Minding Everybody's Business

"corporate VNRs, the biggest and richest part of the fake news business"

2005-03-17T11:03:00.000-08:00

This afternoon I listened in on a conference call among some of the top PR execs in the business of producing video news releases (VNRs), more honestly called fake news. I can report they are proud and confident that the recent "flap" on the front page of Sunday's New York Times about the Bush administration's use of fake news will amount to nothing at all. These PR executives are elated that the New York Times piece was about government propaganda, and not about their much more widespread and lucrative production of corporate VNRs, the biggest and richest part of the fake news business.

....The conference call was arranged by PR trade press maven Jack O'Dwyer. It featured top PR executives in the fake news business, including Doug Simon of D S Simon Productions, Stan Zeitlin of West Glen Communications, Larry Moskowitz of Medialink Worldwide and KEF Media's Kevin Foley. These are the companies that are producing and distributing the thousands of VNRs sent to TV networks and stations each year. The VNRs are fake news stories, paid for by clients ranging from the Pentagon to Monsanto, that are aired by TV news producers as if they were independent reporting and the work of real journalists, rather than PR operatives who used to be real journalists.

The real journalists at the TV networks and stations are engaging in fraud and plagiarism on a massive scale when they pawn off these VNRs as real news. If you were a journalism student with an assignment to produce a TV news story, and your professor discovered that someone else had done all your work for you and given the story to you to pass off as your own, you should be expelled. But in the real world of TV journalism, you would just collect your paycheck and go home.

There is also payola involved. Money flows from the VNR producing PR firms to the TV networks for "distribution costs," and the networks send the VNRs out to their affiliates for use on the air.

...read it all: PR Execs Undeterred by Fake News "Flap", PR Watch

email of the day

2005-03-08T16:29:00.000-08:00

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2465

ACTION ALERT:
CBS Offers Misleading Pro-Privatization Predictions

March 8, 2005

CBS Evening News has presented two segments in recent weeks (2/9/05,
3/4/05) that purport to show how typical American workers would fare under
George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. But the segments rely
on stock market projections that, if true, would make any "crisis" in
Social Security almost impossible.

CBS reporter Jim Axelrod first profiled (2/9/05) Jama Whitesell, a
28-year-old receptionist making $32,000 a year. Axelrod went to a
financial planner who predicted that a private account would be a safe bet
for this worker-- based on a projected 8 percent return on the private
account. Why did CBS choose this figure? Axelrod claimed that is "an
assumption based on how the market's done the last 80 years," though he
did add that "in the next 40, Jama could do worse. Of course, she could do
better."

Axelrod returned to this theme more recently (3/4/05), profiling a
48-year-old worker earning $98,000 a year who would also benefit from a
private account-- again, relying on an 8 percent return on his private
account. Axelrod again pointed out that "nothing's guaranteed, certainly
not an 8 percent return." (Interestingly, an earlier CBS Evening News
report-- 2/5/05-- estimated a 9 percent return on a private account).

It's true that stock prices in the past have fluctuated markedly; looking
at 35-year spans, which is the length of a typical working life, stock
returns over the past 100 years have fluctuated between 3 and 10 percent
(Center for American Progress, 2/10/05). Including a range of results
would give viewers a better sense of the range of potential outcomes.

But even suggesting that 8 percent will be the most likely growth rate for
private accounts over the next 40 years is problematic. For one thing,
the projections made by the Social Security actuaries and touted by the
Bush administration estimate a lower return (about 4.6 percent), both
because they expect stock prices to rise more slowly and because private
accounts would likely be balanced between stocks and bonds (Economic
Reporting Review, 3/7/05; NPR, 2/4/05; Washington Post, 2/27/05).

And there are good reasons to think that stocks will grow more slowly in
the future than they have in the past. Though CBS explained that they're
using the 8 percent figure because it is a historical average, the Center
for Economic & Policy Research (2/10/05) points out that "current
price-to-earnings ratios are approximately 50 percent higher than their
historic average." This means that stocks are valued more highly today
than they have been in the past; in order to match past growth rates, they
would have to make a similar upward leap in the future, when history
suggests that they're more likely to return to their earlier, lower
valuation.

In any case, a stock market growing at a sustained rate of 8 percent would
only be possible in a robust economy, a situation which would swell Social
Security revenues, heading off any crisis or shortfall. The projected
shortfall is based on gloomy forecasts that foresee the nation's economy
growing at a much slower rate than it has over the past 80 years. It is
unfair in the extreme to compare the future of Social Security with the
return on private accounts by using two very different economic models.

Stories tracing the impact of policy on individuals can be helpful for
viewers who do not follow the minutiae of public policy debates. But
giving viewers an unrealistic view of the benefits of Social Security
privatization only serves the interests of the White House and its allies.

ACTION: Please tell CBS Evening News to use a more realistic range of
numbers when projecting the returns from Social Security privatization.

CONTACT:
CBS Evening News
mailto:evening@cbsnews.com
Phone: 212-975-3691

As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you
maintain a polite tone. Please send a copy of your correspondence to
fair@fair.org.

CNBC shuffles exec deck

2005-02-08T07:49:00.000-08:00

In a sudden move to boost its plunging ratings, CNBC has shaken up its top brass.

CNBC kicked CEO-President Pamela Thomas-Graham upstairs and brought back one of its former hot-shot producers — Mark Hoffman — to help revive the 24-hour business news channel.

Thomas-Graham — a 41-year-old Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard and its law and business schools — will relinquish her two hands-on titles and become chairman to handle "new strategic opportunities," including spinning off shows.

"I'm not going anywhere," she told a news conference. "You'll still see me around here and in New York. But I'll be off looking for new opportunities to grow."

