Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy

Corporate PR and the Assault on Democracy

By William Dinan, David Miller

Pluto Press

Copyright © 2007 William Dinan and David Miller
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-7453-2444-9

Contents

Acknowledgements, vii,
Introduction: Unearthing Corporate Spin William Dinan and David Miller, 1,
Part I Global Corporate Power and Corporate Spin,
1. Public Relations and the Subversion of Democracy David Miller and William Dinan, 11,
2. Achilles Has Two Heels: Crises of Capitalist Globalisation Leslie Sklair, 21,
3. A Tour of the United Kingdom’s Public Relations Industry Chris Grimshaw, 33,
Part II How Corporations Use Spin to Undermine Democracy,
4. Powers Behind the Throne: Washington’s Top Political Strategists Laura Miller, 53,
5. Spinning Farmed Salmon David Miller, 67,
6. Exxon’s Foot Soldiers: The Case of the International Policy Network Andy Rowell, 94,
7. Biotech’s Fake Persuaders Jonathan Matthews, 117,
8. Fighting Dirty Wars: Spying for the Arms Trade Eveline Lubbers, 138,
9. Manufacturing a Neoliberal Climate: Recent Reform Initiatives in Germany Ulrich Mueller, 155,
Part III The Subterranean World of the Power Brokers,
10. Globalising Politics: Spinning US ‘Democracy Assistance’ Programmes Gerald Sussman, 175,
11. Behind the Screens: Corporate Lobbying and EU Audiovisual Policy Granville Williams, 196,
12. Spinning Money: Corporate Public Relations and the London Stock Exchange Aeron Davis, 212,
13. The Atlantic Semantic: New Labour’s US Connections William Clark, 226,
Part IV Fighting Back: Campaigning Against Spin and Rolling Back Corporate Power,
14. Unmasking Public Relations Bob Burton, 247,
15. Corporate Power in Europe: The Brussels ‘Lobbycracy’ Olivier Hoedeman, 261,
16. Killer Coke Andy Higginbottom, 278,
Conclusion: Countering Corporate Spin David Miller and William Dinan, 295,
Contributors, 305,
Index, 311,

CHAPTER 1

Public Relations and the Subversion of Democracy

David Miller and William Dinan

Public relations was created to thwart and subvert democratic decision making. It was a means for ‘taking the risk’ out of democracy. The risk was to the vested interests of those who owned and controlled society before the introduction of voting rights for all adults. Modern PR was founded for this purpose and continues to be at the cutting edge of campaigns to ensure that liberal democratic societies do not respond to the will of the people and that vested interests prevail. PR functions, in other words, as a key element of propaganda managed democracy. This is the precise opposite of PR industry spin, which boasts that PR facilitates debate and deliberation, and is the hallmark of pluralist democracy.

It is widely accepted that the PR industry arose at the same time as the great movements for democratic reform between 1880 and 1920. In the United States this involved coping with the feared elevation of the masses. ‘The crowd is enthroned’ according to PR pioneer Ivy Lee in 1914. Lee believed in the necessity of ‘courtiers’ to ‘flatter and caress’ the crowd. The courtiers were the PR professionals, like himself. It was essential, wrote Walter Lippmann, the most important US theorist of the trend, that ‘the public be put in its place’ so that ‘each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd’. Lippmann’s view was that ‘manufacture of consent’ was both necessary and possible: ‘within the life of the generation now in control of affairs, persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government’. This development also had its counterparts in the United Kingdom, but this has been largely ignored in the UK historical record. By 1911 a hugely important and now virtually forgotten activist for big business, Dudley Docker, was organising ‘business leagues’ under the slogan ‘pro patria imperium in imperio’ (For our country; a government within a government). In other words, business rule. ‘If our League spreads’, wrote Docker in 1911, ‘politics would be done for. This is my object.’

Edward Bernays was another key innovator in PR and perhaps its best known pioneer in the early twentieth century. He was one of the first to use ‘front groups’ – organisations set up with the intent to promote the message of Bernays’s clients. Bernays shared the same view as the other PR pioneers – that public opinion must be manipulated by ‘the relatively small number of persons’ who understand the masses. ‘It is they’, he wrote ‘who pull the wires which control the public mind’ and ‘constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.’ Bernays made a career out of serving the ‘small number’.

We should also mention Carl Byoir. He was very fond of using third-party techniques to manipulate public debate. Front groups could be created by ‘influencing the leaders of complacent groups and by forming new “fronts”‘. Byoir did both. ‘It is not’, he explained ‘what a client says about himself that scores, but what another person says about him that carries weight’. When word of Byoir’s activities in the 1930s and 1940s got out, he and his client were indicted for what the judge called ‘devious manipulations’. Byoir’s firm was fined $5,000.

From that day to this, manipulation and deceit have been the defining characteristics of the PR industry.

The main charges that can be made against public relations as a discipline are:

1. It is overwhelmingly carried out for vested powerful interests, mainly corporations.

2. It is not open and transparent about its means or even about its clients and the interests it is working for.

3. It characteristically involves deception and manipulation.

4. It does not engage in democratic debate, but rather seeks to subvert it in the interests of its clients.

5. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and other ‘ethical’ activities are all subordinated to corporate strategy.

6. PR has played a crucial role at the cutting edge of corporate power in the neoliberal revolution.

Look at the client list of any big PR firm or at the lists of those lobbying firms which disclose clients. You will discover that their main clients are large corporations. This in itself suggests a large imbalance in resources between citizen groups and corporations. In recent years governmental bodies have increasingly hired PR and lobbying agencies. This advances the marketisation of public services, rather than simply broadening the base of PR users in the public sector.

Second, the PR industry is allergic to openness and transparency. Some PR agencies and some corporations disclose their clients or the lobbying groups that they fund, but many don’t and most do not fully disclose all this activity. More importantly, wherever there is a threat of greater transparency via regulation of lobbying, the creation of disclosure laws, the requirement to publish information about their activities, the industry opposes it. This is currently visible in the fierce efforts being made by the European lobbying industry to avert binding regulation as one of the outcomes of the European Transparency Initiative launched by Commissioner Siim Kallas.

Third, PR and lobbying involve deception and manipulation. It should be said straight away that this does not mean that all PR people consciously lie, though PR does often seem to require some management of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps the least pejorative way to put this is that PR necessitates the effective operation of ideology – commitment to ideas that serve interests. In this case the interests served are almost invariably corporate. Perhaps it is unfair to talk of lying. It is plain that most corporate spin doctors and PR agency staff have little or no choice. At the most basic level their job is to attempt to align the sectional interests of their principals (employers or clients) with general interests. As public and private interests are not the same, this must of necessity involve manipulation and deception. But having said this, it is perfectly plain that there is a little more than ‘innocent fraud’ going on in PR. We are not arguing that all public relations practitioners are actively or consciously engaged in a conspiracy against democracy. Rather, we think that one of the problems with PR and lobbying is that in seeking to position private interests as being the same as public interests the aggregate result of such spin is that the public interest is undermined.

Fourth, corporations and their PR and lobbying agencies do not engage in open and transparent debate. The alignment of sectional interests with general interests involves the use of deceptive techniques, such as front groups. Rather than corporations speaking for themselves, they disguise sources of information by funding scientists, apparently independent institutes, consumer and community groups and the like. Furthermore, much corporate political activity – or corporate spin – is not devoted to convincing the public one way or another. Often it is aimed at decision makers and regulators. In fact, opinion polls in the United States and the United Kingdom repeatedly show that the public want more effective regulation of corporations. One way in which this is undermined is by the direct involvement of corporations in political decision making via lobbying and other policy targeted activities.

Fifth, corporate involvement in ‘ethical’ activities such as corporate social responsibility and ‘sustainable development’ is actually subordinated to corporate strategy. This means firstly that corporations can appear to be ‘doing good’ on the one hand while continuing to lobby directly for their own interests on the other (as in the case of the involvement of Shell in the International Chamber of Commerce). The mantra heard from devotees about building the ‘business case’ for CSR is about more than making money out of ‘ethical’ and ‘green’ activities. In fact the aim of such activities is invariably to use ethical activity as a tool to ensure that binding regulation is resisted and indeed rolled back.

The sixth charge against PR is the most serious, which is that it has provided the cutting edge of the neoliberal revolution which has affected all advanced industrial countries (indeed all countries to a greater or lesser extent) from about the mid 1970s onwards.

The neoliberal revolution has been brought about by determined campaigning by corporations and their allies in the media and political elites. The cutting edge of this campaign has been waged by the public relations industry and the armies of lobbyists employed by the corporations, and by the captains of industry themselves through their peak business associations, to ensure that democratic decision making is consigned to the dustbin of history. Given the devotion of neoliberal theorists to the free market and its ‘invisible hand’ one might have thought that they would disdain public relations and lobbying as a market-distorting mechanism. But in reality they have been assiduous in their political campaign to re-establish the unchallenged rule of business.

This has been accomplished by more than half a century of campaigning by the corporations, going back at least as far as the creation of the shadowy Mont Pelerin Society in the immediate postwar period – a gathering of free-market ideologues around Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman. They met to plot how to roll back the possibility of democratic decision making and put the market in the driving seat.

Out of this emerged a host of pro-business organisations determined to take on and roll back the frontiers of social democracy. In Britain this meant the creation of a series of right-wing think tanks, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Social Affairs Unit, and the Centre for Policy Studies (set up by Keith Joseph). These groups supplemented the more open campaigning organisations like National Propaganda (from 1919, later called the Economic League) and Aims of Industry (from 1942). In the United States similar aims were advanced by elite business associations such as the Conference Board (from 1916), and the Business Roundtable (from 1973), the latter playing a key role in the passing of the North America Free Trade Area agreement in the 1990s. Internationally one of the earliest groups was the International Chamber of Commerce (set up in 1916 and still extremely active today).

