== BLOG POSTINGS ==

1. The Election Protection Wiki:  A Dynamic Website Helps Safeguard America’s Right to Vote

2. The Beginning of the End of Cigarettes for Sale in Pharmacies?

== SPIN OF THE DAY POSTINGS ==

1. Deceiving Images

2. US Contractors Paid to Pack Iraqi Media with Propaganda

3. Conflicted Pentagon Pundits Asked to ‘Fess Up

4. Will New Propaganda Ban Have an Impact?

5. Supreme Court to Hear Case About Low Tar/Low Nicotine Fraud

6. Not Following the Pharma Money

7. Costly Silence

8. Weekly Radio Spin: As the Global Financial Market Spins

9. FDA Tries to Pay Qorvis $300K Under the Table

10. Johns Hopkins Make Reports Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

11. Don’t We Deserve Better than More Attack Ads?

12. Energy Front Group Calls for Investigation of Environmentalists

13. Coal Burners Invest in Environmental Journalism

14. Justice, Texas-Style

——————————————————————–

== BLOG POSTINGS ==

1. THE ELECTION PROTECTION WIKI:  A DYNAMIC WEBSITE HELPS SAFEGUARD AMERICA’S RIGHT TO VOTE

Contact: Conor Kenny, Managing Editor, Election Protection Wiki

Phone: (202) 277-6427; Email: conor@sourcewatch.org

      The non-profit, non-partisan Center for Media and Democracy

 (CMD) has launched a unique website to help safeguard the fairness

 and integrity of US elections,  using the power of citizen

 journalism.  The Election Protection Wiki is now online at

 http://www.EPWiki.org .  It enables citizens, journalists and

 government officials to actively monitor the electoral process in

 all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  CMD and its community

 of volunteer editors will continue to improve, expand and update the

 EP Wiki beyond the upcoming November 4th election.

      The EP Wiki is part of CMD’s award-winning SourceWatch

 website and operates on wiki software which allows anyone who

 registers on the website to participate in creating and updating

 articles.  SourceWatch contains in-depth articles on every member of

 (and most candidates for) the US Congress at

 http://www.Congresspedia.org .  CMD employs both professional and

 volunteer editors who work together online to ensure articles are

 fair, accurate and fully documented.

To read the rest of this item, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7817

2. THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF CIGARETTES FOR SALE IN PHARMACIES?

by Anne Landman

      On October 1, 2008, the city of San Francisco put a law into

 effect that prohibits the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies.

 Walgreens drug store chain and Altria/Philip Morris have filed

 lawsuits against the city over the measure. In a September 30, 2008

 statement about the new law, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

 related the city’s simple rationale: “Pharmacies should be places

 where people go to get better, not where people go to get cancer.”

      Familiar corner drug store chains like Rite Aid and Walgreens

 have long cultivated an image of being all about health. Their web

 sites feature photos of friendly-looking pharmacists in white coats

 ready to help us with our health care needs. The Rite Aid company

 Web site tells us they are “committed to the healthcare needs of our

 customers.” CVS says its vision is to “strive to improve the quality

 of human life” by making “high-quality health and pharmacy services

 safe” and easy to access.  Walgreens says it stands ready to help

 people by supplying “health and wellness products” and health

 information. If all this makes you feel that these drugstore chains

 have your best interests at heart, it’s certainly by design. But

 don’t be don’t be taken in too easily.

To read the rest of this item, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7809

== SPIN OF THE DAY POSTINGS ==

1. DECEIVING IMAGES
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7826

 In November of last year, a panel of scholars met at the New York

 Public Library to mark the 60th anniversary of George Orwell’s

 landmark essay, “Politics and the English Language,” and to discuss

 the current state of propaganda in American politics. A video from

 that panel is now available on the internet. How are political

 messages framed? How are they decoded by their audience? These and

 similar questions are explored by panelists including George Lakoff,

 a professor of cognitive linguistics and a guru of Democratic

 political messaging; Republican pollster and messaging consultant

 Frank Luntz; and Drew Weston, a professor of psychology and author

 of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of

 the Nation. Among other things, the discussion demonstrates that

 political pundits are no better at predicting the future than anyone

 else. (Luntz, for example, repeatedly predicts that Hillary Clinton

 will become the next president.) But if you want to understand how

 rhetorical framing works and how political strategists strategize,

 this 85-minute video provides some interesting examples.

SOURCE: Link TV

2. US CONTRACTORS PAID TO PACK IRAQI MEDIA WITH PROPAGANDA
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7825

 The Washington Post provides a bit more information on the

 previously reported $300 million US tax dollars paid to private

 contractors to propagandize Iraq over the next three years.   The

 money will be used to “produce news stories, entertainment programs

 and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort

 to ‘engage and inspire’ the local population to support U.S.

 objectives and the Iraqi government.  …  The four companies that

 will share in the new contract are SOSi, the Washington-based

 Lincoln Group, Alexandria-based MPRI and Leonie Industries, a Los

 Angeles contractor. All specialize in strategic communications and

 have done previous defense work.”