Hoffman worked at CNBC for four years during its heyday in the late 1990s and was known for his ability to create jazzy teasers to keep viewers tuned in.

He rose from executive producer to president of its CNBC European operations, which he left in 2001 to become president of NBC-owned TV station WVIT in New Britain, Conn.

Beginning his new post immediately as CNBC president, Hoffman, 47, will be responsible for all day-to-day operations, programming and technology.

"We've had some external challenges and internal challenges," Hoffman said. "I'm not prepared at this point to make any pronouncements. We'll chart this new course and we'll do it pretty quick."

Insiders said that Thomas-Graham as late as last Thursday was still sitting in at news meetings.

Her old position of CEO won't be filled, the company said.

Hoffman will report to Jeff Zucker, president of NBC Universal Television Group, as well as Graham.

Graham will continue reporting to Robert Wright, chairman of NBC Universal and a vice chairman of its parent, General Electric Co.

In 2004, CNBC's total viewers during the daytime slipped 21 percent from an average of 184,000 to 146,000, according to Nielsen Media Research. Since the Internet meltdown of 2000, CNBC's daytime viewers have declined 61 percent, while its primetime ratings have skidded 64 percent.

CNBC's defenders at NBC say the cable network brings in more than $250 million in annual profit and gets top dollar for ads because of its audience of wealthy Wall Streeters.

In addition to its ratings slump, CNBC is also gearing up for competition from Fox News, which is expected to launch its own business-news network sometime this year.

Both Fox News and The Post are owned by News Corp.

CNBC Change by Paul Taylor, New York Post, 8 February 2005

Ameriquest exposed

2005-02-07T20:15:00.000-08:00

Critics say Ameriquest, touted as an industry model, fabricated data, forged documents and hid fees. The company denies wrongdoing.

Workers Say Lender Ran 'Boiler Rooms' by Mike Hudson and E. Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times, 4 February 2005

Media watchdog tracks White House effort to police Social Security news coverage

2005-01-27T18:05:00.000-08:00

From FAIR today in an action alert, Private Vs. Personal: Media's Social Security Semantics:

Facing significant opposition to its plan to privatize part of the Social Security program, the White House is pushing reporters and lawmakers to use the expression "personal accounts," since polling data seems to indicate that "privatization" is an unpopular term with voters.

While it's not unusual for politicians to try to spin the terminology used in debate, journalists should avoid changing word usage simply because some politicians think it will be to their advantage. There's little doubt that "privatization" is a more accurate description of the White House plan, especially considering that the current Social Security system is already based on what are essentially "personal accounts"-- your benefits depend on how much you personally have paid in, as the annual statements you get from the Social Security Administration indicate-- rendering the Bush administration's preferred terminology redundant and confusing. What is different about the accounts that Bush is proposing is not that they are personal, but that they will hold private-sector securities-- in other words, that they will be privatized.

But some outlets endorse the notion that using any variation of the term "privatization" is politicizing the story. As Time magazine explained (1/10/05), "Because Democrats have given the term 'privatization' a negative tinge, advocates prefer to call it 'personalization,' emphasizing control and ownership rights." NBC host Tim Russert said on Meet the Press (1/23/05), "The president is proposing personal or private accounts, the vocabulary differs according to the ideology or the party using it."

But the term "privatization" was for years embraced by its proponents as an accurate description of their position. The Cato Institute, an influential pro-privatization Beltway think tank, called its program the "Project on Social Security Privatization" before re-naming it "Project on Social Security Choice" in 2002 (New York Times, 10/6/02). That change was attributed to Republican lawmakers who wanted to avoid using an unpopular term to describe their policy.

This semantic debate is no accident. As the Washington Post reported (1/23/05), "Republican officials have begun calling journalists to complain about references to 'private accounts,' even though Bush called them that three times in a speech last fall."

One would hope that in a debate as important as this one, reporters would resist this GOP spin. But the White House may be having some success: Carl Cameron of Fox News, in a news conference question to George W. Bush (1/26/05), made reference to "those who opt into a potential private account"-- before quickly correcting himself to say "personal account."

The Associated Press has also shown evidence of adopting the GOP's semantics; as CJR Daily pointed out (1/25/05), last year reporter David Espo used the phrase "private accounts" fifteen times in Social Security articles, while referring to the accounts as "personal" only once (10/17/04, 12/6/04, 12/7/04). But this year, "private accounts" has nearly disappeared from his vocabulary: A Nexis search of his reports on Social Security through January 26 turn up 16 references to "personal" accounts and only two to "private" accounts (outside of direct quotes).

Aside from echoing Republican spin, this semantic shift can muddle the story. In one recent report (1/24/05), for example, Espo wrote that the AARP "released a nationwide poll today indicating deep public skepticism about President Bush's plan for personal accounts." But one paragraph later, he explained that AARP's poll asked about private, not personal accounts.

The Times similarly confused the AARP poll; a January 25 article on the Social Security debate, which made three references to "personal" accounts and only one reference to "private investment" accounts, reported that "the AARP released a poll showing little public support for personal accounts once the costs and tradeoffs involved in establishing them are made clear." By changing the terminology of the poll, the Times and the AP added extra layers of confusion and inaccuracy to what should be a fairly straight-forward story.

Keeping up with Social Security news coverage

2005-01-26T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Center for Economic Policy and Research is doing a great job of summarizing and analyzing ongoing news coverage of the Bush push to gut Social Security. CEPR also collects this coverage in a free weekly email newsletter, the Social Security Reporting Review. Subscribe to it, and CEPR's other fine email newswletters here, including: the weekly ERR (Economic Reporting Review) in which Dean Baker of CEPR evaluates the economic reporting in the New York Times and Washington Post; Mark Weisbrot's weekly column; and Data Bytes (Economic Data Analysis) in which CEPR economists analyze the latest releases from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on unemployment and prices, and from the Commerce Department on GDP (gross domestic product).

enter the era of media critique

2005-01-25T11:12:00.000-08:00

"Here we are in an age where the media covers the media about what's gone wrong with the media."

