abc's crisis of the foster care system (cross-posted)

Kane wrote
Properly administured and supervised use of Rx for psychiatric
conditions is useful and warranted. My beef is with misuse. And I've
spoken out on it, as you ignore from my posted comments. In other words
posting comments that would lead people to believe something I have not
supported, observer, is lying. Why would you lie?

Kane, You pretended you lobbied against misuse of Psychotropics.
When asked about your efforts you responded that you had
written to Ways and Means.

Then you partially negated your own assertion.

Did you in fact write to Ways and Means about kids
being put on psychotropics like Ritalen and similar?

What other lobbying efforts did you make?

Please understand that since you are a SYSTEM SUCK
and since the primary movers toward arbitrary putting
kids on Ritalken were SYSTEM SUCKS like caseworkers
and Fosters hoping to "pacify" their population rather
than cope with a "high energy child" or a kid acting out
due to mild ATTACHMENT DISORDER caused by child removal.

Let's face it, the system is and has been loaded with
people totally unqualified to make such decisions
yet totally willing to assert them anyway.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Properly administured and supervised use of Rx for psychiatric
conditions is useful and warranted. My beef is with misuse. And I've
spoken out on it, as you ignore from my posted comments. In other words
posting comments that would lead people to believe something I have not
supported, observer, is lying. Why would you lie?

Kane, You pretended

You base your judgment above on ... ?

you lobbied against misuse of Psychotropics.

Yes, I did that. In more than one instance.

When asked about your efforts you responded that you had
written to Ways and Means.

No, you did not ask until the subject had changed and we were not longer
discussing the a specific reason for any actions of mine at that point.
You asked out of the blue, and YOU had cut attributes that would show I
am now right and you making it up as you go along.

Then you partially negated your own assertion.

I explained how you made an incorrect assumption.

Did you in fact write to Ways and Means about kids
being put on psychotropics like Ritalen and similar?

No.


What other lobbying efforts did you make?

Buttonholing my representatives on state and national levels and talking
with them. Mailing them letters. Providing them with educational
material. Being interviewed by their staff collecting first hand
information from someone in the field of child mental health.

Please understand that since you are a SYSTEM SUCK

I understand you are lying.

and since the primary movers toward arbitrary putting
kids on Ritalken were SYSTEM SUCKS like caseworkers
and Fosters hoping to "pacify" their population rather
than cope with a "high energy child" or a kid acting out
due to mild ATTACHMENT DISORDER caused by child removal.

Attachment disorder is rarely caused by child removal unless certain
conditions are met. The child has to be under about 18-24 months old. If
attachment as not formed with the mother by that time IT'S NOT GOING TO.

It is more often caused by, and sometimes NOT the parent's fault at all,
by disruptive life events that distract or remove the mother...like
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE HOME.

CPS sees a great many children (the top of the age bell curve for
removals is in the 6 to 9 year old) that are ALREADY ATTACHMENT DISORDERED.

The list of suspected causes include DV, mental illness of family
member, criminal violence of various kinds including drug issues where
mom or others are more interested in drugs than parenting.

What is seen when children are removed from their familiar surroundings,
even if horrendous, is LOSS. Grieving.

I personally do not believe, but am not current in the field, that
medications do much to help with grieving.

THIS was the primary issue that got me involved with helping relatives
with child kin in their care. Helping them understand that the behaviors
they were seeing were NOT disruption for its own sake, but survival
behaviors learned in dangerous neglectful households, combined with
normal reactions to loss...of their pets, their toys, their siblings,
their parents, other extended family, the local neighbors, their
playmates, their school mates, their teachers.

The reason for and my LOBBYING for 'Neighborhood Foster Care' was, as a
mental health professional, to reduce the amount of loss by keeping them
close to all of that when removed from their home.

The biggest hurdle we had to face was the very real problem OF NOT
ENOUGH FUNDING to recruit, train, and certify foster parents. Children
had to be placed where foster homes had an opening.

I spent a lot of hours writing my own views and offered solutions. Some
have been implemented, some not yet, and some will probably never be.

Let's face it, the system is and has been loaded with
people totally unqualified to make such decisions
yet totally willing to assert them anyway.

You have not proof of your claim above, just bull**** rambling again.

How can someone that is paid to make decisions about children and hired
based on education and knowledge testing be "totally" unqualified?

YOU are closer to "totally" than anyone posting here. Even Kathleen is
more informed than you.

You have lied again. Big surprise.

I provided you the address for the thread, for you to read and see that
we had left the subject of my lobbying about psychotropics.

You asked me and UNQUALIFIED question appearing out of the blue, with NO
attributions to even see if or what it might be connected to in your
little mind. I answered ONLY what you asked in context. .

Next time you have a question for me, remember that. And remember that
you do these things to TRAP PEOPLE because you are too stupid and fact
deprived by deliberate ignorance to argue. Why do you think I mentioned
Doan as your butt buddy, stupid?

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

i do research..............i don't brag about it............you are
someone i feel no need to impress.............fetal alcohol syndrome is
highly speculative...........a history of mind-altering ritalin and
prozac prescriptions is not.............

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about doing research..............

noooooooooooooow, i've forgotten....................exactly which
female is that that objects to one female calling another female a
bitch.......................

]:^ runs around her dog lot bitching about being called a
bitch..............

wrote:
i do research..............i don't brag about it............

You don't cite it.

you are
someone i feel no need to impress.............

That's nice. To what do I owe then the honor of your many posts to only
myself?

fetal alcohol syndrome is
highly speculative...........

Really? I hope you aren't about to try and prove it has little or no
effect.

a history of mind-altering ritalin and
prozac prescriptions is not.............

Is not speculative? True, but then FAS and FAE aren't "speculative"
"highly" or otherwise.

Your determined ignorance marks you, by the way, as both observer and
opinions.

Or possibly you are identical triplets. Say hello to your mother for me
and tell her I'll send her the $2 if she'll prove you are all three mine.


]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about doing research..............


And OOM sits on his fat ass claiming he does research but offering no
proof, and lot's of babbling non-fact superstitious nonsense, even about
the US Constitution.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

wrote:
noooooooooooooow, i've forgotten....................

Sure you have. Your special talent is forgetting.

exactly which
female is that that objects to one female calling another female a
bitch.......................

I would assume that generally women don't like hearing other women
called bitch.


]:^ runs around her dog lot bitching about being called a
bitch..............

No, I don't mind at all. I dislike using terms for females used as insults.

You are still a misogynist then, OOM?

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

you obviously don't know twentieth century supreme court decisions or
their significance..................

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about how much she knows about the
constitution...........

you obviously don't know twentieth century supreme court decisions or
their significance..................

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about how much she knows about the
constitution...........

Former and present foster children represent the most endangered
population in this country.
And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they
were born into.

Hi, Kane,

Actually, they find themselves where they are through a multitude of
variables unfolding throughout their entire life.

Which adds nothing to my comment, but is diverting babble, Doug. ‘Spin’ as
usual.

Hi, Kane,

It disputes your comment.

I said, which is sufficient for the understanding of the reader of normal
intelligence who does not need your interpretation, “And they came by it
in the majority from their origins, the family they were born into,”
covering easily what you babbled on about to divert.

Precisely. And I said that the horrendous situation former and present
foster children find themselves in is the product of their entire life
experiences. That includes, in the main for most of them, their experiences
in state custody.

To determine the "why" of
the exceedingly poor outcomes, one must measure the entirety of their
life
experiences, both before and during foster care.

Then why has your and other’s emphasis, including The Casey Family
Foundation analysis ignored the family of origin in favor of focusing only
on the foster experience?

