Dear Teachers, Health Advocates, Parents and others: Should we keep offering NEWS YOU CAN USE? We need to know how many people use and value these news items for classroom discussions. Please take one minute to THANKS.

May 28, 2008: Virginia Commonwealth University has an agreement with Phillip Morris to accept money for tobacco research but not publish the results without the tobacco company's permission, violating not only ethical standards for university research but also violating the University's own guidelines, according to a New York Times article [link may require free registration on NYT site]. According to the article, "If 'a third party,' including news organizations, asks about the agreement, university officials have to decline to comment and tell the company. Nearly all patent and other intellectual property rights go to the company, not the university or its professors." The newspaper obtained a copy of the agreement under the VIrginia Freedom of Information law. "The restricted contract with Virginia Commonwealth [according to a senior vice president with Phillip Morris], was part of what he hopes will be a new and different relationship between the company and universities. But scientists said such restrictions — especially the constraints on publication and what university officials can say publicly — are contrary to the open discussion essential to university research. '“It’s counter to the entire purpose and rationale of a university,' said David Rosner, a professor of public health and history at Columbia University. 'It’s not a consulting company; it’s not just another commercial firm.'"
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Read the article. What type of "new and different relationship" between Phillip Morris USA (the nation's largest tobacco company) and universities might the company want? Why don't they define it more clearly? They demanded an agreement that required the university, which is funded with public dollars, to not disclose their research to the public without the company's permission, ostensibly to protect "proprietary information" that might result from the research. Is this claim credible, and even if it is, does that justify the secrecy? Consider the final quote above by Columbia professor Rosner. Why doesn't Phillip Morris just hire its own scientists to do the research, either as employees or consultants? Is research more credible in the eyes of the public (and government regulators) when it is "done by" a university than by a company? Might this be a reason for this arrangement? If university researchers give up their traditional scientific independence in exchange for money, how will the rest of us know when research results are independent and credible, or influenced by the money sponsors?

May 7, 2008: "For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially 'alarming information' as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates," according to the Center for Public Integrity, which obtained a copy of the study. The study warns that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen “areas of concern”—including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee—may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants. Public health officials and members of Congress are now calling for the study's release, with some suggesting it has been held back because of potential public concern and liability issues for the governments and chemical companies located in the region.
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Read the article. What is the potential news impact of this story? What are the possible reasons that it has been withheld from the public? What kinds of issues must be taken into account when an agency has to decide whether or not to release a report? Or should there be no issues about whether or not to release such a study, as long as the results have been thoroughly reviewed and found scientifically accurate? Should politics play a part in the decision? Why or why not?

April 2, 2008: Rap music increasingly glamorizes drug use, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, who found a sixfold increase in drug references in songs over the past two decades and reported in the Washington Post. "Positive portrayals of drug use have increased over time, and drug references increased overall," study author Denise Herd, associate dean of students at the School of Public Health. "This is an alarming trend, as rap artists are role models for the nation's youth, especially in urban areas. Many of these young people are already at risk and need to get positive messages from the media," Herd said. Of the 38 most popular rap songs between 1979 and 1984, only four (11 percent) contained drug references. By the late 1980s, that increased to 19 percent and by 1993, to 69 percent.
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Do you listen to rap music? If so, how often do you hear references to drugs or drug use? Could one song make a difference in how a young person thinks about drugs? What about many songs over a long period of time? How do people form their opinions, beliefs or personal tastes about appropriate lifestyle choices for themselves or for others? How repetition affect memory and learning? Did you know that a classic rule of advertising is that someone has to be exposed to a message at least three times before it can affect that person's thinking about the product? If advertisers spend millions and billions of dollars repeating their messages to influence your thinking about their products, how might it be different or the same for the repetition of positive drug messages in rap music and what rap music fans might think about drugs?

March 5, 2008: A group representing 4 million teachers in six countries, including the U.S., wants retailers to stop selling "Bully: Scholarship Edition," a video game that the educators say encourages bullying by rewarding players who harass fellow students and teachers. According to an article in Toronto's Globe and Mail,the game" features a shaven-headed teenager who adjusts to life at a new boarding school by harassing others, which the organizations say glorifies bullying. The abuse includes dunking pupils' heads in toilets, photographing them naked and physically assaulting them. Teachers are also targeted." The president of the Canadian Teacher's Federation said, "We're asking retailers to be responsible. Yes, they can sell it and make a buck out of this, but is this the kind of marketing that they want to be [doing], selling games that glorify violence?" A spokesman for the game developer responded that Bully won several awards and said critics are overreacting. He said, "As a matter of principle, we hope everyone starts off by saying, 'Okay, we know this is an entertainment experience.'...If you don't have our sense of humour, we respect that, but we think that fans'... voice has to be at least as important as the detractors."

An assistant professor at McGill University who is considered an expert on the role of violence in video games said, "As tempting as it may seem, I'm not so certain that banning this will somehow result in a more peaceful and more loving school population," adding that he hasn't found any compelling evidence to suggest that playing a violent video game results in violent actions. 
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: The discussion about violence in media, and whether it affects attitudes and behaviors, has been going on for more than 20 years. The Center for Media Literacy and National Institute on Media & the Family have good background reading. The McGill University professor perpetuates, in two different ways, our society's inability to resolve the issue: he sets up a straw man argument (notice that nobody ever claimed that "Bully" would "result in a more peaceful and move loving school population") and he frames the key question as "does playing a violent video game result in violent action?" This is the wrong question to be asking, but industry representatives and so-called "experts" love to frame the debate this way because it's a question that can never be answered "yes." People concerned about media violence suggest that the more appropriate question to ask is, "What are the long-term consequences of children' and young people's repeated exposure to media violence, especially when the violence is presented as entertainment?" Contrary to what the professor suggests, there is, in fact, plenty of research indicating that exposure to violent video games and other media does increase aggression in young people. Discuss the violence you see in media. Do you think repeated exposure to media violence can "normalize" violence for young people, i.e. make it seem like an acceptable way to solve problems? How do children learn social and moral codes as they grow up, and where do they learn them from?

Sept. 12, 2007: Babies that are not breast fed suffer higher rates of health problems including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), diabetes, lymphoma, leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, obesity, high cholesterol and asthma. Unfortunately, many parents are still unaware of these risks, thanks to the infant formula industry. The Washington Post just recently reported that in 2003, the industry hired a lobbyist, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and former agriculture secretary Clayton Yeutter, who lobbied the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to yank an attention-grabbing advertising campaign that would have warned of the risks. Yeutter told HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson the ads should be pulled because they would create "guilty feelings" in women who fail to breastfeed. HHS replaced the original ads with a watered-down advertising campaign, which was so ineffective that breast-feeding rates actually dropped during the period when it was broadcast. In an interview with PR Week, Mardi Mountford of the International Formula Council disputed accusations of undue industry influence.Original Source: Washington Post, August 31, 2007.This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Why might a story like this not be reported until four years later? Should the government's public health objective be to not create guilty feelings in mothers who don't breast feed, OR to inform as many women as possible of the benefits of the practice and the risks of not doing so? Should the government be spending taxpayer money in the first place for this type of advertising? What is the long-term public health benefit, if any, of informing new mothers of the advantages of breast feeding? Could spending advertising dollars now save taxpayer money in the long run by reducing federal subsidies for health care? What do you think about the influence of lobbyists on government policy? Can anything be done about it and if so, what?

May 23-30: "Amid strenuous lobbying across Europe" to end restrictions on direct-to-consumer drug advertising, four pharmaceutical companies are considering launching their own television station. Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Novartis and Procter & Gamble envision "Pharma TV" as "a dedicated interactive digital channel funded by the industry with health news and features," reports Guardian's Sarah Boseley. The companies are calling it the "European Patient Information Channel," and say its "on demand" drug information would "enable patients and citizens to make better decisions." The pharmaceutical industry wants "direct access" to European patients, and is backed "by a number of influential patient groups that are themselves heavily funded by drug companies." Independent groups under the International Society of Drug Bulletins warn that industry messages tend to focus on "relatively few top sellers, exaggerating effects and concealing risks, confusing patients and putting pressure on doctors to prescribe drugs they would not use otherwise." Original Source: Guardian (UK), May 21, 2007.This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Do you think you or your parents are affected by drug advertising you see on TV? If you are not affected, why do drug companies spend many millions of dollars on direct-to-consumer drug advertising? Would they spend it if they didn't think it helped sell more drugs? What do research studies show about the frequency of patient requests or doctor prescriptions of the most heavily advertised drugs? In your mind, is this kind of advertising "consumer education" to give patient's more choices, or is it simply advertising propaganda that should stop so that doctors can decide which drugs their patients need? What are the doctors' motivations? What are the drug companies' motivations?

