GM-free Scotland

GM-free Scotland | News | November '07

PPM ALERT

Are we being treated to a little GM 'Public Perception Management'?

Public Perception Management (PPM) uses daily media coverage of key issues, and a sophisticated computer analysis, to instigate targeted counter-propaganda.

On the GM issue, there are signs that PPM is being used to feed pro-GM 'stories' to PR companies, spin doctors, policy makers and, directly or indirectly, to journalists; making sure that everyone is getting the pro-GM message.

The first PPM alert came on 21st July 2007. The Scotsman's front page was filled with headlines suggesting the return of GM foods had become a real possibility, along with the inevitable picture of a Grim Reaper.

Inside, a huge, two-page, headline read:

Families face stark choice ... pay more for food or go GM

Below this, a double spread described “scientists” and “experts”, in “growing numbers”, who have come to this conclusion.

However, on reading through the articles, it's difficult to figure out who these “scientists” and “experts” actually are. Only three “experts” are quoted: two are well-known, long-serving, disseminators of pro-GM propaganda who are given a chance to say much the same thing as they've been saying for years; the third is a Chief Executive of the Scottish Agricultural College who actually said, unsensationally, “One option ... is that we should consider the use of GM” (OUR COMMENT A Scottish farmer whose land was used for the Farm Scale Evaluations was also quoted, but we suspect the comment dates from the time of the trials, about seven years ago). A Scottish Executive spokesman dismissed the notion as being against the wishes of the people and bad for our export markets.

The supporting material for the sweeping headline stresses the current UK and global inflation in the price of food and the danger of increasing food insecurity, along with examples of price hikes during the last year. In the articles, however, the dividing line between the role of GM crops as a cure for the problem of rising prices, or, as one of it's root causes becomes blurred. For example:

One of the “experts” is quoted as asserting “Animal feed has come from GM products for a long time. The stuff is cheaper because of the reduction in the use of pesticides”. But, of the food-price rises shown, the three with the highest hikes (milk 60%, butter 40% and chicken 40%), all refer to animal produce whose prices have historically been kept low by using unnatural feed. This unnatural feed is now largely GM, and prices of the meat and dairy dependent on it are rocketing.

The role of biofuels in decimating available food commodities by diverting food crops for fuel is mentioned: the fact that most biofuel production is based on GM crops is not.

Argentina's role in sending beef prices soaring by cutting exports is mentioned: the country's policy of replacing its beef with GM soya is not.

Mexico's mass protests against the 400% inflation in their staple tortilla flour is mentioned: the control of maize production now exerted by the US biotech industry, using GM maize, is not.

As one on-line commentator put it “... another 'bad journalism' day for the Hootsmon. It's getting depressingly repetitive, the shameful and willful inaccuracies, wild sweeping statements, manipulative use of dubious 'statistics' ...”. Other online comments included “This article has MONSANTO PR written all over it”, and “So how much did Monsanto pay the Scotsman to run this 'article'?”

The next PPM alert came on 17th September, 2007, in the Guardian. The front page headline, this time, read:

Return of GM: ministers back moves to grow crops in UK

Again, on reading through the article, the actual “government ministers” seem to fade into “a senior government source” (a civil servant?), which somehow seems to become just an opportunity for the biotech industry lobby group in Britain, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), to air its wishful thinking on the inevitability of GM. As Peter Melchett of the Soil Association said “... the story contains enough pro-GM fantasy and inaccuracies to indicate that it came from someone inside the government with a strong desire to impose GM on the British Public ...” and “unless someone is prepared to come out of the GM closet it's not worth taking seriously.” He also asks the question “... how many other commercial products could expect to get a huge plug on the front page of a national newspaper on the basis of one anonymous briefing?”.

The Department of Food and Rural Affairs Secretary of State was quick to issue a statement (which obviously should have been in the article) which appeared in the Guardian Letters the next day “to make it clear that there is no change in the government's position on GM crops.”

The same day as the Guardian, the Telegraph picked up on the story. This newspaper seemed to realise there was a journalistic problem with quoting nothing more substantial than an unnamed “government source”, and decided to give Professor Sir Howard Dalton, chief scientific adviser to the Department for the Environment, a chance to air his views. Views which, surprise, surprise, read like a biotech PR manual for the wonders, and inevitability, of GM produce. Prof. Dalton is stepping down from his government post shortly to return to his University position where he may be looking forward to a future career with a significant financial dependence on industry.

