, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095393600
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095393600
>
>10. IRAQ: HOPING TO SPIN THE INSURGENTS AWAY
>http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/0916iraqpr.htm
>   "The U.S. government is soliciting proposals for an 'aggressive'
>   and comprehensive PR and advertising push in Iraq to convey
>   military and diplomatic goals to Iraqis and gain their support."
>   The contract will be with the Multi National Corps-Iraq; British PR
>   firm Bell Pottinger did similar work for MNC-I's predecessor, the
>   Coalition Provisional Authority. The campaign will include
>   "outreach to various segments of Iraqi society" and setting up a
>   "Rebuttal Cell," to "immediately and effectively" challenge
>   "reports that unfairly target the Coalition or Coalition
>   interests." The PR plan contrasts with news of a U.S. National
>   Intelligence Estimate that "spells out a dark assessment of
>   prospects for Iraq."
>SOURCE: O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub. req'd.), September 16, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095307200
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095307200
>
>11. CHANGING THE SUBJECT, FOR FUN AND ELECTORAL PROFIT
>http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109520763632018140,00.html?mod=politics%5Fprimary%5Fhs
>   George Bush "has succeeded in making more Americans see the war in
>   Iraq as part of the broader war on terrorism," reports the Wall
>   Street Journal. Republican pollster Bill McInturff agrees: "The
>   Bush campaign has worked hard, really hard, for months, to make
>   terrorism and security the issue of the election, and as usual,
>   they've done it with enormous discipline." The plan, says
>   McInturff, is "moving people off of stuff that's disadvantageous to
>   Bush." Kerry could undercut Bush's backing by offering a different
>   approach to Iraq, but, says McInturff, "so far the Kerry answer to
>   that is not compelling."
>SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095220803
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095220803
>
>12. K STREET: DEMS NEED NOT APPLY?
>http://thehill.com/news/091504/kstreet.aspx
>   Firms on Washington DC's lobbying row, K Street, are "aggressively
>   courting GOP lawmakers who have announced their retirements,
>   suggesting that the business community is confident the GOP will
>   retain the Speaker's gavel in January." The trend "is stoking talk
>   on Capitol Hill that the 'K Street Project'" - an effort launched
>   by Grover Norquist and Tom DeLay to have firms hire more
>   Republicans - "is alive and well." (Earlier reports suggested,
>   "Democrats are coming back into vogue on K Street.") Republican
>   Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, who is interviewing with 15 firms,
>   said, "K Street is still only 30% Republican, so there's a lot more
>   work to do to make it even."
>SOURCE: The Hill, September 15, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095220802
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095220802
>
>13. IMAGE OVER SUBSTANCE: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE NEWS
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/nyregion/15profile.html
>   The New York Times profiles Jim Steets, Entergy Nuclear Northeast's
>   external communications manager, who, we learn, has "an easy
>   smile"; waxes "rhapsodic about the benefits and proficiencies of
>   Indian Point," a nuclear power plant near New York City; and is
>   "boyish-looking" and "well, a nice guy." In a shorter piece (albeit
>   one further up in the paper), the Times reports that a Government
>   Accountability Office auditor called nuclear power plant safety
>   assessments "rushed" and "largely a paper review." The auditor also
>   said the Nuclear Energy Institute's decision to hire Wackenhut for
>   surprise mock attacks "raises questions," since Wackenhut also
>   guards half the nation's nuclear plants.
>SOURCE: New York Times, September 15, 2004
>More web links related to this story are available at:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/spin/September_2004.html#1095220801
>To discuss this story in the PR Watch Forum, visit:
>    http://www.prwatch.org/forum/discuss.php?id=1095220801
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The Weekly Spin is compiled by staff and volunteers at the
>Center for Media and Democracy. 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 Center 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 and Democracy
>are tax-deductible. Send checks to:
>    CMD
>    520 University Ave. #227
>    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: 5B.454
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------