Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming by Richard Littlemore James Hoggan Read Free Book Online Page B

Diseases and pests in agricultural products for transborder trade
    • Biotechnology
    • Eco-labeling for EC products
    • Food processing and packaging
    It’s worth looking at these tactics because they suggest a high degree of sophistication and a willingness to underwrite an ambitious and expensive “grassroots” campaign. First, APCO suggested that TASSC target secondary markets, because this would “avoid cynical reporters from major cities [and involved] less reviewing/challenging of TASSC messages.” It’s a judgment call whether big-city reporters are by definition cynical. But it’s pretty clear that they are, as a group, better educated, better informed, and more likely to be briefed on specific areas of science. Small-town papers and broadcast outlets tend to have fewer journalists in total and fewer specialists. They also pay less, so there is an incentive for the best reporters to get their early experience in smaller markets and then move up to the high-paying big-city jobs. The public relations professionals at APCO know this, so you have to read more critically when the plan they wrote for TASSC recommends targeting small towns. The 1993 memo “The Revised Plan for the Public Launching of TASSC” suggests that a secondary-market focus “ . . . increases [the] likelihood of pick-up by media” and “limit[s] potential for counterattack. The likely opponents of TASSC tend to concentrate their efforts in the top markets while skipping the secondary markets.” It seems fair to conclude that this is APCO’s way of saying that TASSC should try to stay under the radar.
    APCO also recommended that TASSC establish a public information bureau that would brief “pertinent associations” in Washington, D.C., and coordinate with “organizations that have tangential goals to TASSC, such as . . . The Science and Environmental Policy Project.” (The latter is another Astroturf group established by a tobacco-sponsored scientist named Dr. S. Fred Singer—more about him later.) The name “public information bureau” sounds benign, like an informational clearinghouse that perhaps would send out the odd news release or be at the ready to answer questions. Certainly APCO anticipated sending out information, but the specific list of proposed activities and tactics suggested something much more proactive—and much more political. The list included:
    • Publishing and distributing a monthly update report for all TASSC members, which will quantify media impressions made the prior month and discuss new examples of unsound science.
    • Monitoring the trade press (e.g., public interest group newsletters and activities) and informing TASSC members of any upcoming studies and relevant news.
    • Arranging media tours.
    • Issuing news releases on a regular basis to news wire services, members, allies and targeted reporters.
    • Acting as a clearinghouse for speaking requests of TASSC scientists or other members and maintaining a Speakers Bureau to provide speakers for allies and interested groups.
    • Drafting “boilerplate” speeches, press releases and op-eds [opinion page articles] to be used by TASSC field representatives.
    • Placing articles/op-eds in trade publications to serve as a member recruitment tool in targeted industries, such as the agriculture, chemical, food additive and biotechnology fields.
    • Monitoring the field and serving as a management central command for any crises that occur.
    • Developing visual elements that help explain some of the issues behind unsound science. 6
    Here again, APCO was advising that TASSC look for every opportunity to attack inconvenient (“unsound”) science. It wanted TASSC to identify “targeted reporters” who would be most likely to give the kind of coverage that served TASSC’s purposes. It suggested the drafting of “boilerplate” speeches and press releases of the kind that could be used again and again to promote its messages. And the op-eds