From the musical "Walmartopia"In 2005, the Edelman PR firm created the front group Working Families for Wal-Mart on behalf of their client, the retail giant. With Wal-Mart funding, Edelman ran the faux citizens' group to counter union critics like WakeUpWalMart.com, founded by the United Food and Commercial Workers and Wal-Mart Watch, founded by the Service Employees International Union. Edelman has been removed from the project due to Wal-Mart's decision to bring the front group in-house. Wal-Mart spokesperson David Tovar said the plan is to "retool the group and its website as a platform for employees and consumers to speak out in favor of the world's largest retailer, rather than the outside supporters it has featured so far. 'We believe the best way to tell our story is to bring Working Families for Wal-Mart 'in-house' and operate it as an internal program. We're at a point where we no longer need a separate entity.'" It doesn't appear that Wal-Mart has any qualms about publicizing the change in direct management of the Working Families organization. A visit to the group's website, www.forwalmart.com, produces this message: "Please check back soon for a new site brought to you by Wal-Mart. For now, please visit Wal-Mart Facts." Wal-Mart Facts is a site that has the heading "Get the facts and latest news about Wal-Mart from Wal-Mart."

From a Center for Union Facts TV adCorporate-funded attack dog Rick Berman, who has previously attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving, tobacco control advocates and critics of fast food, is on the warpath against teachers' unions. In a speech at the Conservative Leadership Conference in Sparks, Nevada, Berman said "everybody should be afraid" of unions and warned that the Employee Free Choice Act, currently being considered in Congress, could lead to explosive growth in union membership and "change politics in this country forever." Teachers' unions in particular need to be attacked, he said, because people normally tend to like and trust teachers. "We have to reposition these people in the minds of the public," Berman said. "If you don't, you will always be fighting Mother Teresa. ... We have to marginalize their unwarranted credibility." A Berman front group, the Center for Union Facts, has been running TV ads featuring actors posing as unhappy union workers, and print ads comparing union leaders to Fidel Castro and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il.

It's no secret that polls are used to shape public opinion at least as much as they're used to measure it. The website of one major U.S. polling firm, the Mellman Group, boasts its "extensive experience developing effective communications strategies that lead people to choose our client's product or service, join their organization, hold their opinion, or vote as we would like."

Polling was used as a perception management tactic in the national debate over the children's health insurance program known as SCHIP. As President Bush prepared to veto an SCHIP reauthorization bill, Republican strategists worried about the impact on their party. Republican pollster David Winston came up with a solution: present the party's opposition as an attempt to "'put poor kids first' rather than expand coverage to adults, illegal immigrants and those already with insurance," reported the Wall Street Journal. "Independents favored that message 47%-38%." The veto went ahead, with the "poor kids first" theme figuring prominently in Republican talking points and briefing materials, such as the White House's "Five Key Myths About President Bush's Support for SCHIP Reauthorization."

Polls are also frequently employed as part of a "bandwagon" strategy: most people support (or oppose) this, so you should support (or oppose) this, too. Last year, a poll purported to show strong opposition to "net neutrality," the principle that networks should provide access to any data, without discrimination. But the poll questions were highly leading, asking participants whether they preferred "new TV and video choice" and "lower prices for cable TV," or "barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services." The poll was funded by Verizon Communications, which opposes net neutrality.

Another telecom-related poll was unveiled last month at a press conference in Madison, Wisconsin. According to a press release (PDF) put out by the newly-formed Wisconsin Video Choice Coalition, "Wisconsin residents across demographic, geographic and party lines overwhelmingly support a state bill that would encourage competition to cable TV."

By all accounts, the legislation in question is controversial. Why, then, did the poll find such strong support for it?

Alarmed at its rival Google's proposed purchase of the internet marketing firm DoubleClick, Microsoft is seeking to stoke opposition to the deal through its PR firm, Burson-Marsteller (B-M). B-M sent emails "to a number of top UK businesses," reports The Observer, urging board members "to raise the issue of Google's dominance of search engines with politicians, regulators and the media." The email, from B-M director Jonathan Dinkeldein, also invited companies "to join a new organisation -- Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces -- which in the next few weeks will make a series of announcements on Google, internet privacy and copyright." Dinkeldein later admitted that the group was formed by Microsoft, though his email did not disclose Microsoft's role. In the U.S., B-M pitched cautionary stories on the Google-DoubleClick deal. The Wall Street Journal received an email from B-M warning about "what is not known about Google's handling of personal data and their related privacy practices." The email, which also didn't disclose the Microsoft connection, went on to say "it would be a powerful consumer service to delve into these issues with journalistic vigor."

Last week we started a new participatory project to expose the government agencies, corporations and lobbying groups that have been censoring, whitewashing or otherwise spinning Wikipedia. (See CMD Senior Researcher Diane Farsetta's great blog post for some background on this sordid tale.) So far we've logged several attempts at spin into the respective SourceWatch profiles, including:

• Chevron deleting the article on "Biodiesel";
• Military contractor Raytheon deleting information on them spying on their competitors and the U.S. Air Force;
• Republican-friendly broadcaster Clear Channel adding allegations of plagiarism to Democratic Senate Candidate Al Franken's profile;
• PR firm Hill & Knowlton removing descriptions of the political repression by the government of the Maldives, an H&K client;
• Amway parent company Alticor removing descriptions of the company's use of "Google bombing" to drive down the search engine rankings of Web sites critical of the company;
• Electronic voting machine company Diebold removing descriptions of the controversies surrounding their machines' failures and glitches;
• Conservative news network Fox News changing Keith Olbermann's profile (and not in a good way - see Olbermann's reaction on this video);

The information here is obviously very important and, thanks to SourceWatch's high rankings in Google searches, easily accessible to citizens, journalists and policymakers checking out the record of these politically active and high social-impact organizations. There are many dastardly edits left, however, and we need your help to make sure they aren't lost to history. There's no need for technical expertise, just head over to the SourceWatch page for the project, where there are complete instructions, examples and an email hotline for support. If this is your first time editing on SourceWatch, you can register here, and learn more about adding information to the site here and here.

