Date post: | 19-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | leona-arnold |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Merchants of Doubt Tobacco industry: Public Relations or
Propaganda?
Based on Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway MERCHANTS OF DOUBT, 2010
Public relations (PR) is a field concerned with maintaining public
image for businesses, non-profit organizations or high-profile people, such as celebrities and politicians.
the practice of managing communication between an organization and its publics
Propaganda
a mode of discourse
intended to persuade, to manipulate, and to indoctrinate its audience
into accepting policies
that they might not otherwise support.
Propaganda
Propaganda is a discourse that legitimates certain interests and polices while providing a one-sided, simplified, and distorted, but not necessarily totally untrue, view of events or people.
The Fight over Secondhand Smoke
By the mid-1980s, nearly every American knew that smoking caused cancer and other illnesses
However, the tobacco industry successfully promoted and sustained doubt.
When the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) took steps to limit indoor smoking, the Tobacco Institute set out to challenge the EPA.
Secondhand smoke The Industry knew of the dangers of secondhand
smoking by the early 1970s The industry own research had found that
sidestream smoke contains more toxic chemicals than mainstream smoke
The states were moving actively against tobacco. By 1979 all states (except Nevada and Kentucky)
had some antismoking legislation
Research A landmark study: National Cancer Center
Research Institute in Tokyo (impact on women whose husbands smoke).
Also, a study in New England Journal of Medicine (impact of smokers on co-workers)
Publicly the industry criticized the studies Privately they agreed with the studies
The response of the tobacco industry
Philip Morris’ vice-president in 1993: “All of us whose livelihoods depend upon tobacco
sales must band together into u unified force The bottom line is: if smokers can’t smoke at
work, in stores, restaurants, they are going to smoke less”
The first response: increased advertisement
Presenting cigarettes as a symbol of strength, manhood, courage
From L.A. Times, May 1994
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. spent more than $950,000 between 1979 to 1983 to feature its cigarette brands in more than 20 movies--including payments of at least $300,000 to action film star Sylvester Stallone.
The payments took the form of checks, cash and merchandise--including jewelry and automobiles for such stars as Paul Newman, Sean Connery and Stallone
Disinformation campaign
The Center for Tobacco Research set up a “special projects” office to deal with secondhand smoke:
The development of opposing scientific evidence Expert witnesses Industry sponsored conferences to challenge the
emerging scientific consensus
Concealing the source
Several projects were run as law firms to conceal their identity and to shield these efforts from scrutiny using
attorney-client privilege
Attacking regulations from many different sides
Restrictions on smoking in the workplace seen as employment discrimination
Increased taxation of tobacco products seen as frivolous taxation in general, “tax and spend” attitude, “big government”
Generally restrictions on smoking seen as “Nanny government,” overprotective.
In 1991 Philip Morris outlined four objectives specifically related to secondhand smoke
Fight bans on smoking in workplaces Maintain smoking areas in transportation facilities
(e.g., airports) Promote the idea of ‘accommodation’—that
smokers had the right to be accommodated Maintain the controversy about tobacco smoke
in public and scientific forums.
The EPA Report in Dec 1992: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking
The report attributed 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 150,000 to 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children per year to secondhand smoke
Thousands of cases of aggravated asthma Tobacco was considered a class A carcinogen But overall the report was cautious: many
other effects of secondhand smoke were left for further research
The EPA Report: the tobacco industry attack
Tobacco industry attacked the report and other studies by questioning their
methodology, consistency evidence, and statistical significance
Scientists for Hire
The Tobacco Industry hired a number of well know scientists willing to fight science
One of them, Fred Singer, established Science and Environment Policy Project to defend tobacco industry
The use of Public Relations Firms
APCO worldwide In the early 1990s, APCO worked closely with
tobacco industry to develop ‘scientific’ articles to defend secondhand
smoke and promote the idea that the EPA work was “junk
science”
“Bad Science: A Resource Book”
200-page book published by tobacco industry Pretended to be scientific work fighting bad
science It propagated the idea that science is manipulated
by government agencies for political purposes
“Bad Science: A Resource Book”
It claimed that: Too often science is manipulated to fulfill a
political agenda No agency is more guilty of adjusting science to
support preconceived public policy prescriptions than the EPA
Like many studies before it, EPA’s recent report concerning environmental tobacco smoke allows political objectives to guide scientific research
Overall… In pluralistic societies, all social, economic, and
political forces ‘fight’ for their rights, recognition, and interests
Sometimes the fight is honest Sometimes is not Citizens need to be aware of the methods used
in political propaganda, advertisement, and in public relations