That's Louis D. Boccardi, former president of the Associated Press who, together with Dick Thornburgh, were invited by CBS to investigate the Rathergate scandal, in a New York Times profile today, A Self-Effacing Arbiter of Media Failures by Robin Finn.

NYT notes links between prominent cardiologist & healthcare companies

2005-01-25T09:26:00.000-08:00

A prominent cardiologist is identifed by a shill for a number of health care companies, in a long New York Times article today that focuses on his conflicts of interest in patient care:

Like many prominent researchers at the nation's major medical centers, Eric J. Topol, the chief academic officer of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, has over the years had consulting and financial ties with numerous drug and medical device companies.

Dr. Topol, an outspoken cardiologist who frequently opines on the medical issues of the day, has done work for drug companies like Eli Lilly, the Medicines Company and a partnership of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis.

Recently, however, as he has come under the spotlight for potential conflicts of interest, he said in a letter to one company that he had decided to end most of his relationships to "maintain my academic credibility."

...read it all: Patient Care vs. Corporate Connections by Reed Abelson and Andrew Pollack, New York Times, 25 January 2005

TV news will use more corporate PR video news releases in 2005

2005-01-25T08:46:00.000-08:00

Look for more corporate PR in the business news as video news releases (VNR) find their way into more television programming in 2005 as a result of more companies paying to place their VNRs in the news, according to a recent PR Week article:

Guaranteed placement, extending a VNR's life, and scientific medical stories. All of these and more are trends that broadcast PR will see continue in 2005.

Video news releases have always been an important tool for the PR industry. While the most popular subjects for VNRs remain more or less the same, where and how they're being used has certainly changed. Last year brought a noticeable increase in certain trends that could become even more common this year. Navigating those trends, and deciding which are here to stay, could be the key to getting your client's VNR on the air.

Factors such as a shrinking news hole and increased competition have prompted companies to explore other ways to get VNRs aired. In fact, most broadcast PR companies are now encountering requests to ensure placement in a non-traditional way for the PR industry - by paying for it.

Ed Lamoureaux, SVP of sales and marketing for West Glen Communications, says he has noticed a significant rise in the use of guaranteed or paid placements for VNRs.

"The idea of securing a placement and using a VNR is more of a grassroots outreach and has become very popular," Lamoureaux says. "It goes hand in hand with the coming together of advertising and PR."

And Lamoureaux is hardly a stranger to the concept. For the past 17 years, West Glen has been producing Health and Home Report, a 30-minute news magazine program that guarantees VNR placement. There are several of these guaranteed-placement shows being produced, some of which appear on cable stations like PAX.

For some companies, guaranteed VNR placement is a better way to spend marketing dollars, says Lidj Lewis, VP of media relations for Medialink. "It uses a PR technique to diversify the marketing mix," he adds.

Michelle Williams, director of production for Medialink, says she has seen an increase in the use of guaranteed placements and has had a lot of success with them. One of the biggest advantages, she points out, is that guaranteed placement programs often target a very specific demographic, which helps when producing a VNR. "You know the audience," she says. "You can cater your story to that audience."

Another option within the guaranteed-placement arena is the captured audience, says Doug Simon, president and CEO of DS Simon Productions. These are networks that air in controlled environments, such as health clubs and airplanes.

According to the article, healthcare-related VNRs will be especially popular. Another trend: companies will recycle the VNRs in internal corporate communications programs to help all employees sing from the same sheet music.

Read it all: Achieving success with your VNR in 2005 by Erica Iacono, PR Week, 17 January 2005, republished at freepress.

Hardball soft on Ketchum's Molinari in Armstrong Williams discussion

2005-01-24T13:00:00.000-08:00

Ohio blogger Mike Meckler of Red-State.com takes Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball to task for failing to mention his guest Susan Molinari's status as head of PR giant Ketchum's Washington lobbying office in a recent discussion of the Armstrong Williams news payola scandal. Meckler writes, in an open letter to Matthews:

I cannot believe that you are not aware that Susan Molinari heads up the Washington office of the public relations firm Ketchum, which is at the center of controversy over whether the Bush administration has been using propaganda tactics to promote controversial government programs. Ketchum is the firm that paid conservative black pundit Armstrong Williams $240,000 to plug the benefits of No Child Left Behind from a reported $1 million contract with the Education Department. Ketchum also devised video press releases on Medicare for Health and Human Services, videos designed to look like news stories and which the GAO last year called "covert propaganda."

You may well reckon that getting political commentary from someone whose public relations firm is currently receiving business from the Bush administration is no different from getting commentary from campaign staffers or political officeholders, and that Molinari's background as a former GOP congresswoman was sufficient to indicate her political viewpoint. But the fact that she has a strong financial incentive in promoting the Bush administration through her employment with Ketchum is an item that needed to be mentioned. Representatives of PR firms appearing on your sister channel CNBC would have to make such a disclosure.

Certainly the purpose of Molinari's appearance on last night's program was to discuss President Bush's inauguration, but then again, Martha Stewart's appearance on CBS's Morning Show was to prepare a salad. Since it remains unclear what Molinari's role has been in the Ketchum contracts, and whether Ketchum's activities have violated federal law, Molinari needs to be asked publicly about her activities. She may well, like Martha Stewart, refuse to answer, but any reputable news organization should have posed the question.

