I just received my July issue of Harper's Magazine, complete with an article about lobbying and public relations in Washington. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall, but it's too good for me not to share some highlights.
It seems to me that this article screams for a legislative intervention and for an ethical rule at newspapers: the strengthening of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (You can search registrations under FARA here), and a requirement for oped writers to disclose their financial conflicts of interests. After all, what makes this all possible is newspapers like the Washington Post that routinely publish opeds by these think tanks.
I explained the background in an earlier post. Basically, Harper's Ken Silverstein posed as a business interest from Turkmenistan, and approached four major Washington lobbying firms to see what they'd do for a foreign government with serious human rights issues.
APCO Associates, winner of PR Week's PR agency of the year award in 2006, offered Silverstein a four part plan. First, "policy maker outreach," which is simply setting up meetings with Congressmen. The others were more interesting:
...APCO promised to "create news items and news outflow," organize media events, and identify and work with "key reporters."
[...]
In addition to influencing news reports, Downen added, the firm could drum up positive op-eds in newspapers. "We can utilize some of the think-tank experts who would say, 'On the one hand this and the other hand that,' and we place it as a guest editorial." Indeed, Schumacher said, APCO had someone on staff who "does nothing but that" and had succeeded in placing thousands of opinion pieces.
Discussion about the strategy's third item--building "coalition support," which meant developing seemingly independent and therefore more credible allies to offer favorable views about Turkmenistan--was brief.
[...]
How could we use think tanks and academics?...[the fourth element] ...One possibility, Downen said, would be to hold a forum on U.S.-Turkmen relations, preferably built around a visit to the United States by a Turkmen official. Possible hosts would include The Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and the Council on Foreign Relations. "Last week I contacted a number of colleagues at think tanks," Downen went on. "Some real experts could easily be engaged to sponsor or host a public forum or panel that would bring in congressional staff and journalists." The only cost would be refreshments and room rental--Schumacher joked that
[...]
Another option, he explained, would be to pay Roll Call and The Economist to host a Turkmenistan event. It would be costlier than the think-tank route, perhaps around $25,000, but in compensation we would have tighter control over the proceedings, plus gain "the imprimatur of a respected third party."
This is all typical Washington PR, but the frankness with which groups like Heritage can be hired to do the dirty work is troubling.
- Log in to post comments
??? You mean the MSM is for hire? Why, that's shocking. Almost conspiratorial (as if you'd prefer that they were more underhanded in their work so that us conspiracy nuts could go on babbling about think-tank manipulations of public policy).
I almost get the impression you think that FCC has a role here somewhere.
But I really don't understand why this is shocking. Media is owned by large corporations. Large corporations are business interests. Hand washes hand. Capitalism they know.
What role does the government have in providing a non-business driven news and information outlet? Why, it would be "socialist" to have the government sponsor something like that and even the Beeb gets it wrong as Mark often likes to point out with the Panorama pieces. The marketplace is probably the best arbiter of truth.
I don't recall if you wrote about it, but the 700MHz auction is coming up. Let's see what happens there; will that be used as the last great chance to serve the public or as prime beach front property for the fatcats.
The mainstream media isn't exactly for hire. I don't even think it's particularly biased, except by the pursuit of profit, which creates its own types of biases.
Role for the FCC? Not in newspapers--it would be unconstitutional. But in broadcast, FCC does regulate "payola." I wonder whether those payola rules could be replicated by self-regulation among newspapers, by having newspapers disclose more information about the oped writers and their interests.
I agree about the FCC having a more limited role in newspapers, but isn't printed news on the wane thus the push toward consolidating the new media (which *is* FCC controlled)? Isn't printed news an arm of media conglomerates that were allowed to consolidate beyond reasonable with the help of FCC?
The FCC has a responsibility to manage the airwaves for the public good. When it hands over the airwaves to media conglomerates I believe it acts not in the public good but for the private good.
The fact that media consolidation was allowed to happen just makes it easier for gross manipulation that you cite above to occur (i.e. all the efforts that you cite in the paragraphs above need broad media dissemination to be effective). And I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not regarding newspapers self-regulation. Remember Judith Miller?
You think that 1st amendment protects the rights of the published press -- to lie, to obfuscate, to manipulate the public? Well, I think they'd be much more limited in their ability to "frame the issue" if there was an ownership firewall between the papers and the rest of the regulated media organizations.
Right now there's nothing to stop consolidated media from colluding with special interests either by coming at you with the unified wall-of-media approach or by suppressing a story they don't want to talk about. Like the Iraq war for example. Or climate change. Or economic policy. Or hell, whatever subject is controversial -- sure, we'll get the drama and the rolling eyeballs, but we won't get the full truth.
Can't you see the yuppies pitching Silverstein. "Hey, we create reality."
Mark Danner's speech to the graduating class of Rhetoric at UC Berkeley last month is a classic. Don't miss it. The Department of RHETORIC??? http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174791/mark_danner_the_age_of_rhetoric
@Ted, but I wonder whether media consolidation is the big problem...there's still huge competition in news. And the reporters I know are constantly trying to find good stories, etc. I think that the larger problem is converting news into a profit center. It seems like nothing else would contribute to censorship than that.
Have you read Chomsky / Herman's Manufacturing Consent? They lay out a five-tiered filter system for what gets into the news, based entirely on structural factors.
To my mind, saying that "I don't even think it's particularly biased, except by the pursuit of profit", is kinda like saying that I don't think the surface of the Earth is particularly wet, except for the oceans.
Chris, please consider watching the BBC production, "The Century of the self." It's available online.
Your statement that the MSM isn't "particularly biased" is naive at best.
I think the report to be released tomorrow will back me up on the consolidation = bad angle. We've heard these stories about infringement on corporate Free Speech and we've gone steadily downhill since the Fairness Doctrine was destroyed in 1987.
I don't understand what you're saying relative to profit centers.