May 13-23: The corporate-backed astroturf group" Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), which morphed into a new group called "FreedomWorks" in 2004, has helped defeat a bill in Oregon that aimed to raise the state's cigarette tax by 84 cents, to match that of neighboring Washington state. The tax was aimed at encouraging more smokers to quit while raising funds to provide health insurance to over 100,000 of the state's underprivileged children. In addition to the controversial way in which the company has been found to expand its mailing list and coffers (namely, by tricking people signing up for insurance policies), the group has long been closely linked to the tobacco industry and Philip Morris in particular. The tobacco industry is notorious for using third parties to fight legislation it doesn't like. Mr. Butts was so happy about defeating the Oregon tax, he created a YouTube video about his efforts.This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What is an "astroturf" group? What are the ways, if any, that an ordinary citizen can tell if a group is funded by corporations? Check out the FreedomWorks website. Even though there is a section called, "About Us," it doesn't say where its income comes from. Do you think most people notice that, or care? Should they care? Why or why not? What do you think is the strategy of having the Mr. Butts character "make" a YouTube video? Who probably actually made the video, and why?

April 11, 2007: The "first global summit against cervical cancer" was held in Paris on March 22 and promoted the need for national vaccination programmes for girls. The cost of the summit, estimated at millions of dollars, was "entirely funded" by Sanofi Pasteur MSD, the company with the European license to market Merck's Gardasil vaccine, reports Sarah Boseley of the UK's Guardian newspaper. Gardasil is effective against the most common strains of human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer. The "Coalition Against Cervical Cancer" was launched at the summit, and promoted by a video news release produced by the PR firm Euro RCSG and distributed by AP Television News. "Celebrities, doctors and journalists were shipped in from across Europe and the United States by PR agencies working for Sanofi," Boseley reports. Diane Harper, a professor at Dartmouth medical school in New Hampshire, flagged potential concerns and described a mass vaccination program as being "a great big public health experiment." Original Source: Guardian (UK), March 26, 2007.This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What does the Dartmouth professor mean when she says the proposed mass vaccination program is "a great big public health experient"? Who stands to gain, and what, if mass vaccinations are adopted in various countries? Are there any long-term studies on women who were vaccinated at a young age with this vaccine? If not, do you think that fact is included in the video news releases and other efforts to promote the drug? Could the Dartmouth professor's comment imply that there are no long-term studies? In the U.S., is it anybody's job is to insist that such studies exist before a drug is approved? Should companies be required to disclose any lack of long-term studies in drug advertising and promotional campaigns, perhaps similar to warnings on cigarette packages? If not, how will consumers find out?

Feb. 14, 2007: On January 30 the Washington Post printed an article by toxicologist and epidemiologist Gio Batta Gori, titled "The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke." Gori claims that many published studies on the health hazards of secondhand smoke are based on unreliable data, and that smoking restrictions aimed at protecting public health are "odious and unfair." The byline describes Gori as a "fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda," and mentions his former position as deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention.  Mmmm... sounds like a high-level scientist, all right. However, the Post fails to mention Gori's longstanding record of financial and contractual ties to the tobacco industry. Previously-secret internal tobacco company documents now on the Internet (and available to any reporter) show decades of payments made to the esteemed Dr. Gori, primarily from cigarette maker Brown & Williamson, for promoting pro-tobacco views on  secondhand smoke in publications and public testimony. Without this information, readers were kept in the dark, unable to evaluate Gori's damning critique of well-established public health research. Original source: Washington Post, January 30, 2007. This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why might an influential newspaper print an article by a scientist who seems to clearly have a bias from receiving money from tobacco companies? Does the Post carry tobacco ads in the newspaper? Do any members of its board of directors have links to tobacco companies or money invested in tobacco stocks? How can average citizens figure out who to trust about science and health issues?

Jan. 31, 2007: The Harvard School of Public Health released a study Thursday revealing that the amount of nicotine in cigarettes has increased significantly since the major American tobacco companies signed the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in 1998. Predictably, Philip Morris (PM), in a media release available at their web site, denies the study results. The U.S. Surgeon General in 1988 warned that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, but these drugs don't have decades of sophisticated R&D behind them aimed at heightening their addictiveness. Cigarettes, among the most highly engineered consumer products in the world, deliver nicotine into more people's bodies more times every day than aspirin. Still, they remain unregulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What was the Master Settlement Agreement signed in 1998? (Visit TobaccoFreedom.org for comprehensive info that is relatively balanced between individual rights and the harms deliberately perpetrated by tobacco companies. Here's an article on how this agreement affected tobacco advertising and promotion.) If nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, why doesn't the government regulate its production and sales? What is the historical role played by the tobacco industry in the founding of America, and how has this influenced government actions (or inactions) toward the industry ever since then? When were cigarette commercials banned on network TV? What is the result of research on the influence of smoking portrayals in movies? Are there more characters smoking in films now, or fewer?

