Deep Politics Forum

Quote:Phone hacking: Rupert Murdoch calls in PR firm Edelman
PR company will report directly to general manager of News International

Sourcewatch on Edelman.

Edelman and the tobacco industry

In 1987, Daniel Edelman produced a plan for INFOTAB, the international tobacco industry group made up of the major worldwide tobacco companies and their associated trade organizations.

Perceiving a major threat from the secondhand smoke issue, the global tobacco companies realized that they lacked coordination among themselves, and that they would need to coordinate to uniformly fight public health efforts which were increasing around the world. Thus they formed INFOTAB. According to industry documents, the goals of INFOTAB were to establish an "early warning" system for anti-smoking initiatives worldwide, to "track activities of pressure groups and international consumer unions" and "to take industry programs to the grass roots and municipal levels" to help the industry to prevail over public health. Edelman prepared a presentation for INFOTAB on how the tobacco industry could mount a coordinated, international campaign to fight the secondhand smoke issue around the world. The document is titled INFOTAB ETS Project: The Overall Plan

A 1978 R.J. Reynolds document produced by Edelman Public Relations company, proposes Reynolds begin a comprehensive public relations effort to "slow or reverse the growing negative trends in public opinion regarding smoking." Edelman proposes a number of tactics including a "press event on the passive smoking issue," "a whimsical feature [publication] which seeks to bring out the humor of the smoker vs. non-smoker conflict," "excerpts from some leading civil libertarians and editorialists on the 'freedom' issue," a courteous-smoking appeal to smokers, a "Traveling Etiquette Spokesperson," production of a film on "Smoker and the Non-smoker" that would address "issues that divide them other than the primary health issue," and a Smokers' News Bureau based in New York that would "generate news stories...showing that smoking is not as annoying to the nonsmoker as is widely perceived." Edelman also proposes commissioning a survey by a "nationally famous research organization" that would poll people on the "degree of annoyance of a whole range of obnoxious habits--i.e., body odor, bad breath, whiskey breath, loud talkers, foul language, sneezing, uncurbed dogs, etc. " Edelman says, "The survey would include smoking, but our sense it that it will show that smoking is relatively insignificant as an annoyance compared with scores of other personal practices, against which there are no organized efforts."

Edelman notes that surveys done by both companies (RJR and Edelman) showed that "the smoker himself has no pride, feels guilty, ashamed, is not willing to defend or describe the pleasure he gets from smoking." Edelman seeks to correct this by undertaking a campaign to associate smokers with "elegance, style, class, and intellectual responsibility -- personality traits that can give him pride."

This document, titled Taking the Initiative on Smoking: A Total Program shows how the tobacco industry sought to minimize the health dangers associated with primary and secondhand smoke exposure, and reinforce the social acceptability of smoking, even as public health efforts were ongoing to discourage smoking.

So today's sizzling soaraway sins of the Murdoch Empire include:

1) the resignation of Rebekah Wade/Brooks:

a) presumably she wrote her own resignation letter, without any help, 'cos the flame-haired one opined that "her desire to remain on the bridge.... is now detracting attention from all our honest endeavours to fix the problems of the past." Presumably she meant "distracting". Perhaps she could consider rehiring some of those sub-editors she fired;

b) Wade/Brooks still maintains she didn't know what was happening when it was happening, so her "apology" is heavily qualified:

"As chief executive of the company, I feel a deep sense of responsibility for the people we have hurt and I want to reiterate how sorry I am for what we now know to have taken place,"

"what we now know" - disgraceful evasion;

c) followed by the truly delusional: "The reputation of the company we love so much, as well as the press freedoms we value so highly, are all at risk.... "

Press freedoms are at risk precisely because of the criminality and corruption of NI organs.

d) then the snivelling: "As you can imagine recent times have been tough. I now need to concentrate on correcting the distortions and rebutting the allegations about my record as a journalist, an editor and executive."

No chance.


2) the senile megalomania of Rupert Murdoch continues to flourish in his onanistic interview with his own organ, the Wall Street Journal

a) Murdoch claimed the company has handled the crisis "extremely well in every possible way", making only "minor mistakes".

He must be taking PR company Edelman's advice that "Sometimes, you just have to stand up there and lie".

b) "When I hear something going wrong I insist on it being put right."

To which I can only respond :rofl::rofl::rofl:

c) Murdoch said he would use his appearance before the Commons culture, media and sport committee next Tuesday to challenge "some of the things that have been said in parliament, some of which are total lies".

The man's either a fool or incompetent. Senile megalomania in full bloom;


3) Murdoch has now met the family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler

a)

Quote:Rupert Murdoch has made a "full and humble" apology to the family of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler at a private meeting held at a central London hotel.

The global head of News Corporation "held his head in his hands" and repeatedly told the family he was "very, very sorry", according to the Dowlers' lawyer Mark Lewis.

