|
National Radio Project1714 Franklin Street #100-251 • Oakland, CA 94612 • 510-251-1332ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. For permission to reproduce and/or reprint, please contact us. |
MAKING CONTACT Transcript: #46-99 Shaping the News: The Public Relations Industry and Journalism Phillip Babich: This week on Making Contact... John Stauber: We all like to believe we're much too smart and sophisticated to get fooled by propaganda, but in fact, the propaganda industry is massive. By some estimates there are more public relations practitioners in the United States than there are journalists who actually go out and investigate news and write and deliver the news for us. The largest single grouping of PR practitioners are former journalists who have left journalism and gone over to the dark side of propaganda... Phillip Babich: In the United States, the public relations industry is a multi-billion dollar business. Highly-paid firms issue statements and news releases while orchestrating PR campaigns for large corporations and governments. On this program, we take a look at the public relations industry and its effects on public interests. I'm Phillip Babich, your host this week on Making Contact, an international radio program seeking to create connections between people, vital ideas and important information. The public relations industry is a massive business, particularly in the United States. It's not clear exactly how much is spent each year on public relations in the U.S., but some estimates reach figures as high as 10 billion dollars. Journalists and retired politicians are increasingly joining the PR ranks, and in many universities, public relations, journalism, advertising and corporate communications are all taught as one. Also, many news organizations facing budget cuts rely more and more on materials sent to them by public relations firms. In the past, the work of PR professionals may have consisted of issuing press releases or socializing, but today, they have at their disposal advanced technology and sophisticated psychological techniques that have proven very effective in swaying public opinion, according to John Stauber, founder and director of the Center for Media and Democracy, and editor of PR Watch newsletter. Stauber says that only big companies can afford the services of PR firms, whose behind-the-scenes work is often difficult to recognize. John Stauber: The public relations industry is really only available to big business, politicians, government agencies, and wealthy individuals. And as Sheldon Rampton and documented in our book, Toxic Sludge is Good For You, the public relations industry really impacts on every aspect of our personal, public and political lives. But it attempts to do so invisibly, and unfortunately it usually succeeds. The big PR firms like Ketrom, Burse and Marsteller, Hill and Knowlton, Edelman, are usually owned by even bigger advertising companies. But while advertising is very much in our faces, we're hit with thousands of propaganda messages through advertising. The whole idea of public relations is invisibility. The best propaganda is invisible. If we know it's propaganda, and we know somebody's trying to manipulate or direct our thinking, or opinions, or behavior, it's probably not going to work. So, PR works very invisibly to put its message in the mouths of people we trust, especially journalists, scientists, people who identified in public opinion surveys as being trustworthy individuals. Phillip Babich: Stauber says that companies will often create a PR front group that claims to be a sound scientific research organization working in the public interest, but is actually funded by industry. John Stauber: Dr. C. Everett Koop, and the American Council on Science and Health, with which he cooperates, are examples of the third party expert technique. If Monsanto tells us its genetically engineered cow hormone is safe, that its genetically engineered corn is safe, that its Roundup herbicide is safe, we may not believe them because they have billions of dollars invested in these products, and of course they're going to say they're safe. But if we hear than an objective science group, like the American Council on Science and Health, or a respected former Surgeon General like C. Everett Koop, say these things, and if we hear that from journalists, then we're much more likely to believe it, because we give our trust over to those people, so industry has learned how to put its words and messages in the mouths of people we are likely to trust. When you pull back that curtain, and you examine C. Everett Koop, and you examine the American Council on Science and Health, you see that they are cooperating with an industry public relations campaign. Phillip Babich: Big companies also seek the services of public relations firms when faced with negative publicity caused by such events as an oil spill or labor strike. Stauber says some firms specialize in handling these situations. John Stauber: A big part of the public relations industry is devoted to what's called "issue management" or "crisis management," and this is the idea that large companies that are involved in polluting the environment, like Exxon, or manufacturing controversial or potentially dangerous