Meckler continues with more background and links, in a post worth reading in full at Red-State.com.

Businesses see blogs shaping public opinion

2005-01-24T10:57:00.000-08:00

Marketers are beginning to realize that bloggers have the power to help shape opinion, either by raving or ranting about a company's advertisements, products, or services. Now market researcher Intelliseek is going to monitor the blogosphere for comments about SuperBowl advertisements:

Market research company Intelliseek will be monitoring the blogosphere for the buzz on Super Bowl ads to give their clients instant feedback on their ad extravaganzas. Intelliseek, a Cincinnati company that owns blogpulse.com, also will set up a panel of 50 to 100 bloggers to offer comments on ads during the game for its clients.

"The Internet is becoming a water cooler on steroids," said Pete Blackshaw, Intelliseek's chief marketing officer. "That presents both opportunities and threats for brands."

A convergence of factors -- the near-religious fervor in which Americans identify with, and talk about, their favorite products, the mass appeal of online communication and the buzz factor tied to Super Bowl ads -- has led marketing experts to focus more closely on what consumers are writing in blogs and on other Web forums.

....Intelliseek's Blackshaw and others believe monitoring the blogosphere is a good way to measure whether a Super Bowl ad is a bust or buzz.

....The company uses data-mining software to scan millions of blogs, discussion boards and forums to see if the keyboard-clicking masses are spreading the word about an ad or product. And it seeks to measure passion levels: Are people emotional about an ad? Has the ad or product become a part of the fabric of conversation? Is the reaction positive or negative?

Blog mouse-to-word marketing, though, extends beyond the Super Bowl, said Steve Rubel, vice president of CooperKatz, a New York City public relations firm who writes the Micro Persuasion Weblog. Such attention can be an unexpected bonus to a company, or a cause of embarrassment.

An adoring fan of Apple Computer's iPod music player created his own online ad for it, "iPod Tiny Machine." But bloggers pounced on Mazda for creating a fake blog filled with video "viral" ads that failed to generate popularity, Rubel said.

In the blogosphere, information isn't passively passed along, he said. An ad or marketing campaign "can be changed and fact checked. Consumers want to have a role in sharing the love and hate about the products they like and the products they don't like."

Marketers are increasingly becoming savvy to this new information flow, said Carson of BuzzMetrics. Some are beginning to design TV ad campaigns to drive people to Web sites, which display longer, and significantly less expensive, ads.

"There is a sense of community that surrounds brands and consumerism that has never existed before," he said. "You will find large numbers of people who will go to a company Web site and spend a considerable amount of time learning about its products. Or they'll forward that ad to friends."

...read it all: Bloggers' newest power: rating Super Bowl ads: Market Researcher to Monitor Online Journals' views for corporate clients by John Boudreau, San Jose Mercury News

Uncovering state legislators' financial interests

2005-01-24T10:35:00.000-08:00

When trying to identify the spin a state legislator may be putting on a business issue or specific company, the Center for Public Integrity's database of State Legislators' 2004 Personal Disclosures will be a valuable tool. From the CPT's announcement today:

Ever wonder what outside financial interests a legislator in your state might have? Now you can find out with a couple of clicks of your mouse. Putting the country's government ethics laws to work, the Center for Public Integrity today made thousands of state legislators' outside interest disclosure filings available to online users.

Researchers at the Center collected nearly 7,000 personal financial statements state lawmakers submitted in 2004 to oversight agencies in the 47 states requiring disclosure. Three states-Idaho, Michigan and Vermont-do not require disclosure at all. Click on a state below to access the only warehouse of its kind.

A few states had filing deadlines at the end of 2004. Center staff are continuing to upload forms for those states, along with North Dakota, where legislators' reports are not collected in a central office. Also, South Dakota legislators did not report in 2004. Please contact the Center with any questions.

The Center will collect and post these filings on a rolling basis as reports become available across the country throughout 2005. Find out the deadline for your legislators.

...read it all: State Legislators' 2004 Personal Disclosures

Questions reporters should ask about Social Security

2005-01-24T09:01:00.000-08:00

Dan Froomkin (a Washington Post writer when he's not managing the Nieman Watchdog project) has written a thoughtful piece suggesting questions that reporters should ask as they cover the ongoing story about the Bush Administration's plans to privatize Social Security. It's worth reading to understand what mainstream media reporters are NOT doing in their coverage:

Q. Why is the Bush White House so dead-set on transforming Social Security? What’s the motive?

Q. What does Bush mean by “ownership society”? What becomes of the safety net?

Q. How have workers been affected by the somewhat analogous shift in the private sector from defined-benefit to defined-contribution pension plans?

After a slow start, more and more reporters are making it clear that no matter how many times President Bush says so, Social Security isn't going broke and private accounts aren't going to help keep it solvent. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth.

But members of the press, by and large, are still not getting at the real Social Security story, because they're not asking themselves the obvious follow-up question: What's the motive? If indeed the program isn't in trouble, and private accounts won't make things better − then why are Bush and associates so dead-set on transforming it?

Part of the answer is that letting individuals manage their own retirements is a key component of what Bush calls the "ownership society." That’s shorthand for a Republican and libertarian ideal in which taxes are low, government is small, and people supervise their own retirements and choose their own health insurance rather than depend on the government to do so.

Critics argue that Bush's vision of an ownership society would mainly benefit the wealthy and corporations – and would leave the poor, working poor and middle class in even worse shape. They believe there is great value in collective institutions, particularly when it comes to sharing risk and building a safety net for the unfortunate.