The Casey Family Foundation concentrated on the child's total experiences
thoughout life. It is true that a great deal of the cases involved children
whose experiences in the main came in state custody. Many of these children
were removed as infants. I have repeatedly stated that causes for the
exceedingly poor outcomes for former foster children must be measured by
evaluating the child's total life experiences.

It is you that continues to insist that these problems are the result, in
the main, of their experiences in their families. You are wrong, of
course.

The removal itself, for
young children, often causes irreparable harm.

Riding in a car unbelted can cause irreparable harm. IF you have a wreck.

Being forcibly removed from one's family makes a emotional wreck out of a
small child.

In foster care the risks of harm are far less than in the family of origin
the child was removed from.

Children are maltreated in foster care at rates eight to ten times that of
the general population.

95% of all harm to children that are the subject of open CPS cases comes
from OTHER than foster caregivers, and most from parents and family
members. That’s pretty good odds for children in foster care, compared to
being anywhere else.

The vast majority of children subject to substantiated findings are never
removed from their families before, during or after the investigation.
Children who are sexually abused are 42% less likely to be removed than
children who are physically abused. In 2004, 77,000 children were placed
into foster care after CPS itself determined that they were not maltreated
by their families or at risk of being maltreated by their families. These
77,000 children are clearly more at risk of being abused in foster care than
in the environment where CPS workers themselves found no reason to even
suspect that they were maltreated or at risk of maltreatment.

Which has NOT proven yet to be the safest course. Parents have been
known,
as you know perfectly well, to re-abuse these same children. YOU
quoted,
in another argument, figures showing high rates of re-offending.

I was not talking about children who were abused.

I was. YOU have. We debated issues that included it. YOU pointed out
re-abuse as a critical element in child protection casework quality, and
lack of quality. Stop your lying and dodging, and twisting and turning and
changing your story, Doug.

I wasn't. I was talking about the children removed from families CPS had
unsubstantiated for risk of or actual maltreatment. Since these children
were not abused in the first place, they could not be "reabused."

The majority taken into
state custody were not.

The same old misleading bull****, Doug. The majority are returned when
that is determined. There is a judicial hearing the determines placement.
The children not returned are either abused, neglected, or at serious risk
of harm.

You are quite incorrect. The vast majority of children subject to
unsubstantiated findings are not returned after the investigation is
completed and findings made or are removed months after the unsubstantiated
finding.

Check AFCARS.

Since they were not abused in the first place, it
is impossible for them to be "re-abused."

The logic appears correct. Problem is you base it upon a lie. I have
repeatedly proven that you are wrong. You simply ignore my posts to that
effect.

Incorrect. You continually try to fog up the obvious. ...As I continually
point out.

The average stay in foster care is around 2.1 years -- down slightly
from an
average of 2 1/2 years in 2002. That is not, in my opinion, "in short
order." A very small percentage of children are returned within the
time
frame of an investigation.

What most readers, if they are bothering to read, will miss is the use of
‘average’ and what that really means.

Less than 10% of removed from their families are returned within 60 days of
both substantiated and unsubstantiated findings. Their average stay is,
instead, 2.1 years.

69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed
from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or
actual neglect/abuse.
When you claim "not abused" you are ignoring the research I posted here
that shows that "not abuse" and "unsubstantiated for abuse or
neglect" are
not the same thing, nor the same yardstick.


They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that
compile the figures and pay for the research. However, "substantiated" does
not usually mean actually abused or neglected, but in the main "at risk" of
future abuse or neglect, maybe, sometime in the future. These "at risk"
findings represent most of the "substantiated" cases.

The USDHHS provides the criteria for each category and the
definitions to
state CPS agencies, who organize their data under the criteria before
reporting.

And, according to the study I posted here, they do NOT MEET THE FEDERAL
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANTIATED.

According to the USDHHS and the CPS agencies in the states reporting, they
do meet the federal criteria for substantiated. The survey of one state in
1994 you reference pointed out that families were sometimes substantiated
based upon the worker's relationship with her supervisors or general
attitude in the workplace. The USDHHS revised its critera to its present
defination and has maintained it for a decade.

The major point you continually avoid is that UNSUBSTANTIATED undercounts
the truth. The assessment tool is being used to determine the likelihood
of services being effective, not the facts of abuse or neglect. A child
can be abused, and still be unsubstantiated IF a worker assesses that the
family’s circumstances will be more likely to support services being
effective.

An unsubstantiated finding has nothing to do with determining whether
services will be effective or not. Unsubstantiated is a finding that the
CPS worker has found no credible evidence to suspect that the child has been
abused or neglected or is a risk of being abused or neglected. Thousands of
substantiated families are forced to receive "services" and thousands of
unsubstantiated families are forced to receive "services."

"Substantiated" is an investigation disposition from the state CPS
agency
that the allegation of maltreatment or RISK of maltreatment was
supported by
state law or state policy. "Unsubstantiated" is a finding by the
state CPS
agency that there was not sufficient evidence under state law to
conclude or
SUSPECT that the child was maltreated or AT RISK of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

You post your ‘house-rules’ and I’ve posted the action at the table as it
really happens.

People are not playing by the rules. You get to use that for propaganda
purposes.


It's pretty simple, really. The state has to have a way of
communicating a
finding of an investigation or assessment -- whether the allegations are
true or not. Children subject to substantiated dispositions are called
victims. Children subject to unsubstantiated findings are called
"nonvictims." In 2003, CPS removed 69,000 nonvictims from their
homes after
a child abuse investigation or assessment determined the allegations
were
unsubstantiated.

Faulty logic. We call it “spin,” when done deliberately to deceive.

The “way of communicating” has been proven by research to NOT be matching
the criteria of the USDHHS definitions.

Not at all. The "research" proved no such thing.

.....Now, here comes the fog again:

You have avoided again that in households where their has been a victim,
there are likely sibs. The nature of the abuse or neglect can often be,
and often is, that if that child victim is removed and the others are not,
they too would be at risk of the same abuse the “target child” was
subjected to. Hence they are removed, but by definition, not ‘victims.’

Siblings of a child who is abused are, of course, substantiated as being as
risk of being maltreated themselves. Since these siblings are subject to
substantiated findings, they are, by USDHHS defination, "victims."

As I have mentioned repeatedly, most cases are substantiated on the basis of
risk of abuse or neglect, not actual abuse or neglect. Unsubstantiated
cases involve children CPS has determined were neither at risk of
maltreatment or actually maltreated.


USDHHS definations are quite clear.

"Victims" are child subjects of substantiated reports.
"Non-Victims" are child subjects of unsubstantiated reports.

Here are the USDHHS definations:

a.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes
that
the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or
founded by State law or State policy.

House rules. Not field practice.

Nope. Statistics on field practice, gathered by those in the field.

a.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines
that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or
suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

House rules. Not field practice.
Just as I’ve said before, and provided the study to prove.

Standards as defined in state law. CPS caseworkers are required to follow
state law, are they not? Are you saying that CPS field practice is being
done unlawfully?

Well, come to think of it, yes you have. We've agreed on that.

Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal
definition of abuse.

Nope. Substantiation is a legal, investigation disposition that
concludes
that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was
supported
evidence required by state law.

You speak to the word, I to the actual field practice. House rules. Not
field practice.

I speak to the field practice and to federal and state law.

In each state, these state statutes define
the thesholds of evidence but do NOT address service needs.

The worker and their supervisor do that. They often find that real life
and “house-rules” conflict to the endangerment of the child. They go with
the safety of the child. Naturally.

Extralegally?

In fact, the majority of CPS services are forced upon unsubstantiated
families.