products, are in a constant state of crisis...the chemical industry, the pesticide industry...and what they need to do is manage issues to keep the public in the dark, and make sure that activist individuals and organizations, social reformers that are trying to rectify problems caused by capitalism, problems caused by corporations, are not listened to, or are marginalized. So there are certain companies like the Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin firm, MBD, that specialize in spying on activist organizations, gathering intelligence, maintaining dossiers on activist groups, controversial issues, leaders in the environmental movement, the animal rights movement, the consumer movement...and Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin then advises major corporations, and it claims that 25% of the largest corporations in the world are their clients, on how to handle controversies where individual citizens or activists are raising concerns that might threaten the bottom of the company. Phillip Babich: In New Zealand, an anti-logging group called Native Forest Action found that they were such a target. They were waging a campaign against the publicly-owned logging company Timberlands West Coast Limited. The company had been working to increase logging in New Zealand's native forests, while activists attempted to put public pressure on the company to stop cutting altogether in favor of conservation. The public relations firm of Shandwick International came to Timberlands' assistance and helped it orchestrate a campaign to discredit its critics. But New Zealand author Nicky Hager and Australian environmental journalist Bob Burton received hundreds of leaked documents from employees at Shandwick that exposed the extent of Timberlands PR campaign. They recently released a book detailing the companies' efforts titled, "Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign." Burton spoke with Making Contact's Stephanie Welch. Bob Burton: Central to the whole Timberlands campaign was secrecy to disguise that fact that it was actually running an extraordinary campaign against, not only community groups but against politicians who disagreed with them. And in particular, this is quite critical, this is a government-owned logging company that was using public funds to run campaigns to change policies of different political parties to gain support for its own ambitions, to escalate the level of logging. And the extraordinary tactics that it used, as it, put it in one document, "neutralize the opposition." And that involved everything from legal threats against journalists, blocking access to the forest, and arresting protesters. Stephanie Welch: How effective were they, Shandwick and Timberlands, at getting positive media coverage for themselves. Bob Burton: Well, their campaign was sort of in two parts -- partly it was cultivating journalists and taking them on all-expenses paid trips down to the west coast, taking them through nicely manicured logging operations that were made to look good, providing them with helicopter access so they could see there wasn't much damage to this particular area of the forest. And a lot of that was quite effective at one level. But the problem was, as long as there were protesters in the forests, or in others cities around the country raising the issues, that wasn't going to be sufficient. Their own internal strategy documents effectively indicated that whenever there was public profile for the issue, it was going to be hard for Timberlands to gain public support or political support for their future logging plans. So the other part of their strategy was keeping the opposition out of the news. For example, one of the more bizarre little episodes was where supporters of the campaign to protect the rain forest had put graffiti on various motorway walls around Wellington and other cities. The Timberlands PR firm, Shandwick, went and hired contractors to paint out the graffiti, and even when there were little posters put up on the street poles, Timberlands contractors were employed to go around and paint over the top of them, so nobody could read them. And it was just the most extraordinary level of censorship and fear of there being public debate, rather than their just trying to put their own side of the story. Stephanie Welch: And now I understand you had to keep the publication of this book sort of under wraps for a while, until the book was finally released. Now how have Shandwick and Timberlands responded to the book? John Stauber: Well, there were two separate phases. The book first was introduced released on an interview with Nikki Hagger on New Zealand radio. It was quite an extensive interview, something like 50 minutes. Straight after that interview, Timberlands went on just denying the book without having seen it, as being rubbish, conspiracy theories, and Shandwick said pretty much the same thing. Then, after they'd finally obtained a copy of the book, Timberlands refused to comment to New Zealand journalists, Shandwick issued a media statement, but did no interviews, where they basically dismissed it as all nonsense and if anything it was over writing their importance, and they'd done nothing that they should be ashamed of. The claim that the documents were stolen was again one of the points...at the rear of the book we outlined how we thought Timberlands and Shandwick might respond to the book, because they would go into standard damage control program. Often most journalists don't understand how the PR industry tries to discredit critics or even critical journalists. So we thought it was worth outlining there, and just about every point from that check list has been proven true, and one of them was they would claim the documents had been stolen, as an attempt to smear Nikki and myself. Fortunately, most journalist didn't take that all seriously. But also, they haven't at any single point attempted to challenge any at the points we've made in the book, which is, you know, the tactics and strategies they used, where it was publicly funded organizations spending public funds to neutralize the opposition... used legal threats, or slaps, as you call them in the US, against everything from community groups through to journalists to politicians. And effectively it was a pretty chilling story of where I was seeking to stifle public debate rather than just participate in it. Stephanie Welch: Right. And you said journalists were pretty understanding of the situation. How have the media responded on the whole, to the book? Bob Burton: Well, it's been quite extraordinarily, actually. One of the reasons why companies such as Shandwick and even Timberlands used the argument 'well, it' just a conspiracy" is that it plays on journalists' skepticism, unless there is hard evidence, they don't believe that there are concerted PR campaigns used against environmental or other community groups. What we provided in this book was extensive documentation, with lots of very fine data, very specific incidents, and the response of New Zealand was just extraordinary. Journalists were actually stunned to see how a public policy issue was actually manufactured and organized and orchestrated by a public relations firm and a government agency. And a particular one that many of them had actually been involved in. So there's been extensive media coverage. And that sort of coverage is unprecedented. And I think the reason for that is, most journalists, their experience with PR is where individuals come along, give them a press release, have a chat. What they don't see is all the hidden manifestations of the PR campaign, let alone they have access to the strategy documents. So I think it's been a real eye-opener to many people in New Zealand, and it's raised many issues and a very strong ongoing debate about what is the role of public agencies in a democracy? What constitutes ethical public relations? What is the role of public relations firms in a democracy? Are there tactics and strategies they use, even though they may be perfectly legal, that raise many troubling questions about the future of democracy and the ability of citizens to participate in a public debate? Phillip Babich: Bob Burton, co-author of Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign. He spoke with Making Contact's Stephanie Welch. Laura Livoti: You're listening to Making Contact, a production of the National Radio Project. This program can now be heard across the United States and Canada, South Africa, and around the world on Radio for Peace International Short Wave. You can also hear us on the internet. If you want more information about the subject of this week's program, please give us a call. It's toll free...800-529-5736. Call that same phone number for tape and transcript orders. We also welcome comments and suggestions for future programs. Phillip Babich: One of the ways that companies and public relations firms directly influence the news that we hear and see is by providing fully produced video and audio segments to media outlets. John Stauber says that a surprisingly high percentage of such materials are broadcast as news reports, often with little or no editing. John Stauber: When the public relations industry, or academics who study public relations, say that anywhere from 40 to 80% of the news and information we receive on any given day is a direct product or by-product of public relations, they're talking about what we think is news, what we think is information that's been investigated and reported by journalists, but is actually completely or to a large extent the result of behind-the-scenes public relations management. A good example is the video news release. Most people have never heard the term 'video news release' or VNR, and yet every day anyone who watches television news to any degree is seeing more and more news stories that are fake news. They're really video news releases. The estimate is that anywhere from 10 to 15 thousand video news releases are prepared every year and distributed free to TV news directors. They come in over the satellite, they come in through Federal Express, they're delivered free to the stations. And they look like very good news programs, and they're aired as news programs, but they're paid for and produced by PR experts. They're made to fool the public into thinking they're seeing a news report on a new drug, for instance, when what they're seeing is a fake news report prepared by the public relations firm working for the drug company, that's trying to hype that drug even in advance of its approval by the government. Male Announcer 1: The new findings offer hope for the future. Scientists at Genentech in San Francisco have identified and cloned an important protein that stimulates the production of platelets... Male 2: We here at Genentech have recognized the importance of this discovery, and we will move as rapidly as possible to develop this into a new drug... Male Announcer 1: Platelets are regularly manufacturer by... Phillip Babich: This is an audio excerpt from a video news release produced for the biotechnology company Genentech by Target Video News. Male Announcer 1: ...declines. Genentech's discovery a protein called thrombopoetin, that attaches to precursor cells and makes them multiply and mature, producing more platelets. Male 2: There are many potential benefits of stimulating platelet production. Our treatment for being more comfortable, with less bruising and bleeding, patients would need fewer transfusions, and most importantly, one could intensify the dose of cancer chemotherapy with the hope that that would result in better results against the cancer. Male Announcer 1: These findings are preliminary, but the chance of an effective drug to increase platelet production is now on the horizon. This has been Richard Morrow, with Medical Update. Female Announcer 1: For some people the fear of interacting with others, in fact any social contact, is so acute that they go out of their way to avoid all social situations. This is a condition known as Social Anxiety Disorder, also known as Social Phobia, and it effects more than 10 million Americans. Female 2: I lived with the anxieties and the fears of interacting with other people. And I just thought it would... Phillip Babich: This is a video news release also produced by Target Video News. It's a report on a new drug for "social anxiety disorder" manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Kline Beecham. Male 3: ...physical and emotional anxiety, whenever they are in social or performance situations. Female Announcer 1: Social Anxiety Disorder is the most common psychiatric disorder in the U.S., after depression and alcoholism, and yet it has often gone undiagnosed, with only five percent of patients receiving some form of treatment. The good news for the millions with this disorder is a medication called Paxel, just approved by the FDA. It is the first and only FDA approved treatment for Social Anxiety Disorder... Male 3: Studies have shown that Paxal... (fade out) Phillip Babich: Last year the first PR trade association got its start. The Council of Public Relations Firms represents 111 PR firms, which generate about 80% of the industry's revenues. To get a perspective on the effects of the public relations industry on journalism, we spoke with the president of the Council of Public Relations Firms, Jack Bergen. Bergen is a former president of U.S. operations for the PR firm Hill and Knowlton. He was also an executive at RCA, GE, and CBS. I asked him what the difference is between advertising and public relations. Jack Bergen: Advertising is what we call paid media, so that when you pay for the media, you can control the message. Public relations, the strength of public relations, is that we are not purchasing the message. We are putting communications out and the acceptance of those communications, and in some cases not the communication in whole, but our ability to have part of our message which the voice to us is...gives that message added credibility. So for us it's very, very important that where we can't control the message that the distribution, that the channels, that the media, have credibility, because that's the way we get credibility for our message. It's if they have credibility, we have credibility. Phillip Babich: You know, according to some figures, that anywhere between 40 to 80 percent of what we think is news is actually the result of public relations campaigns. I'm wondering what you think about that figure, and if that's the case? Jack Bergen: Yeah. I mean, I don't know that it's...I mean, that's a big range anyway, 40 to 80 percent... Phillip Babich: Sure... Jack Bergen: I would say it's much closer to the low level, if it even is as high as 40 percent. But the fact is that there is a lot of material that is reported in the news that has as its source the public relations activities of our clients. I mean that's really what they pay us for...is to try to tell their part of the story. And I think that as long as the reporter is applying some editorial judgment to what we give them, which helps that reporter...which means that reporter retains their credibility, then we're in good shape. So for us, that's not bad, that that be the case. It wouldn't be good for us if what we put out there was reprinted exactly as it was, and people knew, and people were aware that what was happening here is that the media was just taking what we give them and not applying any editorial comment to it. Because then, basically, what's happening is that we're just basically putting out a pamphlet. And, we lose the creditability of our message of that's the case. Phillip Babich: That's right, and your clients will lose the creditability as well. Jack Bergen: Yes. Phillip Babich: Well, let me ask you this, at the same time, as