I

n today’s must-read blog post, The Jawa Report presents a compelling case that the PR firm Winner & Associates was behind this nasty hit-piece video making false claims about Sarah Palin’s supposed membership in the Alaska Independence Party:

The claims are false, and definitely were known to be false at the time the video was uploaded, Jawa says, because it was uploaded to YouTube eight days after the NY Times corrected its allegations about Palin’s membership in the AIP – and the NYT is the source quoted in the ad.  Less successful are Jawa’s efforts to tie the video directly to the Obama campaign.  Connections between the Winner family and firm and liberal democratic causes – including contributions to the Obama campaign – are there, and it’s clear the videos were uploaded on company time (as this post will be, BTW), but that’s not firm proof.

The ad could be a violation of FCC regulations on political advertising, since it neither says it is funded by a particular campaign, or is not funded by it – although there’s some wiggle room when it comes to what’s legal on the Internet.

Jawa traces Internet fingerprints that lead to a number of senior people at Winner, including Charles Winner, the founder, Ethan Winner, the firm’s internet guy who’s apparently the main culprit here, and Jared Liu-Klein, who was Winner & Co’s man on the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame account.  What we see in the Jawa evidence is an attempt at Astroturf grassroots:  The same ad was uploaded at different times by different people within the firm, it was sent to hard-left blogs like Democratic Underground and Kos (which subsequently removed it), and there were attempts to generate “‘comment chatter” on the ad.

Winner & Co. is not unlike my own firm – we both represent companies with big issues, including controversial development projects and corporate media crises.  Some of their efforts, like working to get an LNG transfer station sited off the California coast, are admirable … and I wish it were my account, not theirs. But my firm would never transmit information we know to be false.  We would never try to make a false hit piece video go viral. We believe that the channels of communication should be robust and spirited, but we take seriously our obligation to keep them clean and truthful.

If the allegations are true and Winner & Company uploaded a video they knew to be untrue and attempted to hide whoever was behind the video, the firm has violated the ethics rules of the Public Relations Society of America. Granted, this is hardly as heinous a doing as violated federal election law, but it would lead to an ethics hearing before PRSA and professional, if not public, embarrassment.

Here are the provisions Winner appears to have violated:

A member shall:

Preserve the integrity of the process of communication.

Be honest and accurate in all communications.

Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the practitioner is responsible.

PRSA has issued an ethics advisory for “front groups and individuals using Blogs, Viral Marketing and anonymous Internet postings,” which state:

ISSUE: Representation of front groups and individuals using Blogs, Viral Marketing, and anonymous Internet postingswith undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants. (Note: The term “Astroturfing” is often associated with unethical front group activities. Because Astroturf is a registered trademark, it is recommended that the term “Front Group” be used.)

BACKGROUND: A variety of organizations – known as “front” groups – as well as individuals have surfaced on behalf of issues and products blindly sponsored by industries and organizations. PRSA members are reminded of the PRSA Code provision, “Disclosure of Information,” that is based on the premise that open communication is essential for informed decision-making in a democratic society. The provision states that a member shall:

* Be honest and accurate in all communication.
* Act promptly to correct erroneous communication for which the member is responsible.
* Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those represented.
* Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.
* Disclose financial interest such as stock ownership of the client organization, past client work or affiliation
* Avoid deceptive practices.
* Disclose or help expose deceptive practices where possible

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE PRSA CODE: At least three Code provisions and three professional values relate to this issue. They are:

CODE PROVISIONS
Free Flow of Information. Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society.

Conflicts of Interest. Avoiding real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest builds the trust of clients, employers and the publics.

Enhancing the Profession. Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.

PROFESSIONAL VALUES

* Honesty. We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.
* Fairness. We deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media and the general public.
* Advocacy. We serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts and viewpoints to aid informed public debate. …

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE: PRSA members should recognize that assisting front groups and individuals that represent undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants constitutes improper conduct under the PRSA Member Code of Ethics and should be avoided.

Given that Winner & Associates has clearly violated the Code of Ethics, I would bring them up to the Ethics Committee for a hearing, except for one thing: They are not members of PRSA and therefore are outside its reach. Winners’ parent company, Publicis, has many members of PRSA, including Louis Capozzi, chairman and chief executive officer of its PR and marketing communications group. Capozzi, like me, is an APR (PR’s professional accreditation), so he knows the Code of Ethics well. I’ll send him a note – he’s opted out his email address from the PRSA directory – and will share any response I receive with you.

7 Comments »

Sunday Scan will follow later. This item started as the lead-off Sunday Scan feature, but it’s growing into a full-blown post in its own right – Laer

T

he mainstream media have had days to truth-check the new Obama campaign ad that criticizes McCain for being out of touch because he doesn’t email. The truth, known to most anyone who’s following the election using sources outside the MSM, is that he can’t use the keyboard because of his war injuries, but is very techno-savvy and spends time with his wife every night answering emails – with her typing.

For those of you still in the dark, here, courtesy of NRO, is a Forbes story that spells it out. How hard would it be for a journalist to find the Forbes story, which has been around since May 2000?

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits.

In the examples below, items found through Google have links, but items found through Nexis don’t because Nexis doesn’t provide links. If you want to read those stories, my tech-savvy readers, you can go to the newspaper and find it.

I’m focusing just on publications from today, since those reporting these stories had days to truth-check the ad and either they did, and decided to ignore it, or they are so bought in to the Obama mystique that they don’t think they have to fact-check the candidate of change.