Jan. 3, 2007: In November, the New England Journal of Medicine pulled an opinion column by Dr. Robert Steinbrook that was critical of ties between the National Kidney Foundation and drug companies. The column was to accompany the publication of two studies cautioning that the use of the drug erythropoietin (EPO), as recommended by the foundation, appeared to increase the risk of heart failure and kidney problems. Instead, the journal published a softer editorial by Julie Ingelfinger, a deputy editor at the journal, but without disclosing that she has close ties to the foundation. Steinbrook's article was published in The Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal. He noted that of the 18 members of the foundation's group that formulated the EPO guidelines, two-thirds had financial ties to the drug's manufacturers or marketers. In 2005 the foundation, David Armstrong writes in the Wall Street Journal, "received $4.1 million from Amgen Inc. and $3.6 million from Johnson & Johnson's Ortho Biotech, the current marketers of EPO in the U.S." SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), December 26, 2006.This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
            Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What does "conflict of interest" mean? When a medical magazine editor has ties to another organization that gets millions of dollars from drug manufacturers, can that editor's judgement and opinions on drug-related issues be considered entirely neutral and objective? Whose responsibility at the magazine is it to ensure that bias does not enter into what they publish? The New England Journal of Medicine has long been considered a medical magazine with high integrity -- does this incident help their reputation or hurt it? When a U.S. physician has to get his article published in Britain because the U.S. medical press won't publish it, what does that say about the relationship in the U.S. between drug companies and the medical profession? Do consumers benefit from this relationship or is it harmful? In what ways?

Nov. 30, 2006: Simon Chapman, Ph.D., a global authority on tobacco marketing at the University of Sydney, Australia School of Public Health, has accused cigarette manufacturers of carrying on a below-the-radar advertising campaign by flooding the Internet web site You Tube with thousands of videos showing sexy, smoking teens. Chapman notes that the vast majority of clips show young women partying, talking or assuming seductive poses while smoking. You Tube's anonymity provides the perfect cover for companies wanting to access a young audience, and it's free advertising--possibly an irresistible combination for tobacco companies, which are increasingly constrained from utilizing more traditional advertising avenues. Professor Chapman has a federal grant to investigate the matter. Tobacco advertising has been banned in Australia since 1992. SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, November 18, 2006 This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."

          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Do you or any of your friends smoke? Do you think you are influenced by tobacco advertising? Many teens say it doesn't influence them, but if advertising doesn't influence people, why would tobacco marketers spends tens of millions of dollars each year to put out their message? What do you know about the history of tobacco marketing and the efforts that have been made to reach the youth market? Do you think it's fair that teens are targeted by tobacco companies that know once a smoker becomes addicted (which happens quickly after startng) it's nearly impossible to quit?

Sept. 27, 2006: British Columbia's Deputy Minister of Health, Gordon Macatee, cancelled a lunchtime presentation on disease-mongering until a drug industry speaker could be added. University of Victoria health researcher Alan Cassels was surprised that the Health ministry was so sensitive about a discussion on the book he co-authored, "Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients." A ministry spokesperson, Marisa Adair, said the change "was all in the interest of presenting a balanced viewpoint." Cassels is unpersuaded: "I think my viewpoint is evidence-based. If they have a problem with the evidence-based viewpoint, what's the opposite? It's the marketing-based viewpoint?" Monday Magazine journalist Andrew MacLeod reported that an earlier presentation on obesity was given by a doctor who had received funding from the soft drink lobby group Refreshments Canada. MacLeod wryly noted that it was unclear "whether the ministry had anyone in representing the salad industry to balance his views." SOURCE: Monday Magazine (Canada), September 13, 2006. This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
           Classroom focus/media literacy questions: When is a "balanced viewpoint" necessary and when, if ever, does it not matter? Does a government health agency need to ensure that corporate viewpoints are heard, or should their priority be evidence-based scientific viewpoints that advocate for public health? Since government agency funding, is, by definition, taxpayer's (the public's) money, should the public expect to have priority over corporations in terms of whose interests are being served?

May 31, 2006: " Although patients seldom know it, many patient groups and drug companies maintain close, multimillion-dollar relationships while disclosing limited or no details about the ties," reports the Philadelphia Inquirer.   "At a time when people are making more of their own health-care decisions, such coziness raises questions about the impartiality of groups that patients trust for unbiased information. It also poses a challenge for groups trying to hold patients' trust and still raise money to serve them," says the reporter Thomas Ginsberg. The American Diabetes Association and The National Alliance on Mental Illness are cited as two groups that receive large sums from pharmaceutical companies. The Inquirer's examination of six groups, "each a leading advocate for patients in a disease area, found that the groups rarely disclose such ties when commenting or lobbying about donors' drugs. They also tend to be slower to publicize treatment problems than breakthroughs. Few openly questioned drug prices."

