Bernays is more pivotal to the creation of modern society than Edison yet few
know who he was or what he did
Kirk
http://www.mercola.com/2001/sep/15/manipulation.htm
How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future
Book Review by Sibylle Hechtel
It's not often you read a book that dramatically changes your outlook or
opinions. Most books amuse, entertain, or inform. Trust Us, We're Experts
shocks. It easily could lead the uninitiated to question their assumptions
about "facts" and "truth" in the marketplace.
PR was created to manipulate public opinion.
Authors Rampton and Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy chronicle
the history of public relations, from Edward Bernays' laying the groundwork for
the fledgling industry in the 1920s to the power it wields over public policy
today.
According to the authors, Bernays, a disciple of Sigmund Freud, "created more
institutes, funds, institutions, and foundations than Rockefeller, Carnegie,
and Filene together."
In his book Propaganda, Bernays argued that scientific manipulation of public
opinion is key. "A relatively small number of persons," he wrote, " . . . pull
the wires which control the public mind."
Bernays believed that "somebody interested in leading the crowd needs to
appeal not to logic but to unconscious motivation." Trust Us, We're Experts
shows how the world's richest and most powerful corporations do this.
"Third parties" set PR apart from advertising. The authors describe how the
tobacco industry first hired movie stars to sell cigarettes and then spent
millions of dollars to counter findings that cigarettes cause cancer, a
strategy based on the so-called third-party technique and on testimonials.
"'How can the persuader reach these groups that make up the large public?'
Bernays asked. . . . 'He can do so through their leaders . . . . The group
leader thus becomes a key figure in the molding of public opinion.'"
The third-party technique distinguishes PR from advertising.
"The best use of a PR firm will be when the firm supplies useful information
to influential reporters and analysts who have large audiences." This strategy
camouflages the actual source of information, encourages conformity to vested
interests while pretending to encourage independence, and replaces facts with
emotion-laden symbolism.
The GM food wars claimed a scientific casualty. I was particularly appalled
at the story of scientist Arpad Pusztai. Pusztai identified troubling results
in rats fed genetically modified potatoes.
When he announced his findings, his bosses at the Rowett Research Institute
in Aberdeen, Scotland, suspended him (he soon retired) and discredited his
research. Before reading this account, I had believed the official version:
Pusztai did shoddy research.
But this book indicates that Pusztai's work was fine - its only fault was
that it went against major commercial interests.
Another disturbing case involved psychologist Claire Ernhart of Case Western
Reserve University. Ernhart, who received grants from the industry-funded
International Lead Zinc Research Organization, also serves as a courtroom
"expert witness."
A physician, Herbert Needleman, published results showing that lead-exposed
children are more hyperactive and suffer more attention deficit. In 1981,
Ernhart formally accused Needleman of having conducted flawed research.
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigation found inconsequential
statistical errors. The world's largest PR firm, Hill and Knowlton, then sent a
draft copy of the EPA report to journalists together with a cover letter
claiming that the EPA panel had rejected Needleman's findings.
PR tactic: Hire an expert to discredit an expert. When the EPA reversed its
position and adopted Needleman's findings, Hill and Knowlton continued to
circulate the draft report. In 1991, Ernhart wrote to the National Institutes
of Health charging Needleman with scientific misconduct.
In 1992 Needleman obtained an open hearing to confront his accusers. Ernhart
and another psychologist claimed Needleman had manipulated variables to produce
biased, anti-lead results. Needleman's scientific defenders showed that even
without these variables, his results remained the same: For every 10 parts per
million increase of lead in a child's baby tooth, there was a two-point drop in
IQ.
The authors recount similar cases in which millions of dollars were paid to
PR companies by corporations whose interests ranged from the food and
restaurant businesses to the oil and chemical industries.
The issues involved industrial diseases and work-related illnesses; safety
and risk assessment; and the impact of organochlorines such as DDT, PCBs, and
dioxin, chemicals that can disrupt hormone metabolism.
The government isn't guarding the public's interest. Rampton and Stauber
continue with a description of the battle between environmentalists and the
biotech food industry.
