>Subject: How The Media Deceives You About Health Issues
>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:00:17 -0800
>
>How The Media Deceives You About Health Issues
>by Tate Metro Media
>
>Think about how many times you've heard an evening news
anchor spit out
>some variation on the phrase, "According to experts
...." It's such a
>common device that most of us hardly hear it anymore. But we
do hear the
>"expert" - the professor or doctor or watchdog
group - tell us whom to
>vote for, what to eat, when to buy stock. And, most of the
time, we trust
>them. Now ask yourself, how many times has that news anchor
revealed who
>those experts are, where they get their funding, and what
constitutes
>their political agenda? If you answered never, you'd be
close. That's the
>driving complaint behind Trust Us, We're Experts, a new book
co-authored
>by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of the Center for Media
and
>Democracy. Unlike many so-called "experts," the
Center's agenda is quite
>overt - to expose the shenanigans of the public relations
industry, which
>pays, influences and even invents a startling number of
those experts.
>The third book co-authored by Stauber and Rampton, Trust Us
hit bookstore
>shelves in January. There are two kinds of
"experts" in question--the PR
>spin doctors behind the scenes and the
"independent" experts paraded
>before the public, scientists who have been hand-selected,
cultivated,
>and paid handsomely to promote the views of corporations
involved in
>controversial actions. Lively writing on controversial
topics such as
>dioxin, bovine growth hormone and genetically modified food
makes this a
>real page-turner, shocking in its portrayal of the real and
potential
>dangers in each of these technological innovations and of
the "media
>pseudo-environment" created to hide the risks. By
financing and
>publicizing views that support the goals of corporate
sponsors, PR
>campaigns have, over the course of the century, managed to
suppress the
>dangers of lead poisoning for decades, silence the scientist
who
>discovered that rats fed on genetically modified corn had
significant
>organ abnormalities, squelch television and newspaper
stories about the
>risks of bovine growth hormone, and place enough confusion
and doubt in
>the public's mind about global warming to suppress any
mobilization for
>action. Rampton and Stauber introduce the movers and shakers
of the PR
>industry, from the "risk communicators" (whose job
is to downplay all
>risks) and "outrage managers" (with their four
strategies--deflect,
>defer, dismiss, or defeat) to those who specialize in
"public policy
>intelligence" (spying on opponents). Evidently, these
elaborate PR
>campaigns are created for our own good. According to public
relations
>philosophers, the public reacts emotionally to topics
related to health
>and safety and is incapable of holding rational discourse.
Needless to
>say, Rampton and Stauber find these views rather
antidemocratic and
>intend to pull back the curtain to reveal the real wizard in
Oz.
>
>Metro Media: What was the most surprising or disturbing
manipulation of
>public opinion you reveal in your book?
>
>
>John Stauber: The most disturbing aspect is not a particular
example, but
>rather the fact that the news media regularly fails to
investigate
>so-called "independent experts" associated with
industry front groups.
>They all have friendly-sounding names like "Consumer
Alert" and "The
>Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," but they fail
to reveal their
>corporate funding and their propaganda agenda, which is to
smear
>legitimate heath and community safety concerns as
"junk-science
>fear-mongering." The news media frequently uses the
term "junk science"
>to smear environmental health advocates. The PR industry has
spent more
>than a decade and many millions of dollars funding and
creating industry
>front groups which wrap them in the flag of "sound
science." In reality,
>their "sound science" is progress as defined by
the tobacco industry, the
>drug industry, the chemical industry, the genetic
engineering industry,
>the petroleum industry and so on.
>
>Metro Media: Is the public becoming more aware of PR tactics
and false
>experts? Or are those tactics and experts becoming more
savvy and
>effective?
>
>Stauber: The truth is that the situation is getting worse,
not better.
>More and more of what we see, hear and read as
"news" is actually PR
>content. On any given day much or most of what the media
transmits or
>prints as news is provided by the PR industry. It's off
press releases,
>the result of media campaigns, heavily spun and managed, or
in the case
>of "video news releases" it's fake TV news -
stories completely produced
>and supplied for free by former journalists who've gone over
to PR. TV
>news directors air these VNRs as news. So the media not only
fails to
>identify PR manipulations, it is the guilty party by passing
them on as
>news.
>
>Metro Media: What's the solution for the excesses of the PR
industry?
>Just more media literacy and watchdog organizations like
yours? Or should
>the PR industry be regulated in some way?
>
>Stauber: In our last chapter, "Question
Authority," we identify some of
>the most common propaganda tactics so that individuals and
journalists
>and public interest scientists can do a better job of not
being snowed
>and fooled. But ultimately those who have the most power and
money in any
>society are going to use the most sophisticated propaganda
tactics
>available to keep democracy at bay and the rabble in line.
There are some
>specific legislative steps that could be taken without
stepping on the
>First Amendment. One is that all nonprofit, tax-exempt
organizations -
>charities and educational groups, for instance - should be
required by
>law to reveal their institutional funders if, say, $500 or
more. That way
>when a journalist or a citizen hears that a scientific
report is from a
>group like the American Council on Science and Health, a
quick trip to
>the IRS Web site could reveal that this group gets massive
infusions of
>industry money, and that the corporations that fund it
benefit from its
>proclamations that pesticides are safe, genetically
engineered food will
>save the planet, lead contamination isn't really such a big
deal, climate
>change isn't happening, and so on. The public clearly
doesn't understand
>that most nonprofit groups (not ours, by the way) take
industry and
>government grants, or are even the nonprofit arm of
industry. Detroit
>Metro Times February 6, 2001
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. |