"At the same time, the groups perform an important function by providing services unavailable elsewhere, such as patient education and help in obtaining medications or affording insurance.They also try to police themselves. For example, each declares it does not endorse or reject products. All formally require that industry grants be 'unrestricted,' meaning that there are no strings attached. One of them, Children & Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or CHADD, formally caps pharmaceutical donations.
       Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Does it matter if drug companies give money to patient advocate groups? If you had a disease for which one of these groups is established, would you want to know about these sorts of relationships? Why or why not? Can organizations maintain their neutrality when they rely on drug company money to operate, and if so, how? Can access to "easy money" change an organization's agenda, and if so, how can the patient's interests be protected against the interests of organizational executives who might see such ongoing corporate money as a guarantee of their long-term job security?

March 29, 2006: Breast cancer patients are being courted by the Ketchum PR firm to help promote the drug Herceptin for Roche Pharmaceuticals, according to a Guardian [UK] article "The Selling of a Wonder Drug." Four years ago, almost no one had heard of Herceptin. Today, the drug is a household name, and British women with early-stage breast cancer are going to court for the right to get it, even though it is not actually licensed for use in early-stage cancer, and clinical tests have yet to prove it will ever save lives. According to one survey, 18 of 24 major patient groups in the UK accept drug-company money. "It is not just the patient groups that drug companies hope to get support from," Bosely writes. "They also want 'opinion leaders' - people with credibility who can be quoted in the papers and on TV.... But patient groups are the most rewarding target and there is an obvious risk that they could be influenced by companies….” This citation is from PR Watch's "The Weekly Spin."
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Should there be ethical guidelines that drug companies have to follow in contacting patients to solicit their cooperation in promoting their products through media appearances and patient groups, especially when there is no evidence that those patients might actually benefit from the drug? Are such patients being "used"? Why or why not? How can patients protect themselves from exploitation? Is it reasonable to expect that they could take steps to protect themselves when they have debilitating diseases such as cancer? Do patients and the general public have a right to know if and when testimony from patients (or public requests to get a drug) have been solicited by PR firms (i.e. should there be disclosure)?

Feb. 22, 2006: Doctors say popular TV shows are downplaying the dangers of prescription pain medications, which at times are depicted as "glorified aspirin." According to a Newsday article reprinted in the Los Angeles Times [after 2/29/06 a subscription is required for full article] "Prescription pain medications 'are often discussed in a real casual manner, almost as if there's real acceptance, whether it's prescribed or not,' said Dr. Marvin Seppala, a physician and chief medical officer at the Hazelden Foundation, an alcohol and drug treatment center near Minneapolis.... I don't think the media equate addiction to prescribed pain medication with addiction to heroin. But they're the same class of medication, just as powerful. In fact, some are more powerful." The article cites the program "Will and Grace," in which the title characters' friend Karen's "fondness for booze and prescription painkillers, such as Vicodin, which she apparently goes through like Tic Tacs, is one of the show's most reliable running jokes, a laugh-getter as surefire as Kramer's entrances or Frasier Crane's pomposity." Says Dr. David Crausman, director of the Center for Healthful Living, an outpatient counseling facility in Beverly Hills, "It's not a joke at all. It depicts a woman who's held hostage to her addiction. They're not showing her when she doesn't get her pain pill, when she doesn't have the alcohol. How she gets diarrhea, how she starts vomiting, how her skin will crawl, her legs will cramp. They don't show that, because that's not cute."
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: This issue speaks to the question: does media (TV, film, advertising, video games, etc.) create reality or only reflect it? In other words, will watching repeated "humorous" portrayals of people abusing prescription drugs make a viewer more likely to treat such drug use casually, perhaps leading to addiction, OR does showing these situations on TV only act as a mirror of what people already do? Could it be some of both? Instead of asking "does this cause that?", what different kind of answer might you get if you asked the question differently, such as in this way:  What might be the long-term cumulative effects, on viewers' attitudes toward prescription drug use/abuse, of programming that shows addiction as humorous and entertaining?

Feb. 1, 2006: Allergan has hired a major public relations firm to phone California residents and, without disclosing its corporate backing, pose as group called "Citizens Against Unfair Health Care Taxes" to drum up citizen opposition against a possible sales tax on Botox, an Allergan product. According to a story in the Sacramento Bee, "although prescription medicines are exempt from sales tax, state auditors have questioned whether Botox fits the [state tax board's] definition of a medicine when it is used for cosmetic rather than curative purposes," and, "a tax on Allergan's Botox Cosmetic could dampen the skyrocketing sales of the injection treatments." Dozens of California residents were persuaded to write the tax board to voice opposition and support "Citizens Against Unfair Health Care Taxes," which more than qualifies as an "astroturf" group according to Laura Miller, editor of PR Watch, a Web site run by the Center For Media and Democracy in Madison, Wis. "'They call it grass-roots. We call it Astroturf,'" Miller added. "'They are trying to create the perception that independent citizens are concerned.'"

The Bee article continues, "Campaigns & Elections Magazine defines 'Astroturf lobbying,' a phrase coined by former Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, as a program that quickly manufactures support for a viewpoint in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used in recruiting." At least one California resident has complained to the state, stating that she would not have agreed to protest had she known the origins of the campaign, but the tax board's reaction is mixed -- one was shocked at the extensive lobbying, and another discounted its impact. PRWatch's Miller said company-backed campaigns are poison: "It distorts public debate and ... the democratic process." This citation is from PR Watch.
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Do you agree that company-backed campaigns to drum up citizen support on public policy issues, without disclosing that they are company-backed, "distort public debate and the democratic process"?  If not, why not? Should citizens be completely responsible for checking out whether a group is a legitimate grass-roots non-profit before they agree to support its position, and if so, how would they know how to do that checking? Is it realistic to expect that most people would actually do so? How can government agencies accurately gauge public opinion if corporations are using stealth methods and fake organizations to influence the public?

Jan. 18, 2006: Washington, DC lobbyist Rick Berman's front group, the Center for Consumer Freedom, has launched a new website called FishScam.com along with a multimedia PR blitz including billboard and radio ads decrying the "hype" about health hazards of mercury in fish. Berman and his staff will not reveal who is funding the website and campaign, but a former employee says donors include Monsanto and Tyson Foods. "It's really extraordinary and extremely irresponsible," says Consumers Union director of food policy Jean Halloran. "Many people have educated themselves about this issue, but I'm concerned that less-educated women who don't realize he is industry-funded will take his advice." Many legitimate scientific studies have suggested that consumers, especially preganant women, avoid eating certain kinds of fish because of high levels of mercury found in them. Story source: Village Voice, January 17, 2006. This citation is from PR Watch.
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: Why would individuals or companies want to give millions of dollars to convince people that mercury is supposedly not a problem in fish, and not allow themselves to be identified as the source of the message? What does this campaign demonstrate about the need to be critical thinkers and viewers of information found in ALL forms of media -- websites, newspapers, billboards, radio, etc.? What does the term "follow the money" mean?

Nov. 1: 2005: "One large and important producer of genetically modified (GM) crops - Monsanto - has engineered public opinion to reduce critical scrutiny," writes a group of South African, Mexican and American academic researchers in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (see direct link to article PDF below) . Monsanto has followed "a tried-and-true set of PR tactics designed to tie GM crops to the question of hunger, to silence debate on the topic, and to challenge critics as technophobic. This PR strategy removes debate that is vital for public and environmental health." In portraying GM crops as a "solution" to hunger worldwide and promoting company defenders from developing countries, Monsanto has positioned itself "as a development partner, as a benevolent philanthropist who has technology to 'share.'" This PR strategy is "seductive," the researchers explain, in that it suggests easy answers to complex problems. It also "attempts to depoliticize; the public relations machinery, through active co-optation, becomes an 'anti-politics machine.'" SOURCE: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, October - December 2005. This citation is from PR Watch.
        Classroom focus/media literacy questions: What is public relations? What is its goal? Why would a corporation want to use public relations to influence public opinion instead of buying large ads in major magazines and newspaper? How can the average person know when public relations is being used on them to influence their attitudes and beliefs, or doesn't it matter?

