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."

The November 6, 2007 election brought a stinging defeat to Oregon's cigarette tax increase. The proposal aimed to raise the state's cigarette tax by 84.5 cents a pack to pay for health insurance for about 100,000 additional poor Oregon children who currently have no coverage. Measure 50, as the tax was called, went down by a wide 60-40% margin.

Increasing cigarette taxes to fund health care is not a new idea, and tobacco industry efforts to defeat such measures aren't new either. What was new in this case was that tobacco interests poured a record $12 million into defeating Oregon's measure, making it the costliest election in Oregon's history. So stunning was the industry's effort that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski openly accused the tobacco industry of "buying the election" in his state.

Old Dog, No New Tricks

The tobacco companies trotted out their most formulaic and time-tested strategies to defeat Oregon's tax measure: They created front groups with grassrootsy-sounding names designed to push voters' emotional buttons. R.J. Reynolds formed Oregonians Against the Blank Check, and hired their longtime Oregon lobbying ally Mark W. Nelson to head the group. Philip Morris formed "Stop the Measure 50 Tax Hike," and funded it with money from their parent company, Altria Corporate Services. The companies then determined which populist-sounding messages pushed voters' buttons the hardest while omitting any mention of the subject of health. They then purchased vast quantities of advertising to push these messages relentlessly onto Oregon voters.

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?

The Sport Utility Vehicle Owners of America (SUVOA) industry front group paid the PR firm Stratacomm $440,000 in the first half of 2007 to lobby the U.S. government. Stratacomm boasts a range of auto industry clients. Later this year, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are set to discuss proposals to mandate that the auto industry meet a fuel efficiency target of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 across their range of vehicles, including passenger cars and sport utility vehicles. Associated Press reports that recently filed lobbying disclosure forms reveal that SUVOA "lobbied against Senate legislation promoting higher fuel economy standards." In 2004, the PR commentator Paul Holmes wrote that "what is clear is that SUVOA is a front for SUV manufacturers. Its board of directors consists largely of industry reps and public affairs execs with ties to the industry."

The coal industry front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) is seeking public relations help "in targeting the public, politicians, interest groups, and the media" on the national level, and also in Pennsylvania and Nevada. ABEC promotes coal as an "essential, affordable and increasingly clean" source of electricity. The National Journal recently reported that ABEC's budget for PR, advertising and "grassroots" organizing will nearly quadruple, from $8 million to $30 million a year. "Two words sum up why" the coal industry and its allies "opened their checkbooks," wrote the Journal -- "global warming." ABEC notes that "Nevada is perhaps one of the most volatile states in the west regions for ABEC's industry," so its PR work in the state will include issues management, as well as presidential candidate outreach and identifying "cities and communities critical to helping shape policy at the grassroots level." The Pennsylvania campaign will be less intense, involving "regulatory / legislative communications," "grassroots assistance," and various types of media outreach.

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.

Professional Greenpeace turncoat Patrick Moore is going around with a slide show that "isn't as slick as Al Gore's," writes Amanda Witherell, promoting nuclear power as a safe, clean, reliable and emissions-free solution to global warming. Witherell discusses the role that the Nuclear Energy Institute and PR firm Hill and Knowlton have played in creating Moore's "Clean and Safe Energy Coalition" and takes a critical look at some of the factoids in his presentation, such as his claim that nuclear power plants could withstand a direct hit from a jetliner without breaching radioactive contamination.

From a Nuclear Energy Institute ad

"We just find it maddening that Hill & Knowlton, which has an $8 million account with the nuclear industry, should have such an easy time working the press," concluded the Columbia Journalism Review in an editorial in its July / August 2006 issue.

The magazine was rightly bemoaning the tendency of news outlets to present former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore and former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman as environmentalists who support nuclear power, without noting that both are paid spokespeople for a group bankrolled by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI represents nuclear power plant operators, plant designers, fuel suppliers and other sectors of the nuclear power industry. Hill & Knowlton is NEI's public relations firm, though it's not the only firm working to build support for nuclear power.

Thanks in part to an ongoing, multifaceted PR push -- along with very real concerns about energy prices, rising energy demand, aging infrastructure, sustainability and global warming -- nuclear power is attracting serious attention from reporters and policymakers alike. The question is whether a vital public debate over energy choices is being skewed by deep-pocketed interests with a dog in the fight.

The dangers of such distortions are especially acute at the state and local levels. That's where efforts to extend the licenses of existing nuclear power plants, to maintain or expand nuclear waste storage facilities, and to site new proposed nuclear power plants, are made or broken. And that's where pro-nuclear campaigners appear to be focusing, adopting the mantle and tactics of community groups while steadfastly refusing to provide details on their operations.