PR and the 3rd party technique
Astroturfing
Manufacturing news

The hologram metaphor

What is a hologram? What does media mean? Mediating communication-mass media is communication to mass public. So what happens if the mediation between consumers and newsmakers is inherently biased, and producing a view of reality that represents certain political interests with money to influence the public? In other words, what happens if what we see on TV or read in the papers is more of a hologram, an empty image projected, and what's really going on behind the scenes is a mystery that would take some time, effort and expertise to unravel?

Here are some interesting quotes (from Rampton and Stauber's book):

"Media plans are routine in PR although they don't sound too good when they hit print."

"Don't put anything in writing you don't want to be on page one of your newspaper."

Third party technique: 'put your words in someone else's mouth'

'You never know when a PR agency is being effective; you'll just find your views slowly shifting' (Kerry and public opinion)

Reliance on 'experts'

How is the public supposed to make sense of public policies? Who understands the intricacies of Social Security, Medicare, nuclear power generation, the intelligence community, foreign policy, etc.? The rise of the expert, the scientist, the independent observer, has accompanied the increasing complexity of policy. Ironically, though, it has often led to people telling us that it's not complex at all, but really very simple.

We rely on experts to help us 'translate' complex issues. Few of us have time or interest in becoming experts ourselves. But how do we know who the experts are, where they come from, who's paying their salaries, and what side of the political spectrum their views might represent? Being called an 'expert' implies some impartiality, objectivity. Think back to the third party technique--'putting your words in other people's mouths.' What if those people were scientists, professionals, seemingly independent and disinterested, but also were called on by network TV news and major newspapers and media outlets to provide opinions on a variety of subjects? Remember the 'sourcing' filter in the propaganda model.

Public relations firms-what do they do?

They work in the background--not like advertisers. They're there to keep a person's, or a corporation's, public image clean. Here are some of the more distressing examples of what PR firms are capable (from Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber's book, Trust us! We're experts!):

• The Nigerian Government was involved in an ethnic massacre, which involved the execution of a playwright. The playwright had accused Shell Oil of waging 'ecological war' (Nigeria is a large oil producing country). International condemnation of the Nigerian Government and Shell was swift. The government responded with full-page glossy ads in minority-owned newspapers in the U.S., and invitations to the editors to tour Nigeria on a 'fact-finding mission.' It must have worked; criticism died down, and some of the editorial pages actually accused those condemning the Nigerian Government of racism.
• Microsoft was involved in a large anti-trust suit a few years ago (because they had bundled their internet and software services, loaded on most personal computers sold). They hired a PR firm to create a perception of a 'public groundswell' of opposition to the government's lawsuit. A couple of economics researchers working at the Independent Institute wrote a book, which was endorsed by the Wall Street Journal, etc. Turns out Netscape (one of Microsoft's Corporate rivals, now merged with AOL Time-Warner) was going through dumpsters, and gained evidence that Microsoft was trying to deceive the public into thinking that there was popular opposition against the suit. They gave the evidence to a journalist at the Los Angeles Times. Another tech company, Oracle, helped orchestrate the release of the evidence to the media . . . It made Microsoft look pretty bad, and the PR campaign went away. As for the book, it turns out that the 'Independent Institute wasn't very independent--20% of its funding was coming from Microsoft.
• Consumer Alert' vs 'Consumer Union'-the former is funded entirely by large corporations-alcohol, tobacco, insurance, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, petrochemicals; they're often used in news stories about consumer product liability, but the source of their financing or their obvious conflict of interest is rarely divulged to readers/viewers. The Consumer Union on the other hand is funded through member subscription, and actually is designed to provide information helpful to consumers (but often damaging to large corporations fearing product liability suits).
• MOP-'mothers opposing pollution'--This was supposedly a popular movement of mothers in Australia, opposed to plastic milk cartons because of their nondegradability in landfills. A journalist traced the organization's spokesperson to 3 P.O. boxes, and eventually to a large PR firm working for a liquidpaperboard company (making--you guessed it! Paper milk cartons).
• PR experts in the 1920s were paid by tobacco companies to manufacture a scheme to market cigarettes to women. Women were at the time fighting for equal rights, had long fought for and recently won the right to vote, etc. A planned parade was to include women smoking, being seen as rebellious, and the idea that women could smoke as a symbol of rebellion took off. Virginia Slims did this in the late 1960s:

  'you've come a long way, babeeee,
  to get where you got to todaaaay,
  You've got your own cigarette now, babeee,
  You've come a long, long way!'