Oct. 19: 2005: "When American corporations come up against inconvenient science," writes Bill Hogan, "they call in the American Council on Science and Health" whose medical / executive director, Dr. Gilbert Ross, has a background as spotty as his junk science-for-hire. Ross "defended the Wood Preservative Science Council, saying ... the arsenic in pressure-treated wood poses 'no risk to human health,'" and has written "on behalf of the farmed-salmon industry that the PCBs in fish 'are not a cause of any health risk, including cancer.'" For "his participation in a scheme that ultimately defrauded New York's Medicaid program of approximately $8 million," Ross had his medical license revoked, spent a year at a federal prison camp, and was barred from the Medicare or Medicaid programs for 10 years, after a judge found him to be "a highly untrustworthy individual." Ross regained his medical license last year. SOURCE: Mother Jones magazine, November / December 2005. This citation is from PR Watch.
         Classroom focus/media literacy questions: How much do food and chemical corporations spend each year on public relations firms? How much do they spend to set up non-profit organizations such as the "Wood Preservative Science Council" that represent the corporation's views (rather than independent viewpoints)? Why are these organizations called "astro-turf" groups by media watchdog organizations such as the Center for Media & Democracy, publishers of PR Watch? Why do companies like to use these "astro-turf" groups and their spokespeople (paid by the corporate funds which finance the groups) instead of their own corporate spokepersons? How can the average citizen know whether such groups are genuine, independent non-profits working in the public interest, or merely front groups for corporations that want to push their agenda from behind the facade of a "non-profit"?

Oct. 10, 2005: The Food and Drug Administration will hold a public hearing on direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising, "more than two years after the last public hearing ... failed to produce any guidelines to regulate the $4 billion ad category," reported AdAge on October 3. Of particular interest are celebrity endorsements, since "such approaches plainly do not reflect a data-oriented approach to promotion." The agency will also ask "whether and how techniques mislead consumers about the risk-benefit tradeoffs" of advertised drugs. In August, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America established their own voluntary DTC guidelines. This citation is from PR Watch.
          Classroom focus/media literacy questions: (see also May 4 entry below) What types of drugs are most commonly advertised direct-to-consumer  on TV? Why would those drugs be chosen over other types of prescription medication? How many (if any) other industrialized countries allow DTC advertising? What does the research show about how DTC advertising affects how often a doctor will actually prescribe the drug that the patient asks about? Is it ethical to use celebrities to "sell" drugs that are available only prescription?

May 4, 2005: Doctors are easily persuaded to prescribe antidepressants — often unnecessarily — when patients mention having seen them in television advertisements, researchers reported Tuesday.."Direct-to-consumer advertising - on which pharmaceutical companies spend roughly $3 billion a year - can trump medical need in influencing how doctors prescribe drugs," concludes a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. For the study, actresses posed as patients with mild depression and either asked about a specific antidepressant, based on TV ads; asked about medications in general; or just described their symptoms. Doctors "were five times more likely to write them prescriptions," if the patient asked for a specific drug. However, patients received the best care when they asked about medications in general. In response, the industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America stated that drug ads increase "patient awareness, allowing more people to get proper diagnoses and drugs." SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, April 27, 2005 This citation is from PR Watch.
        Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: If patients get the best care when they ask about medications in general rather than a specific drug, what is the justification for allowing drug advertising? If pharmaceutical companies didn't spend the money on advertising, could they lower the prices of drugs? Do these companies have an obligation to public health or only to their shareholders? If direct-to-consumer drug advertising were banned, would that be censorship? How many other countries ban this type of advertising?

April 14, 2005: A food industry public relations firm, Porter Novelli, was paid nearly $2.5 million by the Agriculture Department for developing the new icon to help Americans interpret the recently released federal dietary guidelines. Public health advocates are concerned that hiring a company with many clients in the food industry presents conflict of interest issues. Says a New York Times article, “Government nutrition guidelines and the icon that illustrates them are more than keys to healthy eating. They can be powerful marketing tools for the food industry; a favorable nod toward one food group or another can result in millions of dollars in sales, food manufacturers say. They also influence federal food programs costing $46 billion a year, including food stamps and meals for schoolchildren.”
       Several former or current Porter Novelli clients offered formal comment on the guidelines and the new icon at government hearings last year. [The full article presents good arguments on both sides of the issue.]

