Fw: How The Media Deceives You About Health Issues

[Guest guest]

From: ilena rose <ilena@...>

Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 2:58 PM

Subject: How The Media Deceives You About Health Issues

>

> http://www.mercola.com/2001/feb/17/media_deception.htm

>

> 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 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

> * 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?

>

>

> 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 of, 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

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>