And you want to argue that families that need services will come running,
you and your buddies.

These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care population.
"Victim" and "substantiated" are not interchangeable terms, as you
delusional claim. The study I provided you done for the USDHHS shows
clearly that you are not correct, and your insistence on ignoring it is
what earns you the title I give you of liar.

They most certainly are interchangeable. A victim is a child subject
to a
substantiated disposition.

Because of actual field practice, and I’ve proven this in prior argument
with you, many times, they are NOT. A victim is a child that has been
injured, or is at substantial risk of harm. A substantiated disposition
can include NON VICTIMS from the same family that would be at risk.

No. Children included in a substantiated disposition because they are at
risk are, by USDHHS defination, "victims." They decidedly would not be
included as "non-victims."

Non-victims are children subject to an unsubstantiated finding.

A nonvictim is a child subject to an
unsubstantiated disposition. In 2004, 77,000 non-victim children were
removed from families CPS unsubstantiated for maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment.

Again with the spin. Siblings, returns from shelter hearings. They are
counted as non-victims, are temporarily in foster care, so are counted as
“removed,” even if for 48 hours.

If they were substantiated as being at risk, they are counted as "victims."

Take a look at the table below. You see quite clearly that the
number of
child victims is precisely the same as the number of children subject to
substantiated dispositions of investigations or assessments.
Likewise, you
will see that the number of "non-victim" children corresponds
precisely to
the number of children subject to unsubstantiated dispositions by
state CPS
workers.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...4/table6_4.htm

And this supports what portion of your argument that I have not defeated
before?

It supports facts that you repeatedly fail to challenge.

Covert Action Quarterly
http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq55.prwar.html

http://www.io.com/%7Ebrettw/PR_War.html
Deforming Consent:
The Public Relations Industry's
Secret War on Activists
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments
of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the
growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate
propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against
democracy." -- Alex Carey

by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
All Lynn Tylczak wanted to do was keep a few kids from
being poisoned.

A housewife in Oregon, her imagination was captured by
a PBS documentary about a technique used in Europe
to prevent children from accidentally swallowing
household poisons. Common antifreeze, for example,
is made of ethylene glycol, whose sweet taste and
smell belies its highly poisonous nature. As little
as two teaspoons can cause death or blindness. About
700 children under the age of six are exposed to
antifreeze each year, and it is the leading cause
of accidental animal poisoning affecting both pets
and wild animals.(2)

European antifreeze makers poison-proof their
products by adding the "bitterant" denatonium benzoate.
Two cents worth makes a gallon of antifreeze taste
so vile that kids spit it out the instant it
touches their mouth.

Tylczak launched a one-woman crusade, the
"Poison Proof Project" to persuade antifreeze
makers to add bitterant. Her storymade the
New York Times and Oprah Winfrey, prompting
a swiftbacklash from antifreeze makers.
She remembers one company's PR representative
threatening that he could pay someone $2,000
to have her shot if she didn't back off.

When Tylczak began pushing for legislation to
require bitterant, another PR firm was sent
into the breach: National Grassroots and
Communications, which specializes in "passing
and defeating legislation at the federal and
state level." Tylczak had never even heard
of the firm until its CEO, Pamela Whitney,
made the mistake of bragging about her exploits
at a PR trade seminar. "The key to winning
anything is opposition research," she
said."We set up an operation where we posed
as representatives of the estate of an
older lady who had died and wanted to
leave quite a bit of money to an organization
that helped both children and animals. We
went in and met with [Tylczak] and said,
'We want to bequeath $100,000 to an
organization; you're one of three that we
are targeting to look at. Give us all of
your financial records..., all of your
game plan for the following year, and
the states you want to target and how
you expect to win. We'll get back to you."' (3)

Whitney claimed that the records she
received contained two bombshells: The
Poison Proof Project's tax-exempt status had
lapsed, and it had taken funding from
bitterant manufacturers. "Without leaving
any fingerprints or any traces," Whitney
boasted, "we then got word through the
local media and killed the bill in all
the states." (4)

1. isolate the radicals; 2."cultivate" the
idealists and "educate" them into becoming
realists; then 3. co-opt the realists


When the story got back to Tylczak, she
noted that only $100 of the $50,000 in
family savings spent on the campaign came
from bitterant makers. "She's got a very
foolish client," Tylczak said. "Her story
has got more bull**** than a cattle ranch."
In fact,she noted, her bill requiring
bitterant did pass in Oregon.
What did the PR industry accomplish in its
battle against Lynn Tylczak? Were news
stories or legislation killed because
of Whitney's intervention? In this and
other cases, the degree of success PR
firms have in manipulating public opinion
and policy is almost imposssible to
determine. By design, the PR industry
carefully conceals many of its activities.
"Persuasion, by its definition, is subtle,"
says one PR executive. "The best PR ends up
looking like news.You never know when a PR
agency is being effective; you'll just
find your views slowly shifting." (5)

Using money provided by its special interest
clients -- usually large corporations,
business associations and governments
-- the PR industry has vast power to
direct and control thought and policy.
It can mobilize private detectives,
lawyers, and spies; influence editorial
and news decisions; broadcast faxes;
generate letters; launch phony "grassroots"
campaigns; and use high-tech information
systems such as satellite feeds and
internet sites.
Activist groups and concerned individuals
often fail to recognize the techniques
and assess the impact of PR campaigns.
And indeed, with its $10 billion-a-year
bankroll and its array of complex,
sophisticated persuasive weaponry, the
PR industry can often out maneuver,
overpower, and outlast true citizen
reformers. Identifying the techniques
of the industry and understanding how
they work are the first steps in fighting back.


Spies for Hire
In 1990, David Steinman's book Diet for a
Poisoned Planet, was scheduled for publication.
Based on five years of research, it detailed
evidence that hundreds of carcinogens,
pesticides, and other toxins contaminate
the US food chain. It documented, for example,
that "raisins had 110 industrial chemical
and pesticide residues in 16 samples," and
recommended buying only organically grown
varieties. (6)

Diet for a Poisoned Planet enabled readers
to make safer food choices. But before
they could use the information, they had
to know about the book so that they could
buy and read it. In the weeks after it came
out, Steinman's publisher scheduled the usual
round of media reviews and interviews, not
suspecting that the California Raisin
Advisory Board (CALRAB) had already
launched a campaign to ensure that
Steinman's book would be dead on arrival.

The stakes were high. In 1986, CAL RAB had
scored big with a series of clever TV
commercials using the "California Dancing
Raisins" that pushed up raisin sales by
17 percent. Steinman's book threatened to
trip up the careful PR choreography.