The Associated Press apparently got the full story, but chose to recast it so it disparages McCain:

The newest Obama TV ad gets personal and makes a none-too-subtle dig at McCain’s age. It shows McCain at a hearing in the early 1980s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit. Other images include a disco ball, clunky phone, outdated computer and Rubik’s Cube. “Things have changed in the last 26 years,” the announcer says, “but McCain hasn’t.” … “He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an e-mail, still doesn’t understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class,” the commercial says. McCain has said he relies on his wife and staff to work the computer for him and that he doesn’t use e-mail. Emphasis added.

The Milwaukee Sentinel described McCain and Obama ads as if they were equally truthful:

The two nominees have gone after each other on these personal dimensions. McCain has painted Obama as a celebrity, elitist and lightweight. In a new advertising offensive launched Friday, Obama skewered McCain for being so “out of touch” he “still doesn’t know how to use a computer” and “still doesn’t understand the economy.”

The Philadelphia Enquirer described the Obama ad in loving detail and admits it’s done in a mocking tone – but fails to

From Obama came an ad that belittled McCain as hopelessly “out of touch” with modern technology and the angst of the beleaguered middle class. It included images of such objects as a 1980s-era disco ball and a bulky, early-vintage cellular telephone – and noted that the Republican nominee did not know how to use a computer. The mocking nature of the ad was part of the Obama campaign’s multifaceted attempt to reset its message.

The LA Times never covered the ad in the main newspaper, but did cover it in its excellent political blog, Top of the Ticket. It’s original story was a straight report on the ad, but it was later appended with a correction. This raises the question: When it became apparent that Obama had plaid such dirty politics, didn’t the story deserve being bumped to the main edition. Apparently not in the minds of the LA Times.

The Washington Post also reported the story straight, not bothering to mention the controversy swirling around the ad.

Saving the most egregious for last, the NY Times actually ran a complete analysis on the ad as part of its ongoing The Ad Campaign feature. Here’s the analysis conducted by the cream ‘o the journalistic crop:

ACCURACY Mr. McCain has told reporters that he does not regularly use a computer and was trying to learn how to send e-mail messages.

The reporter, Jeff Zeleny, apparently did some research, finding but not attributing the quote above. Did he find other sources that would have allowed him to slam this ad for being highly inaccurate? We can’t say for sure, but it seems it would be quite hard to avoid the information that’s out there on McCain’s war injury.

The best report on the story comes from the Boston Globe, of all places:

WASHINGTON – Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign came under fire from
conservative bloggers yesterday for a new political ad criticizing his
72-year-old opponent, John McCain, for not using computers.

The National Revew Online and other Republican-leaning websites said
the charge was unfair, citing several articles, including stories
several years ago in the Boston Globe and Slate.com, that indicated injuries McCain sustained when he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam prevent him from using a keyboard.

McCain
suffered broken bones that still prevent him from fully lifting his
arms and has lost mobility as a result of fractured fingers.

Calls to the Obama campaign weren’t returned yesterday.

Why weren’t they returned? Here I thought Obama was a new politician who didn’t play by the old rules – you know, like airing ugly hit ads, then keeping their mouths shut about it.

2 Comments »

O

ur government continues to fritter away money on anti-smoking ads directed at children. I’m fine with fewer kids smoking, but it’s peer pressure that makes the difference, not advertising. Here’s a bit of just one of many studies in that regard:

Goldman and Glantz use data on total cigarette consumption per capita to assess the cost-effectiveness of the advertising campaigns in each state. Children consume only 2% to 3% of all cigarettes sold. The authors thus appear to be evaluating Massachusetts’ “more youth-oriented approach” solely by examining adult cigarette use. From 1993 to 1996, cigarette smoking among Massachusetts students in grades 7 through 12 remained unchanged3 but increased in California4 and the rest of the United States. (emphasis added; source)

Billions of dollars were spent during that period to discourage kids from smoking (and from doing drugs). The result? The media made a lot of money off of ad sales, the tax payers got their pockets lightened … and the kids just kept on smoking (and doing drugs).

So yesterday the guy in the photo, our cigar-smoking governor, was on hand to announce yet another advertising campaign directed at kids.

This one is more of a forced exaction than an ad campaign: Major movie producers have agreed to run anti-smoking ads on DVDs of youth-oriented movies (G, PG, PG-13) movies in which characters smoke. Arnie thinks it’s great:

“The anti-smoking crusade is taking now another giant step forward. As a matter of fact, by agreeing to include our anti-smoking ads in the opening minutes of the DVDs, especially those that contain tobacco use, the studios will help us reach tens of millions more viewers.”

Yeah, they’ll reach ‘em, but what good will that do? In fact, some messages – particularly ones that encourage parents to talk to their children about smoking – backfire and actually encourage kids to smoke.

That’s Arnie’s method, by the way. “I let them know, ‘Don’t ever try and start smoking,’” he said at yesterday’s event. But at least he’s got a great excuse for his smoking – He blames the Dems:

“I, of course, have a wonderful excuse because I can blame my father-in-law (Sargent Shriver) for getting me to start to smoke cigars. Because I never smoked until 1977, until he offered it to me in Hyannis Port. Since then, I’ve been smoking one cigar a day.”

The first one was free, it seems.

No Comments yet »