They note that many of the world's largest chemical corporations, such as
Monsanto, Novartis, Hoechst, Pharmacia, Dow Chemical, and DuPont, shifted their
investments from chemicals to food and pharmaceuticals.
The investigative journalists conclude that "government regulators are not
presently functioning to safeguard the public's best interest." As an obvious
example of abuse, they cite the story of one regulator, a former Monsanto
attorney, who helped draft an FDA policy and later left the FDA to return to
work for Monsanto.
Trust Us, We're Experts also considers the effect of big money on
universities and scientific journals, describing instances in which tobacco
companies paid 13 scientists $156,000 to write letters to influential medical
journals.
Chapter 9 looks at the concept of "junk science," a self-serving term coined
by corporate attorneys, lobbyists, PR firms, and industry-funded "think tanks"
to discredit scientific and medical studies that might threaten corporate
profits.
Paid scientific "spokesmodels" question the "prevailing wisdom." In chapter
10, the authors discuss another problem closely linked to industry: global
warming. They also address recent severe weather events, such as the breaking
off of three large icebergs from the Antarctic ice shelf in May of 2000.
As an example of a corporate contribution to the debate, the authors tell the
story of a PR representative of the American Petroleum Institute who outlined a
plan to recruit scientists without "a long history of visibility and/or
participation in the climate change debate."
They would have $5 million over two years, including $600,000 to develop a
cadre of 20 "respected climate scientists" who were to "recruit . . . a team of
five independent scientists to participate in media outreach.
These scientific spokesmodels would be sent around to meet with science
writers . . . thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing
scientific wisdom.'"
At times, Rampton and Stauber can be naïve or unrealistic. They bemoan the
increasing dependence of science on government funding and lament the loss of
the "gentleman scientist" of an earlier era. But when wealthy scientists
attempt research using their own money today, the science community brands them
amateurs and accords them little respect.
The authors also question scientific journals' use of page charges: "Bear in
mind that authors can pay to have scientific findings published, even in some
peer-reviewed journals."
But most journals charge per page to cover publication costs, and everybody
pays the same amount. Page charges stem from journals' financial needs, not
from a cynical willingness to profit from otherwise unpublishable research.
Trust Us has made me more skeptical. Before reading this book, I was an
enthusiastic supporter of biotechnology and genetically modified (GM) foods.
Now I'm not so sure. Last summer, I debated GM foods with a fervent opponent.
I argued that they could provide vitamin A in rice for developing nations,
and produce bananas that could be used as vaccines for children in the third
world. I still find these goals desirable, but I'm now more skeptical.
I ascribed distrust of GM foods to ignorance or technophobia. After reading
this book, I fear that my enthusiastic support resulted partly from ignorance -
not of the science, but of the politics.
This book, which is well researched and includes 33 pages of footnotes and
references, is an excellent primer for readers not familiar with the
manipulation of public opinion. A major strength is its help in directing
readers to relevant information, and instruction on how to investigate problems
affecting local communities.
Sibylle Hechtel is a freelance writer whose articles' topics include science
and rock climbing.
BioMedNet - http://news.bmn.com/hmsbeagle/109/reviews/review Posted August
31, 2001
---------------------------------
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
If you haven't read Dr. Tim O'Shea's comment on this book, The Doors of
Perception, please do. It was one of the most popular articles I have ever
posted on this site.
My comments from earlier this year when I posted another review on this book
are still appropriate:
One of the reasons I write this newsletter is to provide you, the reader,
with the truth so you can weed through much of the nonsense that the media
throws at you.
I know that it is difficult to do and that is one of the main reasons for the
newsletter. This book will help explain the details of how the media deceives
you through the manipulation of PR by the large corporations who do not have
your best interest at heart.
My goal is to change the entire system. The way that will be done is through
the Internet, which is the world's cheapest printing press. By passing this
newsletter on to as many of your friends and relatives as possible along with a
strong endorsement to subscribe, you will play a major role in helping to lift
the veil of deceit that these corporations try to hide the truth with.
We can change the traditional paradigm and in the process save hundreds of
thousands of people from premature death and disability.
Related Articles:
The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything
How The Media Deceives You About Health Issues
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games._______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