So instead of just putting quote marks around the phrase "ownership society" and regurgitating it, reporters should explain it to their readers and viewers and explore what its effects might be. Who would the winners and losers be? Would it make the gap between those who own the most and those who own the least wider or narrower? What would happen to those so unfortunate they own nothing? Would there be any social safety net left at all?

...continues: Important questions about Social Security by Dan Froomkin, Nieman Watchdog Project, 24 January 2005

Newspapers resent Wal-Mart manipulation

2005-01-23T14:55:00.000-08:00

January 14, 2005

Mr. H. Lee Scott, CEO
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, AR 72716

Dear Mr. Scott:

I was contacted yesterday by Jack Newton of the Hill & Knowlton PR firm in Atlanta. Mr. Newton advised me that Wal-Mart representatives were "available for interviews" about the firms nationwide campaign to "set the record straight about the facts about Wal-Mart."

In addition to co-owning and operating four community newspapers in Northeast Georgia, I also currently serve as president of the National Newspapers Association. As both a newspaper publisher and as a spokesman for several thousand community newspapers in America, I want to let you know that I, and many of my fellow publishers, are insulted by this Wal-Mart PR effort.

Wal-Mart built its foundation of stores in many of our rural and suburban communities, the places where I, and many of my fellow publishers, operate newspapers.

Yet community newspapers across the nation are all but invisible to Wal-Mart-unless the company is looking for some free PR in our pages. Wal-Mart has a fairly standard policy of doing little to no local newspaper advertising.

But now, when under fire from various critics, you turn to us to help you fight back. Adding insult to injury, you expect us to give you free space to do that with PR solicitations such as the one I received from Hill & Knowlton.

So why is it that community newspapers in America are good enough to help you fend off critics with free PR, but we're not good enough for your paid advertising?

You can't have it both ways.

Based on a number of previous conversations I've had with newspaper publishers and editors across America, I don't think you will find very many who are willing to give you the requested free PR space to fend off attacks from your corporate critics.

I believe my view is one held by many newspaper publishers: If Wal-Mart wants to communicate valuable information about itself to our readers, then you can purchase our valuable advertising space to do it.

Anything less is just an insult to the community newspapers of America.

Sincerely,
Mike Buffington
President, National Newspaper Association

Buffington's letter is here. Perhaps MEB is misreading, but Buffington seems to come perilously close to saying that if Wal-Mart was an advertiser, the newspapers would feel better about passing along the company's PR. (MEB blogged Wal-Mart's PR push on January 14.)

lockheed and loaded

2005-01-22T17:23:00.000-08:00

Investigative journo Jeffrey St. Clair skins Lockheed alive in The Company That Runs the Empire: Lockheed and Loaded at Counterpunch:

Lockheed rakes it in from the federal treasury at the rate of $65 million every single day of the year.

From nuclear missiles to fighter planes, software code to spy satellites, the Patriot missile to Star Wars, Lockheed has come to dominate the weapons market in a way that the Standard Oil Company used to hold sway over the nation's petroleum supplies. And it all happened with the help of the federal government, which steered lucrative no bid contracts Lockheed's way, enacted tax breaks that encouraged Lockheed's merger and acquisition frenzy in the 1980s and 1990s and turned a blind eye to the company's criminal rap sheet, ripe with indiscretions ranging from bribery to contract fraud.

....By the end of the 1990s, Lockheed had made the transition from an airplane manufacturer with defense contracts to a kind of privatized supplier for nearly every Pentagon weapons scheme, from the F-22 fighter to the Pentagon's internet system. Then 9/11 happened and the federal floodgates for spending on national security, airline safety and war making opened wide and haven't closed. Lockheed has been the prime beneficiary of this gusher of federal money.

Not exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to hear as background on the next TV news story about Lockheed. St. Clair's article is worth reading in full.

Disinfopedia is now SourceWatch

2005-01-22T16:10:00.000-08:00

Disinfopedia has changed its name to SourceWatch. It remains a valuable key to deciphering PR spin, with useful research and writing tips, and describes itself as

a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. Sponsored by the Center for Media and Democracy (http://www.prwatch.org), SourceWatch was started in February 2003 and contributors are now working on 6270 articles.

SourceWatch articles can be published and edited by anybody:

This site is built by ordinary wise people, like you. You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques. It's the fact that it is open to everyone that makes these articles ever-improving, as we review and build on each other's work. Although no one is free of bias, we can cancel each other's out to a large degree, and deal with any systemic bias remaining by policy measures.

So, you can just dive right in and work on any article you like! You can edit any article directly, or if you want to add your thoughts, questions or comments about an article, you can go to the article's talk page (click on the 'Discuss the page' link in the sidebar or at the bottom of the article). You don't even need to be logged in to edit articles, although it is still a good idea to log in as this gives you access to more of the site's features and makes it easier to communicate with other users.

To work together effectively in building the encyclopedia, the SourceWatch community has some established policies and guidelines. An "encyclopedia of propaganda," by its very nature, is bound to attract controversy and debate. It is important, therefore, to write articles that focus on documented facts. Please include thorough references to documentation supporting the facts in your article, and avoid rhetorical or inflammatory language. If you are using or defining a rhetorical or inflammatory term then explain it in an article where it can be put in context and balance introduced - redirect all references to competing terms to one place. This is critical: We want the SourceWatch to be a useful information resource for journalists, activists and the general public, so please do not treat it as a debate forum. Any discussion about topics should be mainly directed at improving articles to the point where they are useful to journalists, the main consumer of our work.

New contributors are always welcome to SourceWatch, and you are encouraged to be bold in editing pages. You don't have to worry too much about making mistakes, as all contributions are monitored by other contributors at the Recent changes page.