Milly Dowler died in 2002. Only this morning, Murdoch was playing with his WSJ organ and talking of only having made "minor mistakes" in the handling of the crisis;

b)

Quote:Murdoch had called the meeting at which Milly Dowler's parents Sally and Bob and her sister Gemma had told Murdoch his newspapers "should lead the way to set the standard of honesty and decency in the field and not what had gone on before".

Murdoch had replied that the News of the World's actions were "not the standard set by his father, a respected journalist, not the standard set by his mother".

Perhaps the old man is preparing to meet his maker.

At best, self-pitying tears years too late.

At worst, a cynical PR exercise as his empire continues to implode.

What she looses on morality, she makes up for with her hair...the only redeeming quality I've yet to see about her. I can't wait to hear how things go Tuesday...but fear it will be solicitors whispering in their ears and the trio saying how sorry they are they can't answer that question because of ....blah...blah....blah....

:pointlaugh::pointlaugh::pointlaugh: They were only signing off on BIG bucks to investigators/police/criminal hackers and who knows who else - without any idea what that was all about! Our hands and hearts are clean as a vestal virgin, honest Gov'!

Hang 'em high! :monkeypiss: Maybe a new tourist attraction at the Tower Of London...with some real prisoners, again.

Oh my.

Scotland Yard's finest told The Guardian their story was wrong, investigative journalist Nick Davies was out of line, and the newspaper should back off.

Scotland Yard's finest failed to declare that they were being advised by former NOTW exec Neil "Wolfman" Wallis at the time. The rozzers were paying the Wolfman £1000 per day for his "PR advice". A ridiculous and disproportionate sum.

The Wolfman was arrested yesterday (see previous page in this thread).

The editor of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, has now written to Scotland Yard demanding answers. His letter can be seen in full here.

Quote:Phone hacking: Met police put pressure on Guardian over coverage

Top officers told the Guardian its stories were exaggerated without revealing they had hired former NoW deputy editor

Scotland Yard's most senior officers tried to convince the Guardian during two private meetings that its coverage of phone hacking was exaggerated and incorrect without revealing they had hired Neil Wallis, the former deputy editor of the News of the World, as an adviser.

The first meeting in December 2009, which included the Metropolitan police commissioner Paul Stephenson, was two months after Wallis was employed by the Yard as a public relations consultant.

Wallis, 60, who was deputy to Andy Coulson, the NoW editor at the time of the phone hacking, was arrested on Thursday as part of Operation Weeting. Coulson has also been arrested and bailed.

Theresa May, the home secretary, has referred Scotland Yard's hiring of Wallis to the judicial inquiry on phone hacking which will be chaired by Lord Justice Leveson.

During the meetings in December 2009 and February 2010, which also involved the assistant commissioner John Yates and the force's director of public affairs, Dick Fedorcio, the senior officers said articles written by Nick Davies about phone hacking were incorrect, inaccurate and wrongly implied the force was "party to a conspiracy".

Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, has written to Fedorcio about failing to mention that the Yard was being advised by Coulson's former deputy.

In the letter Rusbridger wrote: "Paul Stephenson and you came in to meet me and Paul Johnson [deputy editor] in my office on 10 December 2009. Among the things we discussed was the commissioner's strong feeling that Nick Davies's coverage of phone hacking was overegged and incorrect.


"In February 2010 you wrote to me complaining that another Nick Davies story 'once again presents an inaccurate position from our perspective and continues to imply this case has not been handled properly and we are party to a conspiracy' ... You suggested a follow-up meeting with Assistant Commissioner John Yates.

"That meeting took place on 19 February. John Yates also tried to persuade us that Nick's doggedness and persistence in pursuing the story was misplaced."

The letter ends with Rusbridger posing five questions to the Met: "Why did you not think it appropriate to tell me at the time of these meetings that you, Paul and John were being advised by Coulson's former deputy?

"What advice did he give you about the coverage of phone hacking?

"Was Wallis consulted in advance of these meetings or subsequently informed of the nature or contents of our discussions?

"Why did you think it was appropriate to hire Wallis, given his closeness to events which the Guardian and other media organisations were reporting at the time?

"What conversations formal or informal did you, Paul or John have with Wallis about the subject of the NoW and phone hacking during the period he was working?"

Fedorcio, who has held his post since 1997, has been invited to testify before MPs on the home affairs committee on Tuesday.

A Metropolitan police spokesman said it could not comment on why it did not mention Wallis's employment in the private meetings at the Guardian. Because of the judicial inquiry, it would not comment on why it was thought appropriate to hire Wallis, nor could it comment on any formal or informal conversations Stephenson or Yates had with the former Murdoch executive while he worked part-time at the Yard.

The spokesman denied that Wallis had been consulted about phone hacking or gave any advice about it, in their first on-the-record denial: "He was not involved in any operational activity and that includes giving any advice on phone hacking."

Source.

Now Les Hinton, known in the industry as "Rupert Murdoch's representative on earth", has resigned.

Hinton and Brooks, a pair of consigliere, gone on the same day!!!!

KAAAAAAAAAAABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!! :dancingman::kraka:

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Now Les Hinton, known in the industry as "Rupert Murdoch's representative on earth", has resigned.

Hinton and Brooks, a pair of consigliere, gone on the same day!!!!

KAAAAAAAAAAABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!! :dancingman::kraka:

Amazing! Hinton was with him for something like 50 years....and did not give any reason why....must of felt guilty 'bout som'in :nono: The rats are leaving the sinking ship!

Ol Mr. MurDOCK now even has HOMELAND SECURITY doing an investigation of him and his Empire! :poketongue: Somehow, I just can't imagine he'll get on some no-fly list though......or have to have a grope-exam at airports...but if he DID spy on 911 victims - that man's in trouble...that starts with T, which rhymes with HeeHeeHee:danceing:

Murdoch mouth piece tells us to shut up and get used to it and just move on, the mantra of the criminals.

Quote:Fox And Friends Defends News Corp's Hacking Scandal: We Should Move On'

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Jul 15, 2011 at 11:30 am
Fox News finally addressed their parent company's hacking scandal head on this morning, with Fox and Friends launching a comically sycophantic and pathetically inaccurate defense of News Corp. Host Steve Doocy and guest Robert Dilenschneider, a media consultant, agreed News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch has done "all the right things" and argued that the scandal is way overblown. "For some reason, the public, the media, keep going over this, again, and again, and again" the guest said. "It's too much," he added, "We should move on." Doocy agreed, scolding the media for not devoting its time to covering more important issues. (His show later featured a segment on actress Mila Kunis and a performance by second-tier boy band Lifehouse, popular in 2001.)
But their defense of News Corp. really got embarrassing when Dilenschneider and Doocy engaged in some stunning subject/object slight of hand, comparing News Corp. to companies that have been hacked, while failing to note it was News Corp. that did the hacking in this case. "We know it's a hacking scandal, shouldn't we get beyond it and deal with the issue of hacking? We have a serious hacking problem in this country," Dilenschneider reminded us. Listing several companies like CitiGroup that "have been hacked into," Dilenschneider asked, "Are they getting the same kind of attention for hacking that took place less than a year ago that News Corp is getting today?" "Right," Doocy said, before noting the Pentagon was also recently hacked. Watch it:
Prior to this morning, Fox News has done a fairly decent job of covering its parent company's hacking scandal, giving the story just enough coverage to avoid being accused of ignoring it. According to a Media Matters report, while the network mentioned the story far less than CNN or MSNBC, it did cover it 30 times in the past two weeks and has generally disclosed its relation to News Corp. But this seems to be the first time the network has offered a vigorous defense of the company.
"It's really very, very scary, and I think we should be very concerned as a public about our privacy and about people getting access to what we have," Dilenschneider added. Indeed, starting with News Corp.

Magda Hassan Wrote:Murdoch mouth piece tells us to shut up and get used to it and just move on, the mantra of the criminals.

Absolutely. I've lost count of the times war criminals like Tony Blair told us to "move on" when he caught lying or cheating.

Good to see Faux News finally covering this in their patented "fair and balanced" fashion. :gossip:

So, what precisely happened to the Murdoch empire on Friday July 15?

In an article published on Friday morning, Rupert intoned to his organ, the Wall Street Journal, that only "minor mistakes" had been made by his empire.

Then, suddenly, later on Friday morning, we saw a handbrake turn. A 180 degrees reversal.

Murdoch family lovechild and consigliere, Rebekah Brooks, for whom an entire newspaper and its staff were sacrificed, resigns.

Rupert meets the family of Milly Dowler and apologizes allegedly with "head in hands" in a hotel room.

Then, surrounded by suited goons on the steps of a hotel, the Don talks for a few seconds about how "he's the father of the company" and how it has fallen from the standards of integrity he demands.

Finally, the most senior Murdoch crime family consigliere, Les Hinton, resigns.

Murdoch empire organ, The Times, declares it a "day of atonement".

What happened? What caused this complete reversal of strategy?

On Thursday, Murdoch hired PR company Edelman, whose former clients include Big Tobacco.

Edelman's head honcho has been quoted as saying: "Sometimes, you just have to stand up there and lie."

I strongly suspect that Edelman told Murdoch that Brooks and Hinton had to resign or be fired as they either knew, or should have known, about the crimes and corruption. They were either guilty or incompetent and had to be sacrificed to protect Rupert and James.

I also suspect that Edelman told Murdoch that he was insane if he thought talk of "minor mistakes" was going to cut it. Instead, they sent Rupert out to apologize to the victims of Murdoch empire crimes.

The line about Rupert being "the father of the company" who will restore its values is precisely the kind of shit PR companies like Edelman are paid ridiculous sums of money to construct.

The "atonement" is all PR bullshit as the Don tries to ensure his family's empire doesn't crumble to dust.

-----------------

PS it has been reported that Rebekah Wade/Brooks received a payoff over £3 million....