February 25, 2005:  An excellent Wharton School article on the ethics of food marketing reports that Kraft Foods recently agreed to stop advertising Oreos, Chips Ahoy cookies, Kool-Aid and other non-nutritional snack foods on television to children ages 6 to 11, a move that some critics claim is designed to ward off government regulation and was made only after pressure from consumer groups. Kraft's decision to stop advertising to kids has caused some concern within the industry, says Patti Williams, marketing professor at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. "A company that pulls the plug on its advertising to children is acknowledging there is something wrong with that advertising. The rest of the industry worries about any action that might suggest culpability." The lengthy, in-depth article examines many of the complex issues around food marketing. Margot Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says there is no question that companies try to create demand for their food products, often at the expense of healthier options, saying "When a child begs his or her parents to go to McDonald's for dinner, that choice is competing not only with Wendy's or Burger King, but with a meal cooked at home. Marketing works. That's why the industry does it and why health advocates are concerned about it."
           Classroom focus/media literacy discussion:   With obesity very much in the news, what should the response be from companies that manufacture, sell and/or advertise high-calorie, high-fat foods? Should these companies change their marketing strategies? Are they obligated to promote healthier products? Where does personal responsibility come in? Can individuals make good personal health decisions when, as critics contend, corporations are more interested in promoting a culture of personal indulgence? Read the outstanding Wharton article and check out these Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children, proposed in January 2005 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Dec. 13, 2004:  "Many Americans consider television their most important source of news and information on health," but TV is also "one of the least trusted sources." A study of 840 TV news health segments by communications professor Gary Schwitzer revealed "10 troublesome trends," including extreme brevity, little or no data, exaggeration and commercialism. "Rather than reporting on a company's hopes for its product or the potential sales, journalists could better serve their audiences by reporting on the evidence for and against a product," Schwitzer writes. Moreover, there was "little coverage of health policy." Stories on "cosmetic health (wrinkle removing, liposuction, face lifts)" almost outnumbered stories on Medicare, Medicaid, managed care and health costs. This citation is from PR Watch. Original source: British Medical Journal, December 4, 2004.
      Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Why do TV news programs focus on the potential sales of health-related products or other trivia, rather than information that serves its viewers such as how well the product works? Who decides what types of information are included in any story? What are the motivations behind the decisions? What is a video news release (VNR) and how are they used by corporations to have THEIR side of the story covered on TV newscasts, rather than the consumer viewpoint?

Nov. 3, 2004: The National Institute on Media and the Family, the nation's leading resource on the effects of video games on children, released its Ninth Annual MediaWise Video Game Report Card in Washington, D.C. This year's MediaWise Video Game Report Card highlights the mixed messages the video game industry sends to parents. "The double messages sent to parents about video games are double trouble," said Dr. Walsh. "For instance, the video game industry says parents should use the ratings, but denies violent video games affect children. The result is parents are lead to believe the ratings don't really matter. That is a big problem for parents when you consider this year's crop of games, such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Leisure Suit Larry, are games that children have access to, and that drastically push the envelope on sex and violence."
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Who is responsible for ensuring that children aren't exposed to inappropriate levels of sex and violence in videogames? Is it reasonable to expect parents to monitor every new game that comes out, check the ratings, and look over their kids' shoulder as they play? In a free-market system, is there any way to convince manufacturers to be more "responsible?" Is it their right to market sexual and violent imagery to any age group?

Sept. 7, 2004: Children who watched a lot of TV with sexual content were about twice as likely to start having intercourse during the subsequent year as those with little exposure to televised sex, researchers found. Just talking about it also created the effect -- "Exposure to TV that included only talk about sex was associated with the same risks as exposure to TV that depicted sexual behavior," said Rand Corp. behavioral scientist Rebecca Collins and colleagues. TV "may create the illusion that sex is more central to daily life than it truly is and may promote sexual initiation as a result," the researchers said. Read the entire study published by the journal Pediatrics.
    Classroom focus/media literacy discussion: Does TV present both positive and negative aspects of sexual encounters? If not, why not? How does the commercial nature of U.S. television create the incentive for being less than realistic in these types of stories (i.e.,  Why is everyone usually beautiful? Why is sex usually great, with rarely any disease or unwanted pregnancy? Why is the necessary and difficult conversation regarding "safe sex, as part of an initial sexual encounter, almost never portrayed? Should it be?) The Media Awareness Network's articles Sex and Relationships in the Media and Sexualized Images in Advertising can be good starters for classroom discussion in older grades.

August 23, 2004: A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine finds that Philip Morris attempted to influence media coverage of secondhand smoke. Citing internal industry documents, the study's author, Dr. Richard Hunt, says the company and its PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, made "a controversy out of secondhand smoke when there wasn't any." Hurt also said Philip Morris gave "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to training programs at the Herndon, VA-based National Journalism Center. "Hurt said the funds went to support speakers who would discount research on the dangers of secondhand smoke," PR Week writes. "They also backed an internship program to place reporters who supported the tobacco industry's position, Hurt said." This citation is from PR Watch. Original source: PR Week (subscription required) August 23, 2004.

     Classroom focus/media literacy discussion:  Is it ethical for an industry to pay to train "journalists" to support that industry's position? Are such people really "journalists" or are they public relations flacks using a more neutral and respected title? Are real journalists objective anyway, and if not, does it matter who trains whom? Can the public trust their news sources if reporters and writers have been trained in the ideology of particular points of view? See these free lesson plans, "Thinking Like a Tobacco Company" for grades 7-9 and grades 4-6