Silicon Valley 100 will generate "buzz"

2005-01-21T17:58:00.000-08:00

Connector marketing is coming to the heart of California’s high-tech zone, in the form of a new effort called the Silicon Valley 100.

This month, 100 of Silicon Valley’s top venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, lawyers, bloggers and promoters will begin receiving cool new stuff for free, delivered straight to their homes and offices. In return, these movers and shakers promise to sample the products and offer feedback to the their manufacturers. The companies hope that, if the mood strikes, the Silicon Valley 100 will chat up, blog on, or just plain recommend the products to friends and colleagues, generating that most invaluable of currencies: buzz.

The brainchild behind the Silicon Valley 100 is 31-year-old entrepreneur—and Connector—Auren Hoffman, founder of San Francisco marketing firm The Stonebrick Group. He hopes to turn the Silicon Valley 100 into a profitable enterprise. Companies will pay a fee for the privilege of gifting products to its elite members.

....It took three months on the phone, but the result of Hoffman’s detective work is a quirky, wide-ranging list of some of the Valley’s brightest lights, largest wallets and biggest mouths. Netscape founder Marc Andreessen is on the list. Venture capitalists Tim Draper, Stewart Alsop, Aileen Lee, Igor Sill, Bill Gurley and Ron Conway are too. Yahoo vice president Katie Mitic, Siebel Systems cofounder Pat House and Electronic Arts senior vice president Rusty Rueff are among the 100. So are technology-event promoters Esther Dyson, Tim O’Reilly, Tiffany Shlain and Chris Shipley. A local radio personality nicknamed Hooman appears, as does a young San Francisco club promoter named Trevor Hewitt. Sean Parker, one of the cofounders of Napster, also made the cut.

Hoffman says he avoided adding career bloggers or journalists to the list. “Those people have a different standard and shouldn’t be keeping free products,” he says (journalists are typically required to return products they sample for review). But many Valley execs who maintain well-read blogs are in the group, such as entrepreneurs Ross Mayfield, Brad Templeton, Joi Ito and Zaw Thet.

....read it all: The Connected Get More Connected: Seeking buzz, companies will funnel free new products to Silicon Valley’s elite by Brad Stone, Newsweek, 21 January 2005

Silicon Valley 100 membrer Joi Ito speaks:

I think it is almost like an opt-in focus group. The obvious criticism would be these companies are trying to buy "buzz". The difference between this and some buzz creation companies is 1) it's not stealth 2) they don't tell you what to say. I checked with Auren and he says that we can write whatever we want about the products. When I get a product from Silicon Valley 100, I will state this clearly in any blog post that refers to it and will say what I think. I realize that the fact that we probably get to keep most of the products makes it a bit like bribery, but if it's crap, I'm sure most people will throw it away. I would be most interested in products that are still not on the market where our feedback could be incorporated in the product design. Then our feedback could be more constructive...

Expect pesticide PR in stories about the lawn-care industry

2005-01-21T11:43:00.000-08:00

Watch out for PR-influenced stories about the lawn-care industry:

Fearing that a Canadian movement to ban the use of pesticides on lawns will take root in the United States, the lawn-care industry has thrown down the gauntlet - literally.

"The gloves are off," declares an industry ad running in trade magazines under a picture of masculine-looking leather gardening gloves lying atop a lush green lawn.

"Yes, legislation and regulations have been throwing the green industry some rough punches," the ad says. "And we're about to start fighting back."

The ads are underwritten by Project Evergreen, a trade association formed by pesticide makers, applicators, garden centers and mower manufacturers that plans to launch a national public-relations campaign this spring touting the health and lifestyle benefits of thick, green lawns.

The green industry, as the lawn-products industry calls itself, has reason to worry. Increasing concern about the impact of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers on human health and the environment is fueling a movement to ban or restrict the "cosmetic" or "aesthetic" use of artificial chemicals for lawns and gardens.

In Canada, the province of Quebec and nearly 70 cities and towns - including Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax - have passed laws banning or restricting the use of pesticides for lawn care.

Some activists are predicting that pesticides will become the next tobacco. "Pesticides are a bit like secondhand smoke - if you can smell your neighbor using them on their property, then you're being exposed, too," said Michel Gaudet, president of the Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, in St. Bruno, Quebec.

The picture in the United States is more complicated. Over the last several years, the pesticide industry has successfully lobbied state legislatures to pass what are known as "pre-emption laws." These give states responsibility for pesticide regulation and prevent cities and towns from enacting their own laws. So far, 30 states have adopted pre-emption laws.

"Local communities generally do not have the expertise on issues about pesticides to make responsible decisions," said Allen James, president of RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), a pesticide-industry lobbying group. "Decisions are made much more carefully and the train moves much more slowly" at the state level.

At the same time, however, 20 states have adopted laws requiring signs or some sort of public notification when pesticides are applied to lawns. Dozens of communities have also adopted policies barring or restricting the use of pesticides on school property, public ball fields and parks.

Beyond Pesticides, an environmental group in Washington, has responded to Project Evergreen's "gloves are off" ad with a copycat ad that features a pair of feminine-looking gardening gloves decorated with daisies over the headline, "Get a Grip."

"The chemical lawn care industry is worried that the word is getting out on the toxic hazards of lawn pesticides," the ad says. "It is possible to have a green lawn without toxic pesticides."

....read it all: U.S. lawn-care industry fighting back against pesticide bans by Joan Lowy, Scripps Howard News Service, 17 January 2005. (Thanks to PR Watch for the heads-up.)