To kill the Steinman book, CALRAB hired
Ketchum PR Worldwide, whose $50 million
a year in net fees made it the country's
sixth largest public relations company.
Months before the publication of Diet
for a Poisoned Planet, Ketchum sought
to "obtain [a] copy of [the] book galleys
or manuscript and publisher's tour
schedule," wrote senior vice-president
Betsy Gullickson in a secret September
7, 1990 memo outlining the PR firm's
plan to "manage the crisis." All
documents...are confidential. Make
sure that everything -- even notes to
yourself -- are so stamped. ...Remember
that we have a shredder; give documents
to Lynette for shredding. All
conversations are confidential, too.
Please be careful talking in the halls,
in elevators, in restaurants, etc. All
suppliers must sign confidentiality
agreements. If you are faxing documents
to the client, another office or to
anyone else, call them to let them
know that a fax is coming. If you
are expecting a fax, you or your
Account Coordinator should stand by
the machine and wait for it. (7)
Gullickson's memo outlined a plan to
assign "broad areas of responsibility,"
such as "intelligence/information gathering,"
to specific Ketchum employees and to
Gary Obenauf of CALRAB. She recommended
that spokespeople "conduct one-on-one
briefings/interviews with the trade and
general consumer media in the markets
most acutely interested in the issue
..... [Ketchum] is currently attempting
to get a tour schedule so that we can
'shadow' Steinman's appearances; best
scenario: we will have our spokesman
in town prior to or in conjunction
with Steinman's appearances." (8)

After an informant involved with the
book's marketing campaign passed Ketchum
a list of Steinman's talk show bookings,
Ketchum employees called each show. The
PR firm then made a list of key media
to receive low-key phone inquiries. They
tried to depict Steinman as an off-the-wall
extremist without credibility, or argued
that it was only fair that the other side
be presented. A number of programs canceled
or failed to air interviews. In the end,
an important contribution to the public
debate over health, the environment, and
food safety fell victim to a PR campaign
designed to prevent it from ever reaching
the marketplace of ideas. (9)


Divide and Conquer
Ronald Duchin, senior vice president of another
PR spy firm -- Mongoven, Biscoe,and Duchin --
would probably have labeled Steinman and
Tylczak radicals. A graduate of the US Army
War College, Duchin worked as a special
assistant to the secretary of defense and
director of public affairs for the Veterans
of Foreign Wars before becoming a flack.
Activists, he explained, fall into four
categories: radicals, opportunists,
idealists, and realists. He follows a
three-step strategy to neutralize them:
1) isolate the radicals; 2) "cultivate" the
idealists and "educate" them into becoming
realists; then 3) co-opt the realists into
agreeing with industry.
According to Duchin, radical activists:

want to change the system; have underlying
socio/political motives [and] see
multinational corporationsas inherently
evil....These organizations do not trust
the...federal, state and local governments
to protect them and to safeguard the
environment. They believe, rather,that
individuals and local groups should have
direct power over industry.... I would
categorize their justice and political
empowerment.
Idealists are also "hard to deal with."
They "want a perfect world and find it
easy to brand any product or practice
which can be shown to mar that perfection
as evil. Because of their intrinsic
altruism, however, and because they
have nothing perceptible to be gained
by holding their position, they are
easily believed by both the media and
the public, and sometimes even
politicians." However, idealists
"have a vulnerable point. If they
can be shown that their position in
opposition to an industry or its
products causes harm to others and
cannot be ethically justified, they
are forced to change their position....
Thus, while a realist must be negotiated
with, an idealist must be educated.
Generally this education process requires
great sensitivity and understanding on
the part of the educator."
Opportunists and realists, says Duchin,
are easier to manipulate. Opportunists
engage in activism seeking "visibility,
power, followers and, perhaps, even
employment....The key to dealing with
[them] is to provide them with at
least the perception of a partial
victory." And realists are able to
"live withtrade-offs; willing to work
within the system; not interested in
radical change; pragmatic. [They]
should always receive the highest priority
in any strategy dealing with a public
policy issue.... If your industry can
successfully bring about these relationships,
the credibility of the radicals will
be lost and opportunists can be counted
on to share in the final policy solution.'' (10)


Best Friends Money Can Buy
Another crude but effective way to derail
potentially meddlesome activists is simply
to hire them. In early 1993, Carol Tucker
Foreman, former executive director of the
Consumer Federation of America, took a job
for what is rumored to be an exceptionally
large fee as a personal lobbyist for bovine
growth hormone (rBGH), the controversial
milk hormone produced by chemical giant
Monsanto. With Foreman's help, Monsanto
has successfully prevented Congress or
the FDA from requiring labeling of milk
from cows injected with rBGH. In fact,
the company used threats of lawsuits to
intimidate dairy retailers and legislators
who wanted to label their milk "rBGH-free."

While she is helping Monsanto wage its
all-out campaign for rBGH, Foreman is
also the coordinator and lobbyist for
the Safe Food Coalition, "an alliance
of consumer advocacy, senior citizen,
whistle blower protection, and labor
organizations." Formed by Foreman in
1987, the Coalition's members include
such public interest heavyweights as
Michael Jacobson's Center for Science
in thePublic Interest (CSPI), Ralph
Nader's Public Citizen, and Public
Voice for Food and Health Policy. (11)

Foreman said she saw no conflict of
interest in simultaneously representing
rBGH and the Safe Food Coalition. "The
FDA has said rBGH is safe," she
explained, adding "Why don't you call
CSPI; they say rBGH is safe too?" Asked
how much money she has received from
Monsanto to lobby for rBGH, she angrily
retorted, "what in the world business
is that of yours?" Her D.C.consulting
firm, Foreman & Heidepriem, refused to
provide further information and
referred journalists to Monsanto's PR
department. (12)


Both Sides of the Street
William Novelli, a founder of the New
York-based Porter/Novelli PR firm, cheerfully
uses the term "cross-pollination" to describe
his company's technique of orchestrating
collusion between clients with seemingly
conflicting interests. By "donating" free
work to health-related charities, for example,
Porter/Novelli gains leverage to pressure the
charities into supporting the interests of
the firm's paying corporate clients. In 1993,
this strategy paid off when produce growers
and pesticide manufacturers represented by
Porter/Novelli learned that PBS was about
to air a documentary by Bill Moyers on
pesticide-related cancer risks to children.
The PR firm turned to the American Cancer
Society (ACS), to which it had provided
decades of free services. The national
office of ACS dutifully issued a memo charging
that the Moyers program "makes unfounded
suggestions...that pesticide residues in
food maybe at hazardous levels." The
industry then cited the memo as "evidence"
that Moyers' documentary overstated dangers
to children from pesticides. (13)

Hill & Knowlton executive Nina Oligino used
a similar "cross-pollination" technique in
1994 to line up national environmental
groups behind "Partners for Sun Protection
Awareness," a front group for Hill &
Knowlton's client, Schering-Plough. Best
known for Coppertone sun lotion, the drug
transnational uses the Partners to "educate"
the public to the dangers of skin cancer,
cataracts, and damaged immune systems
caused by a thinning ozone layer and an
increase in ultraviolet radiation. (14)

In the past, Hill & Knowlton has also worked
for corporate clients who hired them to
"disprove" or belittle the environmental
warnings of global climate change. (15)
Seamlessly shifting gears into
"environmentalist mode," Hill & Knowlton
convinced leaders of the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the Sierra Club to add
their names to the "Partners for Sun
Protection" letterhead.

A representative (who asked not to be named)
of one of the environmental groups said
he was ignorant of the Schering-Plough
funding and its hidden agenda to sell
sunlotion. Had he examined the Partners
campaign, however, he might have noticed
that it offered no proposals for preventing
further ozone depletion and failed to
mention that covering up completely was
the best sunscreen of all. Instead,
the primary action the drug company
funded coalition recommended was to
"liberally apply a sunscreen...to all
exposed parts of the body before going
out doors." One of the campaign's clever
"video news releases" shows scores of
sexy, scantily-clad sun worshippers
overexposing themselves to UV rays,
while slathering on suntan oil. (16)


Synthetic Grassroots
PR firms often bypass activist organizations
and custom design their own "grassroots
citizen movements" using rapidly evolving
high-tech data and communications systems.
Known in the trade as "astroturf," this
tactic is defined by Campaigns & Elections
magazine as a "grassroots program that
involves the instant manufacturing of
public support for a point of view in
which either uninformed activists are
recruited or means of deception are used
to recruit them.'' (17)

Astroturf is particularly useful in
countering NIMBY or "Not in my backyard"
movements -- community groups organizing
to stop their neighborhood from hosting
a toxic waste dump, porno bookstore,
or other unwanted invaders.