  Yes, women could not only smoke, but had their own cigarette! How utterly cool! Philip Morris (now 'Altria'--here, have a press release--really!). They're doing it even now--targeting minority women.

• A more recent example involves Oregon--Measure 36, the referendum to cap malpractice liability awards handed down in jury trials. Here's the dilemma:
• Liability suits--malpractice or otherwise--cost medical practitioners, product manufacturers and insurance companies huge sums of money.
  • who benefits, who is harmed? Who would like to reduce or eliminate citizens' rights to a jury trial in malpractice or product liability cases? If you're opposed to them, how do you frame the debate?
  • Tort 'reform' was the initial movement in the U.S. This refers to reform of civil law. The word 'reform' here is loaded--what's wrong with torts, and why do they need reforming? Reform is one of those 'bad words' we talked about in class.
  • What is a tort anyway?? Most people didn't know, and tort reform didn't resonate with focus groups. So PR firms changed the nature of the debate, to villify a professional class that has been in some respects reviled since Shakespeare's day: lawyers. PR firms created 'front groups,' phony grassroots organizations, often called 'astroturfing' (because it's 'artificial grassroots'). Some of the names are Citizens against lawsuit abuse; Lawsuit Abuse Watch, Institute for legal reform, Sick of Lawsuit Abuse (a subsidiary of Citizens against lawsuit abuse ...). The original backers were the American Tort Reform Association
  • The PR firm: APCO & Associates. Large corporate donors, including tobacco, insurance, oil and gas, chemical and pharmaceutical companies, medical associations and auto manufacturers. They are also funded by ATRA, as well as professional associations, local businesses and industries that also wish to be shielded from consumer lawsuits.

From an APCO employee: In 1994, APCO's Cohen explained the CALA "grassroots" strategy in a speech before a gathering of corporate public affairs executives sponsored by the Public Affairs Council, an organization of some 500 corporations and trade associations. "Rule No. 1 for me is stay away from substance," Cohen said. "Don't talk about the details of legislation. Talk about frivolous lawsuits, lawsuit abuse, trial lawyer greed." He explained the need for front groups. "In a tort reform battle," he said, "if State Farm -- I think they're here, [they're] Nationwide -- is the leader of the coalition, you're not going to pass the bill. It's not credible, O.K., because it's so self-serving."

So, get someone who seems impartial, independent, and put the words in their mouth. Here are some examples of PR campaigns (from sourcewatch.org). And there is the infamous Jessica Lynch story, brought to you by the Rendon Group.

top of page

The third party technique

Essentially, as Rampton and Stauber write, the third party technique involves 'putting your words in someone else's mouth'. For instance, if the Ford Motor Company wants to question global climate change research (for obvious reasons ... ), would anyone take them seriously if they used some of their own experts? Not likely. So they would find a third party, some expert, preferably with credibility--a scientist, celebrity, someone who seems to be independent, etc., to question the research for them. Maybe with a name like 'Research Institute for American Competitiveness in a Global Society.' Who could argue with that??

The whole idea of PR, as opposed to advertising, is to work in the background. PR firms are paid vast sums of money not to become celebrities, but to put words and ideas into other people's mouths. Even the Pentagon's spokesperson from the Iraq War, Charlotte Beers, was hired from the PR industry--hired not for her mastery of diplomatic skills, but for her knowledge and understanding of the art of persuasion, applied to Arab and Islamic countries (here's an interview with her from PBS. She has since resigned, by the way)

Media and Deception

Deception is possible in all forms of communication-language allows lying, for instance. With the Internet, we could have a 14 yr-old posing as a supermodel in a chat room, or a 30 yr-old pedophile posing as a 14 yr old. TV relies on deception, unreality . . . reality TV may be the worst of this--they are as slickly produced as any TV show, and usually the age range of the actors is what, 22-25? What about radio-what are we getting? Do we know much about the voices at the other end? And newspapers? In some cases, stories that appear are actually press releases sent out by a company (promoting a new product, for instance), but they are presented as news.