It is a well-established fact that these groups were out to enact an economic counter-revolution, which was able to take power in the United Kingdom and the United States with the election of the Thatcher and Reagan regimes in 1979 and 1980. Both governments unleashed the market on their own citizens, and on the world, giving the process of corporate-led globalisation a decisive boost.

THE GLOBAL INDUSTRY

It is crucial to recognise that the neoliberal victory was not put in place by abstract forces but had to be won by argument and action and that it proceeded by means of vastly increased investment in the machinery of information management. This helps explain the emergence and global spread of the public relations industry. In the United Kingdom the PR industry expanded rapidly in the 1980s, facilitating the process of privatisation and buoyed up by its rich pickings and consequences.

The reshaping of the global communications industry in the 1990s saw a wave of mergers and acquisitions between advertising, marketing and PR agencies. PR groups with offices in over 100 countries became a reality. By the turn of the century, the industry had concentrated so much that the top four global groups owned more than half the global market in advertising, marketing, PR and lobbying combined. Most people will never have heard of these corporations which were among the top 500 global corporations in the early part of the twenty-first century. The big three, WPP, Omnicom and Interpublic, are deeply obscure organisations. WPP, a company originally called Wire and Plastic Products, used to make supermarket trolleys before it became the business vehicle for a multi-million pound communications conglomerate. Today it owns hundreds of firms engaged in spin and in putting corporate wishes into action. Among the largest and most well known are Burson-Marsteller and Hill & Knowlton, both famous for their deceptive campaigns on behalf of the world’s worst corporations, torturers and dictators.

The view of PR as subverting democracy is challenged by apologists for PR inside the industry and their cheerleaders in academia. James Grunig is the leading academic champion for the PR industry. He, along with the other official historians of PR, like to argue that PR might have been a bit rough around the edges when it started but that it is much better now, so much so that they cannot conceive of a democracy without it. Grunig has developed a four-part model, which is simultaneously an historical and a normative model. It distinguishes successively ‘press agentry’, which is most commonly identified with promotional media work; ‘public information’, which uses one-way communication to promote a given message, perhaps in the public interest; the two-way asymmetrical model, in which feedback and perhaps market research and public opinion polling are used to manipulate audiences more effectively; and a two-way symmetrical model which is alleged to help ‘create mutual understanding’ between an organisation and its publics. This approach ‘is considered both the most ethical and most effective public relations model in current practice’. The model is intended to illustrate a historical progression from bad to good.

But Grunig’s problem is that there is still a lot of bad around. An outline of the misdeeds of Lee, Byoir and Bernays draws the response that this leaves out some of the ethical pioneers – such as Arthur W. Page. But even using the evidence in the hagiographical biography of Arthur Page by Noel Griese, it is difficult to discern the ethical pioneer of PR. To give only one example: Griese notes the role of Page in subverting trade union demands for improved conditions in Chile in 1946. Among other things, Page advised the mine owners to demand the recall of the US ambassador as insufficiently supportive and to pressure US financial institutions to withhold investment in Chile. He followed up by contacting his friends in the international financial institutions to encourage them to deny loans to Chile. The owners’ interests were bolstered by US government pressure on the Chilean government which ‘outlawed the communist party and removed 30,000 voters with communist affiliations from voting roles’. Once again, we find that the ‘ethical’ PR practitioner is adept at manipulation and, crucially, in undermining democracy.

But the problem of empirical refutation is easily solved in the Grunig schema – any evidence of bad PR is described as belonging to one of the first three categories and not to the exalted two-way symmetrical approach. This consigns the model to the never-never land of ethical PR – omnipresent as an ideal, but not a model with any purchase on the analysis of PR in the real world. Alternatively, to the extent that the model does provide a guide for practice, it is a guide to more effective manipulation. There is, in reality, no such thing as aligning private and public interests. Only by manipulation, deceit and ideology can they be presented as the same. Grunig’s work is therefore only of value to those who are interested in trying to pursue their own interests by appearing to align them with wider interests. This kind of approach is at the root of many of the deceptive practices operating under the names of Corporate Social Responsibility and ‘multi-stakeholder dialogue’ and other partnership and engagement programmes between corporations and their critics.

THE COMMON INTEREST

Looking back on it, these corporate missionaries might have been following the advice of Marx and Engels in one of their earliest works, written in 1846. ‘Each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it’, they wrote, ‘is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society.’

The essence of this work is to wage the battle of ideas across the whole political structure – not just, or even mainly, in relation to managing public opinion. The focus on public opinion has – if anything – grown comparatively less in the recent past, as the ability of ordinary people to make a difference in politics has declined. As the former spin doctor for Volkswagen and the German nuclear industry, Klaus Kocks, puts it, ‘When there is no election, no-one gives a damn what the electorate thinks.’

Instead PR people concentrate their efforts on direct communications with shareholders, political decision makers, and other sections of the global elite. To do so, PR specialists engage in deception. At best this means attempting to align specific corporate or class interests with the general interest. At worst it means misinformation, lies and dirty tricks.

(Continues…)Excerpted from Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy by William Dinan, David Miller. Copyright © 2007 William Dinan and David Miller. Excerpted by permission of Pluto Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.