"The Apprentice: The Musical"

2005-01-21T10:28:00.000-08:00

From Hollywood Reporter comes another sign that the apocalypse is near:

"The Apprentice" is moving from glitzy Fifth Avenue to neon-lit Broadway. Reality superproducer Mark Burnett and Donald Trump, executive producers of NBC's reality hit, are developing "The Apprentice: The Musical." Burnett is writing the book for the musical, which is under way, with several songs already written. "It's a love story," Burnett said of the project at a Friday meeting to promote his upcoming NBC reality series "The Contender." "It's very inspirational." (Nellie Andreeva and Cynthia Littleton)

CNN's media critique leaves much to be desired

2005-01-21T10:20:00.000-08:00

Reliable Sources" is a program that (according to CNN) "turns a critical lens on the media" where a group of journalists, pundits and pseudo-reporters discuss media issues of the day. If you want to watch a motley crew congratulating themselves for pretending to be "critical" about the industry in which they work, nothing beats it. The first alarm bell should ring about the time that you hear that the program is fronted by none other than Howard Kurtz: the media critic for The Washington Post. You don't have to be Kant to see the massive conflict of interest here: the man hosting a program that purports to turn a "critical lens on the media" works for both The Washington Post Company (owners of The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine) and Time Warner (owners of CNN, HBO, TIME magazine, etc., etc, etc.). It's not a good start, and it gets worse.

The real problem with "Reliable Sources" is that it purports to be "critical" about the news business, all the while acting as a veiled cheerleader for a corporate media system that has surrendered to the Bush administration over everything from WMDs in Iraq to social security. The genius of the program is that it manages to give the impression of critique while staying completely milquetoast: the guests say how reporting was bad, how editors failed and generally give the news media a black eye. The logic of the system, however, is never questioned: critiques are almost always at the individual, not the systemic level. It is pre-packaged and commodified dissent.

I recently examined 56 episodes of "Reliable Sources," aired during 2003 and 2004, and noticed an overwhelming tendency on the part of Howard Kurtz and his guests to blame reporters ("they did a bad job"), editors ("they didn't keep an eye on their reporters") and/or the audience ("they are more interested in entertaining stories"). The solution, using this logic, is to simply retrain or replace the bad apples contaminating the basket. Problem solved.

This simplistic answer obscures the point that the ills of the U.S. news media go much deeper than individual failure or laziness, and are rooted in both hyper-commercialization and the connections between corporate media owners, government, advertisers, and investors. The real irony is that "Reliable Sources" is actually "Exhibit A" for what is wrong with journalism in the United States: instead of tackling endemic problems like the influence of advertising money and profit margins on news, guests sit around and blow hot air for endless hours about how Reporter X is "liberal" and Editor Z is "conservative".

During the 14 months of programming I examined, the direct influence of advertisers on the media was discussed explicitly a grand total of one time. Over a year of programming. Hundreds of reporters. Critical eye on the media. Objectivity. One time. And who discussed it? A top journalist at a top TV news program who had a juicy story spiked by a cowardly editor? No. It was comedian and talk-show host Bill Maher who discussed how his show, Politically Incorrect, was cut by ABC after he described the 9/11 terrorists as "brave". Using "Reliable Sources" as a barometer, advertisers almost never influence content: an assertion that would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.

....Of course, to be fair, do we really expect people who rake in hundreds of thousands - and in some cases millions - of dollars a year from the very corporations who benefit from the relaxation of ownership rules, the avalanche of advertising money and the good graces of those in power to muster the courage to expose the flaws in the commercial system? No, and that is the problem. Shows like "Reliable Sources" only highlight how toothless the corporate news media can be when faced with the ire of their paymasters. It is much easier to blame weak, trite, lapdog journalism on bad reporters and dim-witted audience members, because the alternative is far too terrible to consider.

Christian Christensen is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Communication at Bahcesehir University in Istanbul, Turkey. He can be reached at bahcesehircc@yahoo.com.

....read it all: First "Crossfire"...Now Axe "Reliable Sources" by Christian Christensen, CommonDreams.org, 16 January 2005

Pay bloggers to endorse products, says guru

2005-01-21T10:12:00.000-08:00

As blog readership rises, some smart marketers are wisely dipping their toes into the blog marketing waters. However, they’re overlooking perhaps one of the most attractive and untapped opportunities -- signing bloggers to product endorsement deals.

In 2004 the blogosphere established itself as a major influence on public opinion. According to a study released earlier this month by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, a full 27 percent of all online users now read blogs, a 58 percent increase from early last year.

With interest in blogs rising, some bloggers are rapidly becoming celebrities. They’re popping up in the press, attracting flocks of followers and, in some cases, even a roster of advertisers. And why not? They deserve it. After all, these “A-listers” can easily sway the opinions of thousands.

Unfortunately, minus a few exceptions, most marketers are still playing very safe when it comes to blog advertising. They’re taking a big media approach to the new wild, wooly micro media world. This includes buying ads on blog advertising networks operated by BURST!, BlogAds, Pheedo and Google AdSense, or sponsoring entire blogs outright as Audi did with the Jalopnik auto blog.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with any of these methods, they fail to capitalize on the blogosphere’s greatest value -- their influence. Blogs are very different animals than mainstream sites. They are written by passionate individuals you can reach out and touch, not by professionals. Bloggers share a deep sense of connection with their readers that marketers would die to tap into. They’re like rock stars. This is why you should treat bloggers like celebrities who can have tremendous power to inspire and lead others, rather than treating blogs as just another place to advertise.

....read it all: Would You Buy a Car from this Blogger? by Steve Rubel, imediaconnection, January 19, 2005

PR giant admits Armstrong Williams deal violated industry guidelines

2005-01-21T10:07:00.000-08:00

The public relations firm that arranged for pundit Armstrong Williams to promote the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind education program admitted Wednesday that the deal with Williams violated "the guidelines of our agency and our industry."