Phony grassroots activism--'astroturfing'

Here's another way that the third party technique can be used. Some corporations fund groups with names that make them sound like grassroots organizations, or popular social movements. Here are some examples:

• Americans for Technology Leadership-These particular Americans, whoever they are, get their money from Microsoft. Other organizations such as the Citizens against Government Waste are included in the 'about us' link, but their minimal funding support is provided by the Olin and Bradley foundations (see below).
• American Civil Rights Institute-the 'new' civil rights movement, which is against affirmative action, 'racial preferences'. Not the one associated with the 1964 Civil Rights Law or anything else. There are also the American Civil Rights Coalition, Center for Equal Opportunity, Independent women's forum (an anti-feminist group), institute for justice. Check out http://www.acri.org/. They're all related, too. Funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee.
• National Right to work (anti-union group funded by the Olin Foundation, whose family made its fortunes in chemicals and munitions)
• Food for all (check out the corporate ads on the home page)
• Citizens for a sound economy (tobacco, Koch industries-opposing cig taxes, Scaife Foundations, Claude Lambe Foundation, etc.)
  

Why is this phony activism? Because corporate-backed movements aren't activist movements--it's a perversion of the idea of social activism, but you wouldn't know that by just reading the paper, hearing the news ('the American Civil Rights Coalition says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem, and affirmative action serves no useful purpose'). The idea is to deceive--put your words into someone else's mouth, in this case a group that pretends to be for civil rights, but is actually trying to protect the rights of whites and property owners (predominantly white). That's why it's called 'astroturfing'--it isn't real grassroots organizing, it's corporate-backed and funded, and designed to protect corporate interests. An excellent source of information about companies and foundations you might hear about is www.mediatransparency.org.

The Republican Party also uses the astroturfing technique. Check out the Google Search on 'Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership.'

Want to put together your own phony grassroots campaign? Arianna Huffington, author of Pigs at the Trough (a look at corporate welfare and public corruption), has provided a handy table for you (I've added a few things). Just mix and match, and make your own!

top of page

Manufactured news--back to the experts

Oftentimes journalists are overworked, outlets understaffed. This causes many to rely on outside experts, people they can call to get opinions--watch the news and see how many 'experts' get interviewed on various issues. How objective are they? We can only assume that the media outlet has chosen them because they are independent, but occasionally you'll hear they're affiliated with think tanks of various sorts. Some of the conservative think tanks include the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Hudson Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute (this was a big one during the Iraq War--Bush made several speeches at their meetings). Liberal think tanks are less common. The Brookings Institution does policy research, and often times the results contrast with conservatives' views, but it is not affiliated with the Democratic Party as the former are with the Republican Party. In fact one of its scholars, Kenneth Pollack, recently wrote a book supporting the Iraq War, and much of their money comes from the Olin and Bradley Foundations mentioned above (Pollack has since recanted and changed his views on the war).

PR news releases-blurring the lines between commercials and news

Journalists often pick up stories from PR Newswire and print it as news. PR Newswire is sort of like the Associated Press, except it's entirely PR-driven. Your company has a news release, you pay to put it up on their site. People who are interested can check it out. But journalists can also use this stuff as news. Magazines that might be owned by a company that owns the company getting the press release out can also pretend that this is news, not advertising.

Some studies have shown that one-third to one-half of news stories are based on news releases. We've all seen the infomercial, right? An extended commercial, sometimes made to look like a phony talk show, or the women with beautiful complexions in soft light sitting around talking about these fabulous skin care products that actually reverse the aging process. Often times there is a celebrity, who hasn't been getting calls from his/her agent lately, hosting these things. There is the phony broadcaster whose job it is to ask questions of the 'inventor' (e.g., in the case of Ron Popeil and RonCo). There are the testimonials from consumers, the paid audience where thoughtful head-nodding gets rewarded with a brief cameo shot.

