Merchants of Doubt Tobacco industry: Public Relations or Propaganda? Based on Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway MERCHANTS OF DOUBT, 2010.

Merchants of Doubt Tobacco industry: Public Relations or

Propaganda?

Based on Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway MERCHANTS OF DOUBT, 2010

Public relations (PR) is a field concerned with maintaining public

image for businesses, non-profit organizations or high-profile people, such as celebrities and politicians.

the practice of managing communication between an organization and its publics

Propaganda

a mode of discourse

intended to persuade, to manipulate, and to indoctrinate its audience

into accepting policies

that they might not otherwise support.

Propaganda

Propaganda is a discourse that legitimates certain interests and polices while providing a one-sided, simplified, and distorted, but not necessarily totally untrue, view of events or people.

The Fight over Secondhand Smoke

By the mid-1980s, nearly every American knew that smoking caused cancer and other illnesses

However, the tobacco industry successfully promoted and sustained doubt.

When the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) took steps to limit indoor smoking, the Tobacco Institute set out to challenge the EPA.

Secondhand smoke The Industry knew of the dangers of secondhand

smoking by the early 1970s The industry own research had found that

sidestream smoke contains more toxic chemicals than mainstream smoke

The states were moving actively against tobacco. By 1979 all states (except Nevada and Kentucky)

had some antismoking legislation

Research A landmark study: National Cancer Center

Research Institute in Tokyo (impact on women whose husbands smoke).

Also, a study in New England Journal of Medicine (impact of smokers on co-workers)

Publicly the industry criticized the studies Privately they agreed with the studies

The response of the tobacco industry

Philip Morris’ vice-president in 1993: “All of us whose livelihoods depend upon tobacco

sales must band together into u unified force The bottom line is: if smokers can’t smoke at

work, in stores, restaurants, they are going to smoke less”

The first response: increased advertisement

Presenting cigarettes as a symbol of strength, manhood, courage

From L.A. Times, May 1994

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. spent more than $950,000 between 1979 to 1983 to feature its cigarette brands in more than 20 movies--including payments of at least $300,000 to action film star Sylvester Stallone.

The payments took the form of checks, cash and merchandise--including jewelry and automobiles for such stars as Paul Newman, Sean Connery and Stallone

Disinformation campaign

The Center for Tobacco Research set up a “special projects” office to deal with secondhand smoke:

The development of opposing scientific evidence Expert witnesses Industry sponsored conferences to challenge the

emerging scientific consensus

Concealing the source

Several projects were run as law firms to conceal their identity and to shield these efforts from scrutiny using

attorney-client privilege

Attacking regulations from many different sides

Restrictions on smoking in the workplace seen as employment discrimination

Increased taxation of tobacco products seen as frivolous taxation in general, “tax and spend” attitude, “big government”

Generally restrictions on smoking seen as “Nanny government,” overprotective.

In 1991 Philip Morris outlined four objectives specifically related to secondhand smoke

Fight bans on smoking in workplaces Maintain smoking areas in transportation facilities

(e.g., airports) Promote the idea of ‘accommodation’—that

smokers had the right to be accommodated Maintain the controversy about tobacco smoke

in public and scientific forums.

The EPA Report in Dec 1992: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking

The report attributed 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 150,000 to 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children per year to secondhand smoke

Thousands of cases of aggravated asthma Tobacco was considered a class A carcinogen But overall the report was cautious: many

other effects of secondhand smoke were left for further research

The EPA Report: the tobacco industry attack

Tobacco industry attacked the report and other studies by questioning their

methodology, consistency evidence, and statistical significance

Scientists for Hire

The Tobacco Industry hired a number of well know scientists willing to fight science

One of them, Fred Singer, established Science and Environment Policy Project to defend tobacco industry

The use of Public Relations Firms

APCO worldwide In the early 1990s, APCO worked closely with

tobacco industry to develop ‘scientific’ articles to defend secondhand

smoke and promote the idea that the EPA work was “junk

science”

“Bad Science: A Resource Book”

200-page book published by tobacco industry Pretended to be scientific work fighting bad

science It propagated the idea that science is manipulated

by government agencies for political purposes

“Bad Science: A Resource Book”

It claimed that: Too often science is manipulated to fulfill a

political agenda No agency is more guilty of adjusting science to

support preconceived public policy prescriptions than the EPA

Like many studies before it, EPA’s recent report concerning environmental tobacco smoke allows political objectives to guide scientific research

Overall… In pluralistic societies, all social, economic, and

political forces ‘fight’ for their rights, recognition, and interests

Sometimes the fight is honest Sometimes is not Citizens need to be aware of the methods used

in political propaganda, advertisement, and in public relations