John Davies, who helps neutralize these
groups on behalf of corporate clients
such as Mobil Oil, Hyatt Hotels, Exxon,
and American Express, describes himself
as "one of America's premier grassroots
consultants." His ad in Campaigns &
Elections (see image 1) is designed
to strike terror into the heart of
even the bravest CEO. It features a
photo of the enemy: a "little old
white-haired lady" holding a hand-lettered
sign, "Not In My Backyard!" The caption
warns, "Don't leave your future in her
hands. Traditional lobbying is no
longer enough....To outnumber your
opponents, call Davies Communications.'' (18)

Davies promises to "make a strategically
planned program look like a spontaneous
explosion of community support for needy
corporate clients by using mailing lists
and computer databases to identify potential
supporters." He claims his telemarketers
will make passive supporters appear to be
concerned advacates. "We want to assist
them with letter writing. We get them on
the phone [and say], 'Will you write a
letter?'' Sure. "Do you have time to write
it?" Not really.' 'Could we write it for
you?... Just hold, we have a writer standing by."'

Another Davies employee then helps create
what appears to be a personal letter. If
the appropriate public official is "close by,
we hand-deliver it. We hand-write it out
on 'Little kitty cat stationery' if it's
a little old lady. If it's a business we
take it over to be photocopied on someone's
letterhead. [We] use different stamps,
different envelopes... Getting a pile of
personalized letters that have a different
look to them is what you want to strive for.'' (19)


Blending In
"Grassroots" PR is the specialty of Pamela
Whitney at National Grassroots &
Communications, the firm that spied on Lynn
Tylczak.

"My company basically works for major
corporations and we do new market entries,"
she says. "Wal-Mart is one of our clients.
We take on the NIMBYs and environmentalists."
They also work for "companies who want to
do a better job of communicating to their
employees because they want to remain
union-free. They aren't quite sure how
to do it, so we go in and set that up."

With its $10 billion-a-year bankroll and
its weaponry of persuasion,the PR
industry can often outmaneuver, overpower,
and outlast citizen reformers.

One of National Grassroots' first tasks,
after information gathering/spying, is
to setup its own local organizations by
hiring "local ambassadors who know the
community inside and out to be our advocates,
and then we work with them," explains
Whitney. "They report to us. They are
on our payroll, but it's for a very small
amount of money. [O]ur best community
ambassadors are women who have possibly
been head of their local PTA; they are
very active in their local community --
or women who are retired and who have
a lot of time on their hands." They
are supervised by professionals with
"field organizing experience" on electoral
campaigns who "can drop in the middle of
nowhere and in two weeks they have an
organization set up and ready to go."

These professional grassroots organizers
dress carefully to avoid looking like
the high-priced, out-of-town hired guns
they really are. "When I go to a zoning
board meeting," Whitney explained, "I
wear absolutely no make-up, I comb my
hair straight back in a ponytail, and
I wear my kids' old clothes. You don't
want to look like you're someone from
Washington, or someone from a
corporation.... People hate outsiders;
it's just human nature." (20)

With enough money, the same techniques
can be applied on a national scale.
As the health care debate heated up
in the early days of the Clinton
administration, Blair G. Childs
masterminded the Coalition for Health
Insurance Choices (CHIC). An insurance
industry front group, CHIC received
major funding from the National Federation
of Independent Businesses and the
Health Insurance Association of America
(HIAA), a trade group of insurance
companies. According to Consumer
Reports, "The HIAA doesn't just
support the coalition; it created
it from scratch." (21)

Health reform opponents used opinion
polling to develop a point-by-point
list of vulnerabilities in the Clinton
administration proposal and organized
over 20 separate coalitions to hammer
away at each point. Each group chose
a name with "a general positive
reaction....That's where focus group
and survey work can be very beneficial,"
explained Childs. " 'Fairness,''balance,'
'choice,' 'coalition,' and 'alliance'
are all words that resonate very
positively." (22) Childs, who has
been organizing grassroots support
for the insurance industry for a
decade, wasn't the only PR genius
behind the anti-health care campaign,
but his coalition can honestly claim
the kill.

CHIC'S multi-coalition strategy assured
numbers and cover, and took advantage
of different strengths. "Some have
lobby strength, some have grassroots
strength, and some have good
spokespersons," Childs said. In
its campaign against "mandatory
health alliances," CHIC drew in
"everyone from the homeless Vietnam
veterans....to some very conservative
groups." (23) It also sponsored the
legendary "Harry and Louise" TV spot
which, according to the New York Times,
"'symbolized everything that went wrong
with the great health care struggle of
1994: A powerful advertising campaign,
financed by the insurance industry,
that played on people's fears and
helped derail the process." (24)

CHIC and the other coalitions also used
direct mail and phoning, coordinated
with daily doses of misinformation from
radio blowtorch Rush Limbaugh, to
spread fears that government health
care would bankrupt the country, reduce
the quality of care, and lead to
jail terms for people who wanted to
stick with their family doctor. Childs
explained how his coalition used paid
ads on the Limbaugh show to generate
thousands of citizen phone calls from
the show's 20 million listeners. First,
Limbaugh would whip up his fans with a
calculated rant against the Clinton plan.
Then, during a commercial break,
listeners would hear an anti-health
care ad and an 800 number to call for
more information. The call would ring
a telemarketer who would ask a few
questions, then "patch them through"
electronically to their congressmembers'
office. Staffers fielding the resulting
barrage of phone calls typically had no
idea that the constituents had been
primed, loaded, aimed, and fired at
them by radio ads paid for by the
insurance industry, with the goal of
orchestrating the appearance of
overwhelming grassroots opposition
to health reform. (25)

When the health care debate began in
1993, Childs said, popular demand for
change was so strong that the insurance
industry was "looking down the barrel
of a gun." By 1994, industry's hired
PR guns had shot down every proposal
for reform.


Managing the Media
Many PR pros think that the media, both
national and local, are easier to handle
than the public. To begin with, the
media itself is a huge, profitable business,
the domain of fewer and fewer giant
transnational corporations. Not
surprisingly, these transnationals
often find that their corporate agenda
and interest are compatible with, or even
identical to, the goals of the PR industry's
biggest clients. While this environment
may be demoralizing to responsible
journalists, it offers a veritable
hog heaven to the public relations
industry.

In their 1985 book, Jeff andMarie Blyskal
write that PR people know how the press
thinks. Thus, they are able to tailor
their publicity so that journalists
will listen and cover it. As a result
much of the news you read in newspapers
and magazines or watch on television
and hear on radio is heavily influenced
and slanted by public relations people.
Whole sections of the news are virtually
owned by PR....Newspaper food pages are
a PR man's paradise, as are the entertainment,
automotive, realestate, home improvement
and living sections... Unfortunately, 'news'
hatched by a PR person and journalist
working together looks much like real
news dug up by enterprising journalists
working independently. The public thus
does not know which news stories and
journalists playing servant to PR. (26)

As a result, notes a senior vice-president
with Gray & Company public relations, "Most
of what you see on TV is, in effect, a
canned PR product. Most of what you
read in the paper and see on television
is not news." (27)

The blurring of news and ads accelerated
in the 1980s, when PR firms discovered
that they could film, edit, and produce
their own news segments -- even entire
programs -- and that broadcasters would
play them as "news," often with no
editing. Video newsreleases (VNRs),
typically come packaged with two versions:
The first is fully edited, with voiceovers
prerecorded or scripted for a local anchor
to read. The second, a "B-roll," is raw
footage that the station can edit and
combine with tape from other sources.