Good PR is similar--it's just much more slick. You can't tell it's a commercial like you can with the infomercial Take the case of the video news release. The White House has used this technique to try to sell its Medicare plan for prescription drug coverage, using a PR firm called Home Front communications. In early 2004, they produced two video news releases for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) promoting the benefits of the recently passed but very controversial Medicare law. The VNR's featured scripts produced by the administration with two people posing as 'journalists' doing what purported to be interviews.

Is there anything wrong with this? Using taxpayer money to hire PR firms to do commercials supporting a policy, during an election year, where key swing states have large elderly populations? A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, Kevin W. Keane, told the New York Times "the use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector, ... Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools." So in other words, if the public doesn't know about VNRs, if it thinks this is news, then that's the fault of the uninformed. Here's a link to more info from sourcewatch on VNRs if you're interested.

So, what can PR do for you (if you've got money)?

What can PR do for you?? (if you've got a multi-million dollar budget …)

• Merchandising
• Media strategies-where to 'market,' what sorts of 'experts' to use, etc.
• Damage control (Yerkes and the observatory from the book chapter--there are lots of badly behaving corporations who need some good PR; lots of celebrities, too--in fact, Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' drug campaign was the result of hiring a PR firm when her public image was going south after spending millions to redecorate the White House.
• Celebrity/expert spokespersons (recruiting companies do this for you)
• Coaching of 'experts' in media strategies-impression management--this could include what to wear, the right expressions, the fist pump, reading from a teleprompter, gestures, word choice, etc. Ever wonder why President Bush, a Yale and Harvard graduate whose family is from the Northeast, can't seem to pronounce nuclear?
• How to say nothing without saying 'no comment!'
• Direct mail
• Polling, focus groups
• Lobbying
• Advertising
• Astroturfing

PR firms can help your image, and corporations with lots of money know how to spend it. Pharmaceutical companies probably spend more than anyone on public relations.

PR's roots

Edward Bernays, often considered the 'father of PR,' actually was related to the Freud family. Sigmund Freud's theories of personality were in vogue in the early decades of the 20th century, and focused on the importance of understanding the subconscious mind--the part that we're not even aware of most of the time. Freud thought that many of the problems that people had later in life could be traced to events and relationships with their parents, especially the parent of the opposite sex, and he worked on techniques to try to 'draw out' the subconscious mind to better understand the traumas that had been repressed.

Bernays had another interest, though. Instead of drawing out the subconscious, Bernays was interested in reaching it, mainly to sell goods, ideas, etc. To 'mask the motives of his clients, keep the public unconscious of the forces at work to influence them.'

Bernays' clients included (these examples are from the chapter)

Tobacco companies
Bacon producers (how do you put a stamp of approval on the health benefits of bacon?)
Bananas and the United Fruit company ('celiac' and children)
The 'Temperature research foundation' (to sell refrigerators, stoves, air conditioners)
Light's 'golden jubilee', a big PR campaign for GE (which bought out Thomas Edison):

• Henry Ford got involved-recreated Menlo Park, Edison's laboratory
• Edison was used as a tool--he was old and had to be propped up for half the day
• There was the commemorative postage stamp, the governors' proclamations, the special magazine issues--lots of tie-ins
• and a huge bump for stocks. At least for a short while. This occurred on October 21, 1929. Students of history will know what happened three days later.

Is PR wrong??

It definitely pumps the economy. Does it depend on whose interests are represented, and how honestly? Is it deceptive? Who can afford it? Does the fact that it's expensive mean that tools of public influence are only available to the most powerful elements in society? The third party technique works, usually to spin unpopular ideas or unflattering individual or corporate actors.

How can we sniff out and distinguish PR from news? It takes the acquisition of a certain sense of smell . . . Hopefully you're learning some of the techniques.