On 24th October, 2007, the Guardian printed a rant on the threat to 'the gains of GM crops' from proposed environmental liability laws. The author was not a journalist, but the same ABC spokesman who was given space to air his views the previous month. (See Peter Melchett's comment above.)

Britain is not alone in the PPM assault. On 24th October an article appeared in the Irish Times under the headline: “GM feed imports are 'inevitable'” ... the newspaper “has been told”. But search the article as hard as you like (it's only four paragraph, five sentences long) you're unlikely to find out who actually made the threatening statement.

GM Free Cymru has noticed signs that the BBC radio may be infected with PPM too. On 29th October, 2007, just days after a string of events clearly damaging to the GM industry (such as France's ban on MON810 maize, the Independent's revelation of the massive funding the UK Government is pumping into GM, and new research on the health benefits of GM's arch-enemy, organic food), the BBC broadcast a “non-story” about the increase of GM crop plantings in Europe.

OUR COMMENT

Puzzled as to how so many respected sources of news and current affairs appear to be oblivious of the yarns they are spinning dressed up as 'news', we took a look at some of the authors of these articles.

The Scotsman's spread had three authors, one specialising in social affairs, one in money matters and one in health. GM is a huge and very complex issue involving a lot of complex science and a lot of complex scientific unknowns: the three may have been stepping into rather unfamiliar territory. However, this isn't an excuse for a headline totally unsupported by the 'news' it leads into, nor is it an excuse for not using some common sense in looking at the evidence they themselves were presenting. But then, if someone has already handed you all the 'right' words for your article on a subject you don't know very much about, why bother with the extra work of stopping to read or think about what you have written?

The author of the Guardian's front-page announcement of the “Return of GM” was Science Correspondent, Alok Jha. This journalist has some kind of degree in physics, but found the maths too difficult and turned to journalism as an easier option. Asked about writing 'stories' outside of his subject area he said: “I try to write biology stories more than physics stories ... it is easier for me to ask simple questions in biology because I don't know what the subject matter is at all ... it is useful if you can articulate why you think, as a human being and a scientist, that GM crops aren't all that bad for you ... ”. The reason it was possible to find out so much about Alok Jha is that he is featured on the biotech industry-funded 'Sense About Science' website. The same day as his article appeared, another Guardian science correspondent prepared an article for its page 6 which describes the history of GM in the UK. The piece is well-researched and nonjudgmental (i.e. good journalism). It concludes with the cynical comment, supported by the facts presented, that “it now appears that the (biotech) industry was biding its time in the hope that anti-GM sentiment would die down.”

This national newspaper clearly has excellent journalists. Why is it giving priority to one which gives every appearance of being in bed with the biotech industry and who tells 'stories' about biological science because he doesn't know the subject?

The Telegraph journalist indicates that the anonymous government source didn't actually communicate with him, but in fact spoke to 'the Guardian'. Was Alok Jha the actual source?

Are we seeing industry hand-picking journalists who don't know enough about science to understand what they are writing but are willing to write articles anyway, so long as they are being fed the 'right' words? The only person who can put a stop to this sort of thing is the newspaper's editor, which might suggest the editors have also been hand-picked by industry.

To the cynical, this flurry of PPM and all the insidious media-personnel control attached to it, must have a specific purpose. Is the biotech industry readying itself for bad news?

If you object to having your perceptions managed, especially by the biotech industry, your best plan is to INFORM YOURSELF so that you clearly recognise when someone is at it. One of the best places to start is with Andy Rees book Genetically Modified Food – a Short Guide for the Confused (2006, ISBN 0-7453-2439-8). To keep up to date on what's going on, subscribe to GM Watch's free on-line weekly or monthly news bulletins on what has appeared in the media world-wide. You can do this at www.gmwatch.org but please have patience if you can't immediately access this site, it is constantly under attack by persons unknown trying to put it out of action.

Whenever you notice a dodgy article appearing anywhere in the media, TELL THE EDITOR TO PUT HIS HOUSE IN ORDER. You won't get a reply or get a letter published, but your point won't be missed.

Keep an eye on the Guardian especially. Its news-boards tell us it is 'Owned by no-one. Free to say anything' but if this means making up stories and printing industry propaganda dressed up as journalism then perhaps it should read 'Free to tell lies'.

SOURCES

About Us | Contact Us | 2007 GM-free Scotland