"There are two economics at work here on
the television side," explains a Gray
& Company executive. "The big stations
don't want prepackaged, pretaped. They
have the money, the budget, and the
manpower to put their own together. But
the smaller stations across the country
lap up stuff like this." (28) With few
exceptions, broadcasters as agroup have
refused to consider standards for VNRs,
in part because they rarely admit to
airing them. But when MediaLink -- the
PR firm that distributed about half of
the 4,000 VNRs made available to
newscasters in 1991 -- surveyed 92
newsrooms, it found that all had used
VNRs supplied free by PR firms. CBS
Evening News, for example, ran a segment
on the hazards of automatic safety belts
created by a lobby group largely
supported by lawyers. (29)



Cyberjunk Mail
The PR industry is innovating rapidly
and expanding into cyberspace. Hyped
as the ultimate in "electronic democracy,"
the information superhighway will
supposedly offer "a global cornucopia
of programming" offering instant,
inexpensive access to nearly infinite
libraries of data, educational material
and entertainment. But as computer
technology brings a user-friendlier
version of the internet to a wider
spectrum of users, it has attracted
intense corporate interest.

Given that a handful of corporations now
control most media, media historian
Robert McChesney finds it is
"no surprise that the private sector,
with its immense resources, has seized
the initiative and is commercializing
cyberspace at a spectacular rate --
effectively transforming it into a
giant shopping mall." (30) PR firms
are jumping on the online bandwagon,
establishing "world wide web" sites
and using surveys and games to gather
marketing and opinion information
about the users of cyberspace, and
developing new techniques to target
and reach reporters and other online
users.

"Today, with many more options available,
PR professionals are much less dependent
upon mass media for publicity," writes
industry pro Kirk Hallahan in Public
Relations Quarterly. "In the decade
ahead, the largest American corporations
could underwrite entire, sponsored
channels....[which] will be able to
reach coveted super-heavy users ...
with a highly tailored message over
which [corporations could] exert complete
control.'' (3l)

Fighting Back at Flacks
The groups that most scare the PR industry
are the local grassroots groups they
derisively label "NIMBYs." Unlike national
environmental groups and other "professional"
reformers, the local groups are hard
to manipulate precisely because they aren't
wired into the systems that PR firms like
to manipulate. Most "Not in My Backyard"
activists commit to a cause after some
personal experience drives them to get
involved. Typically, they act as individuals
or with small groups of citizens who
come together to address a local, immediate
threat to their lives, cities and
neighborhoods. They are often treated
with contempt by the professional
environmentalists, health advocates
and other public interest organizations
headquartered in Washington, D.C. Many
times, they lack organizing expertise
and money. They don't have budgets or
polished grant proposals needed to obtain
funding from foundations and major donors.
But corporations andthe US government are
spending tens of millions of dollars on
PR and lobbying to fight these local
community activists.

The most visible manifestations of NIMBYism,
and its biggest success stories, have
been in stopping toxic waste sites and
toxin-belching incinerators from invading
communities. Author Mark Dowie sees this
new wave of grassroots democracy as the
best hope for realizing the public's
well-documented desire for a clean and
healthy environment in sustainable balance
with nature. "Today, grassroots anti-toxic
environmentalism is a far more serious
threat to polluting industries than the
mainstream environmental movement," Dowie
writes. "Not only do local activists network,
share tactics, and successfully block many
dump sites and industrial developments,
they also stubbornly refuse to surrender
or compromise. They simply cannot afford
to. Their activities and success are
gradually changing the acronym NIMBY to
NIABY -- Not In Anybody's Backyard." (32)

But before that can happen, local groups
need to develop a strategy for confronting
the powers-that-be in their backyard, and
that means learning to recognize and fight
the techniques of PR. Until they learn this
lesson, local activists may continue to win
local battles, while finding themselves
outmaneuvered and outgunned at the national
level.

John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton edit PR
Watch, a quarterly publication about the
public relations industry, and are authors
of the new book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For
You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public
Relations Industry published by Common
Courage Press. The book can be ordered
by phone by calling 1-800-497-3207, or
by mail for $20/book (includes postage
and handling) from the Center for Media
& Democracy, 3318 Gregory Street, Madison,
WI 53711.

1 Taking the Risk out of Democracy (Sydney, Australia: University of
New South Wales Press, 1995), p.18.

2. Associated Press, Zoos Take Action on Antifreeze, New York Times,
Oct. 8, 1995.

3. Pamela Whitney, speech, "Shaping Public Opinion: If You Don't Do It,
Someone Else Will," Chicago, Dec. 9, 1994

4. Ibid.

5. Susan B. Trento, The Power House: Robert Keith Gray and the Selling
of Access and Influence in Washington (NewYork: St. Martin's Press,
1992) p. 62.

6. David Steinman, Diet for a Poisoned Planet How to Choose Safe Foods
for You and Your Family (NewYork: Harmony Books, 1990).

7. Ketchum Public Relations Confidential Memo toCAL' RAB Food Safety
Team, Sept. 7, 1990.

8. Ibid

9. Jean Rainey, Memo for Roland Woerner Regarding David Steinman
Booking on Today Show," (no date).
principal aims right now as social

10. Ronald Duchin, "Take an Activist Apart and WhatDo You Have?'
CALFNews Cattle Feeder, June 1991,pp. 9,14.

11. News release, Safe Food Coalition, Nov. 4,1994.

12. Interview with Carol Tucker Foreman, Spring 1994.

13. Sheila Kaplan, Porter/Novelli Plays AII Sides, ~Legal limes, Nov.
22,1993, pp. 1, 21~23.

14. Press kit from Hill & Knowlton on behalf of Partnersfor Sun
Protection Awareness, 1995.

15. Profiles of Top Environmental PR Firms: Hill & Knowlton," O'Dwyer's
PR Services Report, Feb. 1994,p. 40.

16.Video News Release, Press kit from Hill & Knowlton on behalf of
Partners for Sun Protection Awareness, 1994.

17. "Grassroots Lobbying Glossary, Campaigns & Elections, Dec./Jan.
1995, p. 22.

18. Advertisement, Campaigns & Elections, Dec./Jan.1995.

19. John Davies speaking at "Shaping Public ...," op. cit.

20. Pamela Whitney speaking at Shaping Public Opinion...,"op. cit.

21. "Public Interest Pretenders,' Consumer Reports May 1994, p. 317.

22. Blair Childs speaking at Shaping Public Opinion,' op. cit

23. Ibid.

24. Robin Toner, Harry and Louise and a Guy NamedBen," New York Times,
Sept. 9, 1994.

25. Blair Childs, Shaping Public Opinion ... ,' op. cit.

26. Jeff and Marie Blyskal, PR: How the PublicRelations Industry Writes
the News (New York:William Morrow & Co., 1985), p. 28.