SOURCE: Washington Post, October 3, 2008

3. CONFLICTED PENTAGON PUNDITS ASKED TO ‘FESS UP
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7824

 “The Federal Communications Commission has begun notifying several

 TV military analysts that it is probing congressional complaints

 that the pundits did not properly disclose their ties to the

 Pentagon when reviewing the war in Iraq on air,” reports Paul

 Bedard. The FCC sent letters to some of the so-called “Pentagon

 pundits” on October 2, in response to a complaint filed with the

 agency by Representatives John Dingell and Rosa DeLauro. Several of

 the pundits named in the New York Times expose of the Pentagon

 pundit program were employees of or lobbyists for military

 contractors. The FCC letter to the pundits “suggests that TV

 stations and networks may have violated two sections of the

 Communications Act of 1934 by not identifying the ties to the

 Pentagon.” The agency is asking the pundits “to respond to the

 allegations of wrongdoing within 30 days.”

SOURCE: U.S. News & World Report blog “Washington Whispers,” October 6, 2008

4. WILL NEW PROPAGANDA BAN HAVE AN IMPACT?
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7823

 In April 2008, the New York Times exposed the Pentagon pundit

 scandal, where the Defense Department cultivated retired military

 officials who are frequent media commentators, to serve as “message

 force multipliers” for Bush administration policies on Iraq,

 Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and other controversial topics. In

 response, members of Congress condemned the program and called for

 investigations. Three investigations are pending, but one bill

 recently passed Congress. Senator John Kerry, its lead sponsor, says

 the measure will ensure that “taxpayer money isn’t used to peddle

 propaganda on the American people.” But the measure, introduced as

 S. 3099, neither defines what constitutes “propaganda” nor

 establishes enforcement mechanisms. It also bans Pentagon propaganda

 “within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized,”

 without clarifying if that extends to web-based or broadcast

 materials intended for foreign audiences but accessible from the

 United States. The Defense Department has claimed that

 propagandizing U.S. audiences is permissible, as long as that was

 not the government’s intent.

SOURCE: Press release, Senator John Kerry’s office, September 30, 2008

5. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR CASE ABOUT LOW TAR/LOW NICOTINE FRAUD
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7822

 The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2008-2009 session today by

 hearing a case about whether cigarette makers have defrauded smokers

 with implied claims about the relative safety of “light” and “low

 tar” cigarettes.  At issue is the question of preemption, a legal

 doctrine that holds that federal laws can take precedence over some

 state laws. The tobacco companies are arguing that they should not

 be held responsible for labeling and advertising that was approved

 by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The FTC, which has long

 required that cigarette packs be labeled as to how much “tar” and

 nicotine they deliver, argues that the agency itself was fooled

 because tobacco companies hid internal research data that showed

 smokers did not benefit from switching to light or low tar

 cigarettes. In August 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys

 Kessler, in the landmark U.S. Department of Justice case against the

 industry, ruled that cigarette makers purposely misled smokers into

 believing that light cigarettes were less safer than regular

 cigarettes, and now more than 30 class action lawsuits on the issue

 of the tobacco industry’s “light” and “low tar” cigarette fraud are

 currently pending across the U.S. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this

 case could either affirm or invalidate all of them.

SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2008

6. NOT FOLLOWING THE PHARMA MONEY
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7818

 Medical research conflicts of interest are in the news lately,

 thanks to recent congressional hearings by Senator Charles Grassley.

 But are journalists part of the problem? A new study in the Journal

 of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that reporters for

 print and online media outlets failed 42 percent of the time to

 mention drug company funding of research cited in their stories.

 When asked, however, 88 percent of newspaper editors insisted that

 their publications “always or often” included funding information in

 their stories — even though only 3 percent actually had a policy

 requiring such disclosure. “If you’re wondering about professional

 standards,” comments Merrill Goozner, “the Association of Health

 Care Journalists lists reporting the financing of research and

 conflicts of interest of researchers as its number one guideline for

 health care reporters. This latest survey shows that the word has

 yet to filter down to the majority of reporters out there.” The JAMA

 study also found that 67 percent of news stories mentioned the brand

 names of drugs rather than their generic names, further reinforcing

 pharmaceutical industry marketing campaigns. Once again, editors of

 the offending publications claimed that their reporting practices

 were better than they actually were, with 77 percent of editors

 insisting that they always or often reported only the generic names

 of medications.