The statement by Ketchum Inc. came on the same day that Bush's nominee for Education secretary, Margaret Spelling, promised to review the promotional tactics used by the Department of Education.

USA TODAY reported this month that Ketchum, as part of a $1 million contract with the Education Department, paid Williams $240,000 to "regularly comment" on No Child Left Behind during his syndicated TV talk show. The contract also called on Williams to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for spots that aired during the show in 2004.

The arrangement raises questions about whether the Education Department broke the law by using taxpayers' money to pay for "propaganda," and whether Williams and Ketchum should have disclosed the commentator's deal to his viewers, readers of his syndicated newspaper column and listeners of his radio show.

The Education Department's inspector general pledged Wednesday to investigate "potential covert propaganda" in "current and past similar contracts." The Federal Communications Commission also is examining whether the deal violated "payola" provisions of the Communications Act.

In its statement, first published in PRWeek magazine, Ketchum acknowledged a "lapse in judgment" and said it "should have encouraged greater disclosure" by Williams.

"We regret this has occurred," the company said in the statement.

....read it all: PR firm admits deal broke rules by Mark Memmott and Greg Toppo, USA Today, 20 January 2005.

Enron-exposing journo reveals checkered past

2005-01-21T09:40:00.000-08:00

Says the New York Post:

MOVE over, Jayson Blair — here comes Jason Leopold!

While Leopold isn't guilty of the kind of journalistic sins that doomed the New York Times fabricator, he is flogging his own media-centric mea culpa, "Off the Record: An Investigative Journalist's Inside View of Dirty Politics, Corporate Scandal and a Double Life Exposed" (Rowman & Littlefield).

In the fashionably confessional tome, the Enron-scooping former Dow Jones L.A. bureau chief reveals a secret criminal past that included felony convictions for grand larceny and forgery. He battled cocaine addiction and admits he lied on his résumé about graduating from New York University.

Leopold, 35, landed an exclusive interview with former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling after the energy giant declared bankruptcy in 2001.

The next year, he linked Army Secretary Gen. Thomas White to fraud at Enron in a controversial story for Salon.com. The subsequent backlash resulted in the piece being pulled from the site. He had previously been fired by Dow Jones for flubbing figures in another Enron piece.

"I was so obsessed with Enron," Leopold told us, "I made some errors in judgment . . . I wasn't using drugs anymore, but I was acting like a drug addict. I got high on these news stories. I really was still running away from this stuff about my past."
Leopold says he felt a certain kinship with Skilling. "Here I was interviewing the biggest white-collar criminal in the country, and at the same time I had a felony conviction that I was concealing," he said. "I think that's what allowed me to ask all the right questions and figure out what was going on."

The self-styled Enron addict's legal trouble stemmed from a scheme in which he stole more than 10,000 CDs from Milan Records, where he used to work, and sold them to mom-and-pop record shops in Manhattan for cash to subsidize his coke habit before he became a newspaper reporter.

These days, Leopold is working as a consultant for "Blackout," an A&E cable channel movie about the New York blackout of 2003 — but he has high hopes of making some money off of his life story.

He says his reps at Creative Artists Agency are trying to turn his book into a movie or TV series. "The talk is that Johnny Depp is pursuing it as a producer or maybe starring in the film, but some people are saying it might be better as a TV series," he told us. "Sort of like Michael Chicklis in 'The Shield.' Sort of like an anti-hero."

Blogger enlists reader support to find Bush Administration Social Security spin in the news

2005-01-21T09:06:00.000-08:00

Josh Marshall is asking readers to look for Social Security spin, motivating them with an offer of a free T-shirt:

We are creating a bounty for TPM readers who come up with instances where supporters of President Bush's Social Security phase-out plan used the term "privatization" (or other forms of the word -- "privatize", etc.) to describe their policy. In most cases, those examples will be prior to the time when Karl Rove and the RNC decreed the word to be outlawed. But some will be cases like the president's above where folks had a momentary lapse and forgot the new party directive.

To create the proper incentives we'll be assigning point values for different kinds of quotes. TPM readers who amass ten points will win one of our Special Edition Privatize This! TPM T-Shirts.

VC's pushing wireless

2005-01-15T10:22:00.000-08:00

Why so much business news coverage of wireless technology? Maybe, among other reasons, it's because venture capitalists hoping to profit have decided it's time to tout it:

When a large group of VCs all agree that something is hot, you can almost hear the bubble expanding. This is both good and bad, but everyone should go in with their eyes open.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer asked six local venture capitalists for their predictions for 2005, and four out of the six specifically named wireless as the hot area to watch in 2005. One of the two who didn't name it specifically danced pretty close to wireless with all of his predictions ("consumer home control, digital media and computing appliances; Ultra-microcomputing; Voice-over IP infrastructure"), so it seems reasonable to include his vote for wireless as well. As in any case where "five out of six experts agree!" you may wonder what that last one was thinking. In this case, his focus is on business intelligence and hosted applications, suggesting he's still looking back at the farm for the big enterprise applications and data services -- but even those are starting to go mobile as well.

....read it all: 5 Out Of 6 VCs Agree: Now Is The Time To Hype Wireless by Mike Masnick, The Feature, 15 January 2005

Masnick refers to Venture Capital: Six experts look into crystal ball for 2005, by John Cook, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 14 January 2005. High on wireless or VoIP in '05, according to Cook, and all but one in Seattle:

Steve Arnold, Polaris Venture Partners
Greg Gottesman, Madrona Venture Group
Len Jordan, Frazier Technology Ventures
Bill McAleer, Voyager Capital
Melissa Widner, SeaPoint Ventures, Bellevue