27. Trento, op. cit., p. 233.

28. Ibid., p. 245.

29. David Lieberman, "Fake News,' TV Guide, Feb.2228, 1992, p. 10.

30. Robert W. McChesney, Information SuperhighwayRobbery," In These
Times, July 10, 1995 p. 14.

31. Kirk Hallahan, Public Relations and Circumventionof the Press "
Public Relations Quarterly, Summer 1994,pp. 17-19.

32. Mark Dowie, Losing Ground:American Environmentalism at theClose of
the 20th Century (Cambridge:MIT Press, 1995), p. 133.


http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ55prwar3.html

BEST FRIENDS MONEY CAN BUY
Another crude but effective way to derail potentially
meddlesome activists is simply to hire them. In early
1993, Carol Tucker Foreman, former executive director
of the Consumer Federation of America, took a job for
what is rumored to be an exceptionally large fee as
a personal lobbyist for bovine growth hormone (rBGH),
the controversial milk hormone produced by chemical
giant Monsanto. With Foreman's help, Monsanto has
successfully prevented Congress or the FDA from
requiring labeling of milk from cows injected with
rBGH. In fact, the company used threats of
lawsuits to intimidate dairy retailers and
legislators who wanted to label their milk rBGH-free.
While she is helping Monsanto wage its all-out
campaign for rBGH, Foreman is also the coordinator
and lobbyist for the Safe Food Coalition, an
alliance of consumer advocacy, senior citizen,
whistleblower protection, and labor organizations.
Formed by Foreman in 1987, the Coalition's
members include such public interest heavyweights
as Michael Jacobson's Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI), Ralph Nader's Public
Citizen, and Public Voice for Food and Health Policy.

Foreman said she saw no conflict of interest in
simultaneously representing rBGH and the Safe Food
Coalition. The FDA has said rBGH is safe, she
explained, adding Why don't you call CSPI; they
say rBGH is safe too? Asked how much money she
has received from Monsanto to lobby for rBGH,
she angrily retorted, What in the world business
is that of yours? Her D.C. consulting firm,
Foreman & Heidepriem, refused to provide further
information and referred journalists to
Monsanto's PR department.

BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET
William Novelli, a founder of the New York-based
Porter/Novelli PR firm, cheerfully uses the term
cross-pollination to describe his company's
technique of orchestrating collusion between
clients with seemingly conflicting interests.
By donating free work to health-related
charities, for example, Porter/Novelli gains
leverage to pressure the charities into
supporting the interests of the firm's paying
corporate clients. In 1993, this strategy
paid off when produce growers and pesticide
manufacturers represented by Porter/Novelli
learned that PBS was about to air a documentary
by Bill Moyers on pesticide-related cancer
risks to children. The PR firm turned to
the American Cancer Society (ACS), to which
it had provided decades of free services.
The national office of ACS dutifully issued
a memo charging that the Moyers program
makes unfounded suggestions...that pesticide
residues in food may be at hazardous levels.
The industry then cited the memo as evidence
that Moyers' documentary overstated dangers
to children from pesticides.

Hill & Knowlton executive Nina Oligino used
a similar cross-pollination technique in
1994 to line up national environmental
groups behind Partners for Sun Protection
Awareness, a front group for Hill &
Knowlton's client, Schering-Plough. Best
known for Coppertone sun lotion, the drug
transnational uses the Partners to educate
the public to the dangers of skin cancer,
cataracts, and damaged immune systems
caused by a thinning ozone layer and an
increase in ultraviolet radiation.

In the past, Hill & Knowlton has also
worked for corporate clients who hired
them to disprove or belittle the
environmental warnings of global climate
change.15 Seamlessly shifting gears
into environmentalist mode, Hill &
Knowlton convinced leaders of the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Sierra
Club to add their names to the Partners
for Sun Protection letterhead.

A representative (who asked not to be named)
of one of the environmental groups said he
was ignorant of the Schering-Plough
funding and its hidden agenda to sell
sun lotion. Had he examined the Partners
campaign, however, he might have noticed
that it offered no proposals for
preventing further ozone depletion
and failed to mention that covering
up completely was the best sun screen
of all. Instead, the primary action
the drug company-funded coalition
recommended was to liberally apply a
sunscreen...to all exposed parts of
the body before going outdoors. One
of the campaign's clever video news
releases shows scores of sexy,
scantily-clad sun worshippers overexposing
themselves to UV rays, while slathering
on suntan oil.

SYNTHETIC GRASSROOTS
PR firms often bypass activist organizations
and custom design their own grassroots
citizen movements using rapidly evolving
high-tech data and communications systems.
Known in the trade as astroturf, this
tactic is defined by Campaigns & Elections
magazine as a grassroots program that
involves the instant manufacturing of
public support for a point of view in
which either uninformed activists are
recruited or means of deception are used
to recruit them.
Astroturf is particularly useful in
countering NIMBY or Not in my back
yard movements community groups organizing
to stop their neighborhood from hosting
a toxic waste dump, porno bookstore, or
other unwanted invaders.

John Davies, who helps neutralize these
groups on behalf of corporate clients
such as Mobil Oil, Hyatt Hotels, Exxon,
and American Express, describes himself
as one of America's premier grassroots
consultants. His ad in Campaigns &
Elections (see p. 18) is designed to
strike terror into the heart of even
the bravest CEO. It features a photo
of the enemy: a little old white-haired
lady holding a hand-lettered sign, Not
In My Backyard! The caption warns,
Don't leave your future in her hands.
Traditional lobbying is no longer
enough....To outnumber your opponents,
call Davies Communications.

Davies promises to make a strategically
planned program look like a spontaneous
explosion of community support for needy
corporate clients by using mailing lists
and computer databases to identify
potential supporters. He claims his
telemarketers will make passive supporters
appear to be concerned advocates. We want
to assist them with letter writing. We
get them on the phone [and say], `Will
you write a letter?' `Sure.' `Do you
have time to write it?' `Not really.'
`Could we write it for you?... Just hold,
we have a writer standing by.'

Another Davies employee then helps create
what appears to be a personal letter. If
the appropriate public official is close
by, we hand-deliver it. We hand-write it
out on `little kitty cat stationery' if
it's a little old lady. If it's a
business we take it over to be photocopied
on someone's letterhead. [We] use
different stamps, different envelopes....
Getting a pile of personalized letters
that have a different look to them is
what you want to strive for.

BLENDING IN
Grassroots PR is the specialty of Pamela
Whitney at National Grassroots &
Communications, the firm that spied on
Lynn Tylczak.
My company basically works for major
corporations and we do new market entries,
she says. Wal-Mart is one of our clients.
We take on the NIMBYs and environmentalists.
They also work for companies who want to do
a better job of communicating to their
employees because they want to remain
union-free. They aren't quite sure how
to do it, so we go in and set that up.

One of National Grassroots' first tasks,
after information gathering/spying, is
to set up its own local organizations by
hiring local ambassadors who know the
community inside and out to be our advocates,
and then we work with them, explains Whitney.
They report to us. They are on our payroll,
but it's for a very small amount of money.
[O]ur best community ambassadors are women
who have possibly been head of their local
PTA; they are very active in their local
community or women who are retired and
who have a lot of time on their hands.
They are supervised by professionals
with field organizing experience on
electoral campaigns who can drop in
the middle of nowhere and in two weeks
they have an organization set up and
ready to go.

These professional grassroots organizers
dress carefully to avoid looking like the
high-priced, out-of-town hired guns they
really are. When I go to a zoning board
meeting, Whitney explained, I wear absolutely
no make-up, I comb my hair straight back
in a ponytail, and I wear my kids'
old clothes. You don't want to look
like you're someone from Washington,
or someone from a corporation....
People hate outsiders; it's just human nature.

With enough money, the same techniques
can be applied on a national scale.
As the health care debate heated up
in the early days of the Clinton
administration, Blair G. Childs
masterminded the Coalition for Health
Insurance Choices (CHIC). An insurance
industry front group, CHIC received
major funding from the National Federation
of Independent Businesses and the
Health Insurance Association of America
(HIAA), a trade group of insurance
companies. According to Consumer Reports,
The HIAA doesn't just support the
coalition; it created it from scratch.