SOURCE: Gooz News, October 1, 2008

7. COSTLY SILENCE
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7816

 The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), a UK

 government agency charged with deciding whether drugs should be

 subsidized by the British government, has been criticized by some

 patient groups for refusing to approve new and expensive drugs.

 Groups including the National Kidney Federation, the Arthritis and

 Musculoskeletal Alliance, the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society,

 Beating Bowel Cancer, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and

 the Alzheimer’s Society have all objected against NICE decisions.

 “All of these charities received sums of up to six figures from drug

 companies in 2007,” reports Jeremy Laurance, the health editor with

 The Independent. “A positive decision by NICE on a drug not only

 guarantees sales to the NHS but can influence global markets worth

 billions of pounds. Yet none of the charities named has criticised

 the high prices charged by the pharmaceutical companies for their

 products in their recent campaigns,” he wrote.

SOURCE: The Independent (UK), October 1, 2008

8. WEEKLY RADIO SPIN: AS THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL MARKET SPINS
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7814

 Listen to THIS WEEK’S EDITION of the “Weekly Radio Spin,” the

 Center for Media and Democracy’s audio report on the stories behind

 the news. This week, we look at the dangers posed by

 environmentalists, university payola and the FDA’s spin doctors. In

 “Six Degrees of Spin and Fakin’,” we learn about one patriotic

 sounding front group. The Weekly Radio Spin is freely available for

 personal and broadcast use. Podcasters can subscribe to the XML feed

 on www.prwatch.org/audio or via iTunes. If you air the Weekly Radio

 Spin on your radio station, please email us at editor@prwatch.org to

 let us know. Thanks!

SOURCE: Center for Media and Democracy, October 3, 2008

9. FDA TRIES TO PAY QORVIS $300K UNDER THE TABLE
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7808

 After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was “pummeled by

 Congress for poor inspections of tainted vegetables, drugs and other

 products,” the agency wanted public relations help. First, it hired

 Mildred Cooper as “a temporary FDA consultant … on a two-year

 contract to advise FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach and

 other officials.” Cooper, who previously did public affairs work for

 the Defense Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency, then

 contacted a friend at the PR firm Qorvis Communications. The friend

 directed her to Qorvis crisis communications director Don Goldberg.

 Goldberg worked with Cooper to steer an additional FDA contract to

 Qorvis. But, as Goldberg explained, “It was not appropriate [for the

 FDA] to hire Qorvis directly.” Instead, the PR proposal came from

 Alaska Newspapers Inc. (ANI), “a firm owned by an Alaska Native

 corporation that does not have to compete for federal work.” Emails

 between the FDA’s Cooper and Qorvis’ Goldberg show that ANI agreed

 beforehand to give the $300,000 no-bid contract to Qorvis. Qorvis

 also works for the drug industry group PhRMA. The FDA contract,

 which was supposed to “create and foster a lasting positive image of

 the agency for the American public,” has since been suspended. The

 House Committee on Energy and Commerce may investigate the contract,

 according to chair John Dingell.

SOURCE: Washington Post, October 2, 2008

10. JOHNS HOPKINS MAKE REPORTS BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7807

 As part of a broader public relations and lobbying push,

 Kazakhstan’s government paid Johns Hopkins University to author

 three reports about the country. The arrangement was brokered

 through APCO Worldwide, Kazakhstan’s Washington DC lobbying firm.

 The Kazakh government paid $52,300 for reports titled “Kazakhstan’s

 New Middle Class” and “Parliament and Political Parties in

 Kazakhstan.” A third report, “Kazakhstan in its Neighborhood,” was

 “also underwritten by the government,” but lobbying reports that

 would disclose the amount paid for it are not yet available. The

 reports, issued by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns

 Hopkins, do not disclose the Kazakhstan funding. Institute director

 S. Frederick Starr said their “relationship was only with the

 lobbying firm and not directly with the government.” He added that

 “the entire editorial process was 100 percent in our hands.” The

 author of the third report, Hudson Institute fellow Richard Weitz,

 said, “It’s an important topic so I would have written about it

 anyway.” The Kazakhstan funding also required the Johns Hopkins

 Institute to sponsor “think tank discussions” on each report,

 “sponsored by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.”

SOURCE: ABC News, September 29, 2008

11. DON’T WE DESERVE BETTER THAN MORE ATTACK ADS?
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7805

 As the political action committee (PAC) “Our Country Deserves

 Better” prepares for its national tour of “patriotic rallies”

 against Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, columnist

 Bill Berkowitz interviews the PAC’s coordinator, Joe Wierzbicki.