Whitman and Rudy Giuliani near New York's Ground Zero, 2001"Was it wrong to try to get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible?" an exasperated Christine Todd Whitman asked members of Congress. The occasion was Whitman's first appearance before the House subcommittee investigating her handling of New York air quality issues post-9/11, when she headed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Absolutely not," she continued. "Safety was first and foremost, but we weren't going to let the terrorists win."

There are many critics of the EPA's response to the admittedly unprecedented attacks. In August 2003, the EPA's own inspector general reported that there was not "sufficient data and analyses" to claim -- as Whitman did on September 18, 2001 -- that New York's air was "safe to breathe." The inspector general also found that EPA statements were confusing even to experienced toxicologists, and may have contributed to low rates of respirator use among Ground Zero workers. In February 2006, federal judge Deborah Batts called Whitman's statements post-9/11 "misleading" and "conscience shocking." In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office identified serious, continuing problems with how Whitman's EPA addressed indoor contamination in lower Manhattan.

The issue is more than academic. Since 2001, some 70 percent of Ground Zero workers -- tens of thousands of people, many without health insurance -- have had respiratory problems, including chronic illnesses, according to one medical study. Two deaths have been linked to World Trade Center dust, and reports of rare cancers are on the rise.

Yet in her Congressional testimony on June 25, 2007, Christie Whitman dismissed criticisms of her former agency as "misinformation, innuendo and outright falsehoods." Presumably, the nuclear power industry admires Whitman's rhetorical chutzpah.

"Two lobbyists with lengthy resumes in New Jersey government set up a conference call with the media last week to announce the formation of the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition (NJ ACRE), notes an Asbury Park Press editorial. The coalition will "advocate for nuclear energy and, more specifically, a 20-year license extension for the aging Oyster Creek plant" in Lacey, N.J. However, "the lobbyists neglected to point out they are being paid by Exelon Corp., Oyster Creek's owner. There also was no mention of that fact on the coalition's Web site until a news story about their being front men for Exelon appeared in Friday's Asbury Park Press." Since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "is expected to reach a decision on relicensing by January," reasons the paper, "much of the lobbyists' energy will be directed at the decision-makers themselves." Judging by a press release, one of NJ ACRE's arguments is that "the loss of Oyster Creek and the need to replace its electricity in the face of steadily rising demand would cause significant economic hardship." The release says shutting down Oyster Creek would cost $190 million in increased energy prices and $126 million in lost "economic activity," citing a study funded by Exelon.

"If I had to do it all over again, I don't think I would use the Ontario system," said Canadian cancer patient Lindsay McGreith. "I would get my wife to drive me to Buffalo, because I know in Buffalo you'd get looked after, whereas here you'd just sit for seven and a half hours. ... Our system is lousy." McGreith's comments are in a soundbite and B-roll video package (basically, an unassembled video news release) distributed by the PR firm MultiVu and funded by Health Care America, which is funded in part by pharmaceutical and hospital companies. It's part of an organized industry response to the Michael Moore movie "Sicko." Another MultiVu fake news video, which was funded by America's Health Insurance Plans, promotes a "public-private" health care system and decries Moore's single-payer proposal as an unpopular, "simplistic" and unrealistic "public takeover of the healthcare system."

"Don't let union bosses eliminate your right to privacy!" warns an ad from the Center for Union Facts, one of many front groups associated with lobbyist Rick Berman. With the U.S. Senate deliberating over a bill that "would give employees at a workplace the right to unionize as soon as a majority signed cards saying they wanted to do so," Berman & Co. are busy. The Center for Union Facts has spent "$500,000 on newspaper and broadcast advertisements this week alone," reports the New York Times. The House has already passed the bill, but not by enough votes to override a presidential veto. In the Senate, "Republicans and their business allies are predicting that they can prevent even an up-or-down vote on the measure." Like the Center for Union Facts, many Republicans are saying that "majority sign-up is less fair than secret-ballot elections," and warning that labor organizers will intimidate "workers into signing pro-union cards."

An old advertisement for Exxon (then Esso)

In an apparent policy shift, earlier this year Exxon Mobil called climate change "a serious issue," saying that "action is warranted." The oil company also said it would stop funding groups that downplay the risks from global warming or lobby against measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But Exxon still funds about 40 "skeptic groups," including the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and National Black Chamber of Commerce, according to a new report from the environmental group Greenpeace. Exxon did "cut its donations to these groups by more than 40 percent from 2005." Rep. Brad Miller urged Exxon to release data on its 2006 donations, saying the money "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion about global warming." Exxon gave $3.9 million to "global warming deniers" in 2004, $3.6 million in 2005, and over $2 million in 2006. Exxon challenged Greenpeace's characterization of the groups as "deniers," and said the groups "do not represent Exxon or speak on its behalf."