Slashdot Mirror

And here is the expose.

Jeez, lazy, aren't you.

Their "customer service team is anxious to hear from you." Call them up and ask them about boobies. You know you want to. Here's an insider look.

Anyway, breast implants are usually not filled with silicone. They're filled with saline solution or with soybean oil.

If you are going to offer such profound criticism about something, at least have the decency to back it up.

Here you go:

• Go to the archive of FAIR and search for "fox news" (including apostrophes).
• Try the same search at PR Watch.
• ... or try "fox" at AIM.

How about when companies try/(is permitted) to restrict what the public can see/read/hear because they own the infrastucture which permits access? (read: the Big-Business-friendly Internet).

Hello? What do you mean "try" and "is permitted"? We are exposed to more propaganda from our western governments and from our companies today than anyone has ever been exposed to before. Not even the people of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet were ever exposed to this much propaganda.

When you watch something on your TV, or when you're listening to radio or reading your daily newspaper, you are taking in stuff that someone has chosen for you to see/hear.

Someone with an interest in getting you to think about something, or in getting you to have a certain bias, have seen to that selected/censored information makes its way, in one form or another, to you.

Never assume everything you're being told is right. Always ask yourself who's gaining from the information that you recieve. Also assume that you're not getting the full picture. An interview or article always gives a biased view.

The Center for Media and Democracy has a publication, called PR Watch, in which these kinds of things gets poked at. Read it at www.prwatch.org.

Until I get real scientists displaying real data everything is just scare tactics of the invironmental publicity Corperations (earth first, and the other scare for profit groups) to get more money.

What is an environmental corporation?

The National Academy of Sciences has been in complete agreement about global warming for years. This year even the Bush administration admitted it exists.

If you want to know why people even think that global warming is "controversial", read Trust Us, We're Experts. Every person in America has been the target of a multi-billion dollar campaign funded by oil & gas interests, carried out by PR firms, and targeted on boosting skepticism and apathy about global warming.

Looks like they got to you, too.

This really is nothing new, phony grassroots activity has been a basic practice of marketing and PR companies for decades

Browse around the prwatch site, they have tons of examples of phony community action being used by corporations. It goes much deeper than generating buzz for a new movie, many of the public action groups that influence government policy are funded by corporate money

Fake fan pages is one of the more benign manifestations of this sort of thing. There is much much more sinister stuff going on all around us.

Don't be surprised by this, it happens all the time

Junkscience.com isn't a mouthpiece for anyone.

As another poster pointed out, the latter half of this article claims that the author of junkscience.com was a registered lobbyist for several large firms with dubious environmental records. And at the same time he has been running this website, he was executive director of a (now defunct) non-profit that had members including "Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, [...] the National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris" and so on.

You can verify his lobbyist registration here.

Conveniently, the fact that large polluters have been paying his bills for the last several years isn't mentioned on the "about the author" section of his web site. Maybe he's an entirely disinterested scholar who just happens to be funded by a lot of people with a financial interest in opposing environmental regulation, but I'm not convinced.

Bad science sure does happen, but a guy with a financial interest in the outcome is not one I'll take very seriously on the topic.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q4/avery.html (the parent link seemed to get a bit mangled). I knew there was something weird about that JunkScience site.


---

Remember when Consumer Reports rated a small SUV by Mitsubishi or Suzuki "unacceptable" because it tended to roll over in hard turns (the kind you would make trying to avoid a child or a deer)? The magazine is being sued for slander. The January issue has more details (it's on the web, for a fee).

PR Watch has an eye-opening series of articles about SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits. Companies file them to bankrupt, and effectively silence, people who speak out against them (which is not the same as libel or slander). Oprah Winfrey was SLAPPed by the National Beef Council when she disparaged beef during the Mad Cow outbreak in Britain. An environmentalist in West Virginia was SLAPPEd by a coal mining company when he highlighted environmental abuses by the company.

Free Speech is becoming very expensive.

If I think that a company or their products are terrible, I should be ablke to say so....Doesn't the "press" do this all the time?

Yes they do, but they can be sued too. January's Consumer Reports had an editorial about Isuzu's lawsuit against them. It was filed when they called the Trooper "unacceptable" because it tends to roll over in hard turns (the kind you would make tryingto dodge a deer or a child.

Molly Ivins had a great column about "SLAPP" (Strategic Lawsuit Against Political Participation) suits. Companies file them when someone says smethg damaging but true about them. Oprah Winfrey was hit by one a few years ago: the Beef Council sued her when she discussed the dangers of eating red meet on her show. The Ivins column isn't on the web (too old) , but PR Watch has a nice series of articles about them.