 Like many of the PAC’s officers, Wierzbicki works for the

 Republican-associated PR firm Russo Marsh & Rogers and with the

 pro-war group Move America Forward. Wierzbicki said the PAC hopes to

 “raise in excess of $1 million by Election Day,” and run ads in “ten

 states.” In regards to the PAC’s ad that questions Obama’s

 statements on religion, Wierzbicki asked, “Is Barack Obama’s faith

 the Muslim registration listed by his family when he was a student

 growing up in Indonesia? Or is it the black liberation theology

 espoused by Reverend Jeremiah Wright…? Or is it the mainstream

 Christianity he identified with in the forum hosted by Pastor Rick

 Warren?” But Wierzbicki claimed his PAC isn’t “Swiftboating” Obama,

 because, for example, “We’ve not used the photographs of Barack

 Obama in what some call ‘Muslim garb’ because the photos by

 themselves are inconclusive.” They also decided, “despite the

 controversy that her words created,” not to “use Michelle Obama’s

 comments about this being the first time in her adult life that she

 was proud to be an American.” Move America Forward also launched the

 MAF Freedom PAC, which opposes Obama and supports various Republican

 Congressional candidates.

SOURCE: MediaTransparency.com, September 26, 2008

12. ENERGY FRONT GROUP CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7804

 Americans for American Energy (AAE), an energy front group

 established by the public relations firm Pac/West Communications,

 asked Congress to investigate “possible illegal coordination between

 U.S. Interior Department officials and several national

 environmental groups.” At issue are contacts between the

 Department’s National Landscape Conservation System and the

 Wilderness Society and National Wildlife Federation — groups AAE

 accuses of “pursuing an anti-American energy political agenda.”

 According to Representative Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah, the

 Interior Department’s inspector general is already looking into the

 matter. Federal employees are generally prohibited “from using

 appropriated funds or their official positions to lobby Congress.”

 The Deseret News notes that the probe “comes after the Interior

 Department … found that officials at its Minerals Management

 Service engaged in sexual relationships with energy industry

 representatives, and accepted gifts from them.”

SOURCE: Deseret News (Salt Lake City, Utah), September 25, 2008

13. COAL BURNERS INVEST IN ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISM
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7802

 The Society for Environmental Journalists (SEJ), which promotes

 “excellence in environmental journalism,” is gearing up for its

 annual conference in Roanoke, Virginia in mid-October. As the

 conference is in the “heart of coal country,” numerous sessions will

 address “the status and future of big coal.” Richard Pauli, who

 writes the NoEnergyTomorrow blog, notes that two of the conference’s

 “premier sponsors” are the coal-addicted energy corporations

 American Electric Power and Dominion Power. “It’s like seeing a

 Heart Association 10k race sponsored by a tobacco company,” he

 wrote. In response, SEJ Executive Director Beth Parke stated that

 the corporate funding is for Virgina Tech, which will host the

 conference, and not directly for SEJ. Pauli noted SEJ’s response,

 suggesting that “an improved analogy might be that of a track meet

 being held in a stadium that shows tobacco advertising. It may not

 be connected to the team, but they have to run below the sign.”

SOURCE: Society for Environmental Journalists website, October 2008

14. JUSTICE, TEXAS-STYLE
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7801

 Justice Dale Wainwright, a sitting Republican member of the Texas

 Supreme Court, is up for election later this year. Journalist Clay

 Robison notes that Wainwright is busy fundraising and this “means

 collecting campaign money, perfectly legally, from litigants and

 potential litigants.” One of the hosts of a recent fundraising event

 for Wainwright was the Texas Civil Justice League, which contributed

 $6,000 to his campaign. The league, Robison writes, is “one of

 several business-oriented groups that have filed briefs urging the

 high court to reaffirm a controversial decision giving refineries

 and other industrial plants a new shield against liability claims

 from contract workers injured on the job.” The next hearing on the

 case is in two weeks’ time. Other sponsors of the fundraising event

 included ConocoPhillips, Koch Industries, American Electric Power,

 AT&T, Pfizer and the Texas Medical Association, “all of whom also

 are keenly interested in the outcome of the contract workers’ case

 or any number of other issues before the high court.”

SOURCE: Houston Chronicle, September 28, 2008

——————————————————————–

The Weekly Spin features selected news summaries with links to

further information about media, political spin and propaganda. It

is emailed free each Wednesday to subscribers.

PR Watch, Spin of the Day, the Weekly Spin and SourceWatch are

projects of the Center for Media & Democracy, a nonprofit

organization that offers investigative reporting on the public

relations industry. We help the public recognize manipulative and

misleading PR practices by exposing the activities of secretive,

little-known propaganda-for-hire firms that work to control

political debates and public opinion. Please send any questions or

suggestions about our publications to editor@prwatch.org.

To subscribe to the Weekly Spin, visit: http://www.prwatch.org/sub

CMD also sponsors SourceWatch, a collaborative research project

that invites anyone (including you) to contribute and edit articles.

For more information, visit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org

Contributions to the Center for Media and Democracy are

tax-deductible. To donate now online, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/donate