Health reform opponents used opinion
polling to develop a point-by-point
list of vulnerabilities in the Clinton
administration proposal and organized
over 20 separate coalitions to hammer
away at each point. Each group chose
a name with a general positive
reaction....That's where focus group
and survey work can be very beneficial,
explained Childs. `Fairness,' `balance,'
`choice,' `coalition,' and `alliance'
are all words that resonate very positively.
Childs, who has been organizing grassroots
support for the insurance industry for
a decade, wasn't the only PR genius
behind the anti-health care campaign,
but his coalition can honestly claim the kill.

CHIC's multi-coalition strategy assured
numbers and cover, and took advantage
of different strengths. Some have lobby
strength, some have grassroots strength,
and some have good spokespersons,
Childs said. In its campaign against
mandatory health alliances, CHIC drew
in everyone from the homeless Vietnam
veterans....to some very conservative
groups. *23 It also sponsored the
legendary Harry and Louise TV spot
which, according to the New York Times,
'symbolized everything that went wrong
with the great health care struggle of
1994: A powerful advertising campaign,
financed by the insurance industry, that
played on people's fears and helped
derail the process.

CHIC and the other coalitions also used
direct mail and phoning, coordinated
with daily doses of misinformation from
radio blowtorch Rush Limbaugh, to
spread fears that government health
care would bankrupt the country, reduce
the quality of care, and lead to
jail terms for people who wanted
to stick with their family doctor.
Childs explained how his coalition
used paid ads on the Limbaugh show
to generate thousands of citizen phone
calls from the show's 20 million
listeners. First, Limbaugh would
whip up his fans with a calculated
rant against the Clinton plan. Then,
during a commercial break, listeners
would hear an anti-health care ad and
an 800 number to call for more
information. The call would ring
a telemarketer who would ask a few
questions, then patch them through
electronically to their congressmembers'
office. Staffers fielding the resulting
barrage of phone calls typically had no
idea that the constituents had been
primed, loaded, aimed, and fired at
them by radio ads paid for by the
insurance industry, with the goal of
orchestrating the appearance of
overwhelming grassroots opposition to
health reform.

When the health care debate began
in 1993, Childs said, popular demand
for change was so strong that the
insurance industry was looking down
the barrel of a gun. By 1994,
industry's hired PR guns had shot
down every proposal for reform.

MANAGING THE MEDIA
Many PR pros think that the media, both
national and local, are easier to
handle than the public. To begin
with, the media itself is a huge,
profitable business, the domain of
fewer and fewer giant transnational
corporations. Not surprisingly,
these transnationals often find
that their corporate agenda and
interest are compatible with, or
even identical to, the goals of
the PR industry's biggest clients.
While this environment may be
demoralizing to responsible
journalists, it offers a veritable
hog heaven to the public relations industry.
In their 1985 book, Jeff and Marie
Blyskal write that

"PR people know how the press thinks.
Thus, they are able to tailor their
publicity so that journalists will
listen and cover it. As a result much
of the news you read in newspapers
and magazines or watch on television
and hear on radio is heavily influenced
and slanted by public relations people.
Whole sections of the news are virtually
owned by PR....Newspaper food pages
are a PR man's paradise, as are the
entertainment, automotive, real estate,
home improvement and living sections...
Unfortunately, `news' hatched by a PR person
and journalist working together looks much
like real news dug up by enterprising
journalists working independently. The
public thus does not know which news
stories and journalists are playing
servant to PR. "
As a result, notes a senior vice-president
with Gray & Company public relations, Most
of what you see on TV is, in effect, a
canned PR product. Most of what you read
in the paper and see on television is not news.
The blurring of news and ads accelerated in the
1980s, when PR firms discovered that they
could film, edit, and produce their own news
segments even entire programs and that
broadcasters would play them as news, often
with no editing. Video news releases (VNRs),
typically come packaged with two versions:
The first is fully edited, with voiceovers
pre-recorded or scripted for a local anchor
to read. The second, a B-roll, is raw footage
that the station can edit and combine with
tape from other sources.

There are two economics at work here on the
television side, explains a Gray & Company
executive. The big stations don't want
prepackaged, pretaped. They have the money,
the budget, and the manpower to put their
own together. But the smaller stations
across the country lap up stuff like this.

With few exceptions, broadcasters as a group
have refused to consider standards for VNRs,
in part because they rarely admit to airing
them. But when MediaLink the PR firm that
distributed about half of the 4,000 VNRs
made available to newscasters in 1991
surveyed 92 newsrooms, it found that
all had used VNRs supplied free by PR
firms. CBS Evening News, for example,
ran a segment on the hazards of automatic
safety belts created by a lobby group
largely supported by lawyers.

CYBERJUNK MAIL
The PR industry is innovating rapidly and
expanding into cyberspace. Hyped as the
ultimate in electronic democracy, the
information superhighway will supposedly
offer a global cornucopia of programming
offering instant, inexpensive access to
nearly infinite libraries of data,
educational material and entertainment.
But as computer technology brings a
user-friendlier version of the internet
to a wider spectrum of users, it has
attracted intense corporate interest.
Given that a handful of corporations now
control most media, media historian
Robert McChesney finds it is no surprise
that the private sector, with its
immense resources, has seized the
initiative and is commercializing
cyberspace at a spectacular rate
effectively transforming it into
a giant shopping mall. *30 PR firms
are jumping on the online bandwagon,
establishing world wide web sites and
using surveys and games to gather
marketing and opinion information
about the users of cyberspace, and
developing new techniques to target
and reach reporters and other online users.

Today, with many more options available,
PR professionals are much less dependent
upon mass media for publicity, writes
industry pro Kirk Hallahan in Public
Relations Quarterly. In the decade ahead,
the largest American corporations could
underwrite entire, sponsored channels. ...
[which] will be able to reach coveted
super-heavy users ... with a highly
tailored message over which
[corporations could] exert complete control.

FIGHTING BACK AT FLACKS
The groups that most scare the PR
industry are the local grassroots
groups they derisively label NIMBYs.
Unlike national environmental groups
and other professional reformers, the
local groups are hard to manipulate
precisely because they aren't wired in
to the systems that PR firms like to
manipulate. Most Not in My Backyard
activists commit to a cause after
some personal experience drives them
to get involved. Typically, they act
as individuals or with small groups
of citizens who come together to address
a local, immediate threat to their lives,
cities and neighborhoods. They are often
treated with contempt by the
professional environmentalists,
health advocates and other public
interest organizations headquartered
in Washington, D.C. Many times, they
lack organizing expertise and money.
They don't have budgets or polished grant
proposals needed to obtain funding from
foundations and major donors. But
corporations and the US government
are spending tens of millions of dollars
on PR and lobbying to fight these
local community activists.
The most visible manifestations of NIMBYism,
and its biggest success stories, have been
in stopping toxic waste sites and
toxin-belching incinerators from invading
communities. Author Mark Dowie sees this
new wave of grassroots democracy as the
best hope for realizing the public's
well-documented desire for a clean and
healthy environment in sustainable balance
with nature. Today, grassroots anti-toxic
environmentalism is a far more serious
threat to polluting industries than the
mainstream environmental movement,
Dowie writes. Not only do local activists
network, share tactics, and successfully
block many dump sites and industrial
developments, they also stubbornly refuse
to surrender or compromise. They simply
cannot afford to. Their activities and
success are gradually changing the
acronym NIMBY to NIABY Not In Anybody's Backyard.

But before that can happen, local groups
need to develop a strategy for confronting
the powers-that-be in their backyard, and
that means learning to recognize and fight
the techniques of PR. Until they learn
this lesson, local activists may continue
to win local battles, while finding
themselves outmaneuvered and outgunned
at the national level.