I get this via email: you’re welcome to sign up (the links are below). This kind of reporting is essential stuff in any open society: massaging or manufacturing the message is all too common and it’s harder to track down the facts. But this is a good source of who’s paying whom to say what, who’s saying one thing to you and another to someone else . . .
THE WEEKLY SPIN, July 5, 2006
Sponsored by the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy:
http://www.prwatch.org
To support our work now online visit:
https://www.egrants.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2344-0|1118-0
——————————————————————–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.——————————————————————–
SHARE US WITH A FRIEND (OR FIFTY FRIENDS)
Who do you know who might want to receive “The Weekly Spin”? Help
us grow our subscriber list! Just forward this message to people
you know, encouraging them to sign up at this link:
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html——————————————————————–
THIS WEEK’S NEWS
== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. BBC Archives Reveal Spooks Vetted Staff
2. Big-Spending Brethren
3. The Reach of Rupert Murdoch
4. International News Media as Collateral Damage
5. Victims of Our Own Advertising, Claims Drug Industry Boss——————————————————————–
== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. BBC ARCHIVES REVEAL SPOOKS VETTED STAFF
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/tinker-tailor-broadcaster-spy–bbc-had-mi5-watch-its-staff/2006/07/02/1151778811129.html
Archived internal BBC documents from the 1980’s, obtained by The
Sunday Telegraph under Freedom of Information legislation, reveal
that the British spy service, MI5, was used to vet existing and
potential staff at the public broadcaster. The paper reported that
the documents revealed that “at one stage it [MI5] was responsible
for vetting 6300 BBC posts – almost a third of the total workforce.”
The BBC adopted “categorical denial” as its “defensive strategy” to
deflect questions about the practice by unions. A March 1, 1985 memo
suggested the best approach was “keep head down and stonewall all
questions.”
SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, July 3, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4939
2. BIG-SPENDING BRETHREN
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/01/1151174401719.html?from=top5
While members of the conservative Christian church, the Exclusive
Brethren, are not allowed to vote, they have been big spenders in
recent election campaigns in the United States, Canada, New Zealand
and Australia. They spent $NZ1.2 million in the 2005 New Zealand
election, while in the 2004 US election their Thanksgiving 2004
Committee spent $US636,522. David Marr writes in the Sydney Morning
Herald that the Brethren “cover their tracks. The name of the sect
is never mentioned. Their political demands are a seamless mix of
business breaks and hard-line Christian morality. Under [church head
Bruce D.] Hales, the Exclusive Brethren have become a new player in
the right-wing politics of the world. And they have lots and lots
and lots of money.” While church spokesmen claim that the
involvement of members in election campaigns is the decision of
individuals, former members disagree. “No one would have
countenanced doing this without the complete sanction of the leader
universally,” one told Marr.
SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, July 1, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4938
3. THE REACH OF RUPERT MURDOCH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1810266,00.html
Lance Price, who worked as a media adviser to British Prime Minister
Tony Blair between 1998 and 2001, writes that Rupert Murdoch “seemed
like the 24th member of the cabinet. His voice was rarely heard …
but his presence was always felt.” Discussions between Blair’s
office, Murdoch and his right-hand man Irwin Stelzer “were handled
at the very highest level … The Sun and the Times, in particular,
received innumerable ‘scoops’ and favours. In return, New Labour got
very sympathetic coverage from newspapers that are bought and read
by classic swing voters – on the face of it, too good a deal to pass
up.” Price was required to submit the manuscript for his
recently-released book, The Spin Doctor’s Diary, to the Cabinet
Office for vetting. He was surprised to discover that a third of the
objections related to Murdoch.
SOURCE: The Guardian (UK), July 1, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4937
4. INTERNATIONAL NEWS MEDIA AS COLLATERAL DAMAGE
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002765280
While “the latest target is the New York Times,” for reports on a
U.S. program tracking international financial records, journalists
and media outlets around the world have been criticized — and
prosecuted — for publishing stories related to the so-called Global
War on Terror. “Swiss investigators are looking for the leaker of an
intelligence document attesting to the CIA prison network and are
weighing criminal charges,” reports AP. This fall, “Danish
journalists face trial for reporting their government knew there was
no evidence of banned weapons in Iraq.” It is “the first such
prosecution of journalists in Denmark’s modern history.” In July
2003, British bioweapons expert David Kelly killed himself, after
admitting he had told the BBC that Iraq weapons of mass destruction
intelligence had been “sexed up.” UK reporter Michael Smith was
investigated but not charged for reporting on leaked Downing Street
memos, which said Iraq intelligence had been “fixed” around war
plans. Two Romanian journalists face up to seven years in prison for
possessing — but not reporting on — classified documents about
Romanian military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
SOURCE: Associated Press, July 1, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4936
5. VICTIMS OF OUR OWN ADVERTISING, CLAIMS DRUG INDUSTRY BOSS
http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE89
The CEO of Pfizer, Hank McKinnell, says that a priority for the drug
industry is regaining public trust. “We’ve done considerable
research on this. We’re starting to use what little legislative
muscle we have to improve the situation by working on the Medicare
prescription benefit package,” he said. McKinnell attributes part of
the industry’s unpopularity to “our direct-to consumer advertising”
of prescription drugs. “We didn’t do enough to strengthen and
reinforce the importance of the doctor-patient relationship. It was
a consequence of our success that we created visibility for products
and many people in the public said, ‘That would be nice, but we
can’t afford it.'” McKinnell didn’t mention recent scandals that
have rocked the industry, such as the recall of Merck’s Vioxx in
2004, industry secrecy over its marketing practices, controversy
over the funding of patient groups or its disease mongering.
According to O’Dwyer’s, McKinnell identified corporate social
responsibility as a way for pharmaceutical companies “to be seen as
part of the solution.”
SOURCE: Chief Executive, June 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4929
——————————————————————–The Weekly Spin is compiled by staff and volunteers at the Center
for Media and Democracy (CMD), a nonprofit public interest
organization. To subscribe or unsubcribe, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
Daily updates and news from past weeks can be found in the “Spin of
the Day” section of CMD’s website:
http://www.prwatch.org/spin
Archives of our quarterly publication, PR Watch, are at:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues
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
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——————————————————————–
Contributions to the Center for Media and Democracy are
tax-deductible. Send checks to:
CMD
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703To donate now online, visit:
https://www.egrants.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2344-0|1118-0
_______________________________________________
Weekly-Spin mailing list
Weekly-Spin@prwatch.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/weekly-spin