you know from your experience in corporate media with CBS corporation, that investigative journalism is on the decline, that corporations are spending less money for journalists who do that hard core investigative work, and at the same time, public relations firms are able to put forth material for news outlets to use, do you think that journalism suffers in any way? Jack Bergen: Yes, I think my answer would be that if that were the case, and I don't think it is, but if that were the case, then journalism would suffer and public relations would suffer. But my belief is that while newsrooms are always facing budget cutbacks and budget restrictions, like any other part of media and any other part of business is always asked to have some prudence there, I don't think that the answer that I've seen, certainly at CBS, was that, okay, in order to get by now, we're going to go ahead and use what's given to us by people in its wholeness. I just, I haven't seen it happen. When we give materials, whether they be Video B-roll materials, whether they be press releases to the media, we hope that what we give the media will be used, but we fully expect that it will be a part of a larger package that will have some editorial comment to it, and presumably our hope is that it will be convincing enough that that editorial comment will be positive to what we've given. Phillip Babich: We know from our work here at the National Radio Project that it's very hard for activist groups, groups that are interested in social and economic justice to get their message out to the mass media to a wide audience. Do you think it's fair that companies are able to pay large sums of money to public relations firms in order to get their message out, and have a breakthrough in the mass media? Jack Bergen: I think it's fair...there are two sides to this. One has an economic tool to apply and the other has a newsworthy or in some cases sensationalist tool to apply. And I this the economic support on the corporate side that maybe one can bring gives the push to their message, in a media, frankly, that I believe responds more to the sensational and more to the exciting, and certainly, for all the right reasons, to what's timely and newsworthy. So I just think an interest group that has a cause that is timely and newsworthy, that appeals to human concerns in any way, has a better chance to get a hearing from a journalist today, than a public relations person with all the financial support that's out there. Simply because I think good journalists are looking more for the news than they are for a lot of material that happens to be backed by the ability to put it all together and package it for them. Phillip Babich: Well, Jack Bergen, thanks for joining us at Making Contact. Jack Bergen: Sure. Phillip Babich: Jack Bergen is president of the Council of Public Relations Firms. John Stauber: The question that everyone has to ask themselves everyday... what we point out in Toxic Sludge is Good for You is that the corporations are winning. They're turning aside activist challenges. They're having their day. And in large part it's because of what I mentioned earlier, much of what we get through the news media is, in fact public relations. The public relations industry is winning the propaganda battle, if you will. Phillip Babich: John Stauber with PR Watch... John Stauber: The first step is for journalists to start being journalists again, and report on how corporations manage and manipulate public opinions, public policy and the news media. But it's up to really individual citizens to understand the power and extent of propaganda, and the way to being doing that is to educate ourselves. And I think the most hopeful sign, frankly, is that over the past 20 years there's been a tremendous rise in alternative media. The community radio stations, many of the weeklies, this program are an example. And now we see how alternative media, which is an independent voice to the commercial control of the media, are really under attack. And I think all of us owe it to ourselves to do everything we can to help make sure that independent media, media that not just simply passing on corporate commercial spin, becomes more and more powerful. We have to begin by challenging the propaganda that's being passed on by commercial journalism. Phillip Babich: That's it for this edition of Making Contact: a look at the public relations industry and journalism. Thanks for listening. And, special thanks this week to Norm Stockwell at radio station WORT-FM in Madison, Wisconsin, for technical assistance. Laura Livoti is our managing director. Stephanie Welch is associate producer. Peggy Law is executive director. Norman Solomon is senior advisor. Our national producer is David Barsamian. Shereen Meraji is production assistant. Din Abdullah is archivist. And I'm your host and managing producer Phillip Babich. If you want more information about the subject of this week's program, call the National Radio Project, at 1-800-529-5736. Making Contact is an independent production. We're committed to providing a forum for voices and opinions not often heard in the mass media. If you have suggestions for future programs, we'd like to hear from you. Our theme music is by the Charlie Hunter Trio. 'Bye for now. |