"The Federal Communications Commission has begun notifying several TV military analysts that it is probing congressional complaints that the pundits did not properly disclose their ties to the Pentagon when reviewing the war in Iraq on air," reports Paul Bedard. The FCC sent letters to some of the so-called "Pentagon pundits" on October 2, in response to a complaint filed with the agency by Representatives John Dingell and Rosa DeLauro. Several of the pundits named in the New York Times expose of the Pentagon pundit program were employees of or lobbyists for military contractors. The FCC letter to the pundits "suggests that TV stations and networks may have violated two sections of the Communications Act of 1934 by not identifying the ties to the Pentagon." The agency is asking the pundits "to respond to the allegations of wrongdoing within 30 days."

In April 2008, the New York Times exposed the Pentagon pundit scandal, where the Defense Department cultivated retired military officials who are frequent media commentators, to serve as "message force multipliers" for Bush administration policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and other controversial topics. In response, members of Congress condemned the program and called for investigations. Three investigations are pending, but one bill recently passed Congress. Senator John Kerry, its lead sponsor, says the measure will ensure that "taxpayer money isn't used to peddle propaganda on the American people." But the measure, introduced as S. 3099, neither defines what constitutes "propaganda" nor establishes enforcement mechanisms. It also bans Pentagon propaganda "within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized," without clarifying if that extends to web-based or broadcast materials intended for foreign audiences but accessible from the United States. The Defense Department has claimed that propagandizing U.S. audiences is permissible, as long as that was not the government's intent.

1974 ad for "True" brand low-tar cigarettes The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2008-2009 session today by hearing a case about whether cigarette makers have defrauded smokers with implied claims about the relative safety of "light" and "low tar" cigarettes. At issue is the question of preemption, a legal doctrine that holds that federal laws can take precedence over some state laws. The tobacco companies are arguing that they should not be held responsible for labeling and advertising that was approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, which has long required that cigarette packs be labeled as to how much "tar" and nicotine they deliver, argues that the agency itself was fooled because tobacco companies hid internal research data that showed smokers did not benefit from switching to light or low tar cigarettes. In August 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, in the landmark U.S. Department of Justice case against the industry, ruled that cigarette makers purposely misled smokers into believing that light cigarettes were less safer than regular cigarettes, and now more than 30 class action lawsuits on the issue of the tobacco industry's "light" and "low tar" cigarette fraud are currently pending across the U.S. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case could either affirm or invalidate all of them.

Medical research conflicts of interest are in the news lately, thanks to recent congressional hearings by Senator Charles Grassley. But are journalists part of the problem? A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that reporters for print and online media outlets failed 42 percent of the time to mention drug company funding of research cited in their stories. When asked, however, 88 percent of newspaper editors insisted that their publications "always or often" included funding information in their stories -- even though only 3 percent actually had a policy requiring such disclosure. "If you're wondering about professional standards," comments Merrill Goozner, "the Association of Health Care Journalists lists reporting the financing of research and conflicts of interest of researchers as its number one guideline for health care reporters. This latest survey shows that the word has yet to filter down to the majority of reporters out there." The JAMA study also found that 67 percent of news stories mentioned the brand names of drugs rather than their generic names, further reinforcing pharmaceutical industry marketing campaigns. Once again, editors of the offending publications claimed that their reporting practices were better than they actually were, with 77 percent of editors insisting that they always or often reported only the generic names of medications.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), a UK government agency charged with deciding whether drugs should be subsidized by the British government, has been criticized by some patient groups for refusing to approve new and expensive drugs. Groups including the National Kidney Federation, the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Beating Bowel Cancer, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Alzheimer's Society have all objected against NICE decisions. "All of these charities received sums of up to six figures from drug companies in 2007," reports Jeremy Laurance, the health editor with The Independent. "A positive decision by NICE on a drug not only guarantees sales to the NHS but can influence global markets worth billions of pounds. Yet none of the charities named has criticised the high prices charged by the pharmaceutical companies for their products in their recent campaigns," he wrote.

Listen to this week's edition of the "Weekly Radio Spin," the Center for Media and Democracy's audio report on the stories behind the news. This week, we look at the dangers posed by environmentalists, university payola and the FDA's spin doctors. In "Six Degrees of Spin and Fakin'," we learn about one patriotic sounding front group. The Weekly Radio Spin is freely available for personal and broadcast use. Podcasters can subscribe to the XML feed on www.prwatch.org/audio or via iTunes. If you air the Weekly Radio Spin on your radio station, please email us at editor@prwatch.org to let us know. Thanks!

On October 1, 2008, the city of San Francisco put a law into effect that prohibits the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies. Walgreens drug store chain and Altria/Philip Morris have filed lawsuits against the city over the measure. In a September 30, 2008 statement about the new law, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom related the city's simple rationale: "Pharmacies should be places where people go to get better, not where people go to get cancer."

Familiar corner drug store chains like Rite Aid and Walgreens have long cultivated an image of being all about health. Their web sites feature photos of friendly-looking pharmacists in white coats ready to help us with our health care needs. The Rite Aid company Web site tells us they are "committed to the healthcare needs of our customers." CVS says its vision is to "strive to improve the quality of human life" by making "high-quality health and pharmacy services safe" and easy to access. Walgreens says it stands ready to help people by supplying "health and wellness products" and health information. If all this makes you feel that these drugstore chains have your best interests at heart, it's certainly by design. But don't be don't be taken in too easily.

After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was "pummeled by Congress for poor inspections of tainted vegetables, drugs and other products," the agency wanted public relations help. First, it hired Mildred Cooper as "a temporary FDA consultant ... on a two-year contract to advise FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach and other officials." Cooper, who previously did public affairs work for the Defense Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency, then contacted a friend at the PR firm Qorvis Communications. The friend directed her to Qorvis crisis communications director Don Goldberg. Goldberg worked with Cooper to steer an additional FDA contract to Qorvis. But, as Goldberg explained, "It was not appropriate [for the FDA] to hire Qorvis directly." Instead, the PR proposal came from Alaska Newspapers Inc. (ANI), "a firm owned by an Alaska Native corporation that does not have to compete for federal work." Emails between the FDA's Cooper and Qorvis' Goldberg show that ANI agreed beforehand to give the $300,000 no-bid contract to Qorvis. Qorvis also works for the drug industry group PhRMA. The FDA contract, which was supposed to "create and foster a lasting positive image of the agency for the American public," has since been suspended. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce may investigate the contract, according to chair John Dingell.

As part of a broader public relations and lobbying push, Kazakhstan's government paid Johns Hopkins University to author three reports about the country. The arrangement was brokered through APCO Worldwide, Kazakhstan's Washington DC lobbying firm. The Kazakh government paid $52,300 for reports titled "Kazakhstan's New Middle Class" and "Parliament and Political Parties in Kazakhstan." A third report, "Kazakhstan in its Neighborhood," was "also underwritten by the government," but lobbying reports that would disclose the amount paid for it are not yet available. The reports, issued by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins, do not disclose the Kazakhstan funding. Institute director S. Frederick Starr said their "relationship was only with the lobbying firm and not directly with the government." He added that "the entire editorial process was 100 percent in our hands." The author of the third report, Hudson Institute fellow Richard Weitz, said, "It's an important topic so I would have written about it anyway." The Kazakhstan funding also required the Johns Hopkins Institute to sponsor "think tank discussions" on each report, "sponsored by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute."