|
|
NavigationTopicsUser login |
Spin of the Day: January 22, 2007January 22, 2007The Pentagon vs. Press FreedomTopics: Defend the Press
Author Norman Solomon writes, "We often hear that the Pentagon exists to defend our freedoms. But the Pentagon is moving against press freedom. ... People who run wars are notoriously hostile to a free press. They're quick to praise it -- unless the reporting goes beyond mere stenography for the war-makers and actually engages in journalism that makes the military command uncomfortable. Evidently, that's why the Pentagon subpoenaed Sarah Olson. They want her to testify to authenticate her quotes from Ehren Watada -- which is to say, they want to force her into the prosecution of him. ... The Pentagon's attack on journalism is an attack on the First Amendment -- and an attempt to drive a wedge between journalists and dissenters in the military. Resistance is essential for democracy." U.K. Food Labeling Scuffle Hits ScreenTopics: advertising | children | international | marketing | obesity
Multinational food marketing giants, including Unilever, Coca-Cola, Kellogg and Danone have helped fund an $8 million industry ad campaign to sway consumers to "know what's going inside you"--but not necessarily to do anything about it. The United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency, for its part, has begun promoting its more activist "traffic light" approach to healthy and unhealthy food with short TV spots. Omnicom Group has made the 30-second industry ad, while WPP Group's United agency has created the government's 10-second animated ad. Some food retailers are supporting the government's approach, even though both labels are voluntary given the European Union's control (and inaction) over food labeling regulations. "If you put traffic lights on, even low-fat cereals have a red light," complains a Kellogg spokesman. The Children's Food Campaign has shown that about half the U.K. population lacks sufficient math skills to understand the industry-preferred "Guideline Daily Amount" system for nutrition, which is much like the percentage daily requirements system mandated in the United States. Political Mood Swings on Drug Industry Direct-to-Consumer AdsTopics: advertising | health | pharmaceuticals | U.S. Congress | U.S. government
The $4 billion a year spent by the drug industry on direct-to-consumer advertising promoting drugs is generating a political backlash. "There's a lot of support for a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising, and the Democrats know it," said Gary Ruskin, Commercial Alert's executive director. Both Representative John Dingell, the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Senator Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, have previously expressed concerns about drug industry advertising. One proposal - opposed by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry peak body - is that there be a two-year moratorium on ads after a drug is approved. Reflecting the new political mood, a forthcoming drug industry conference is advertising a session: "How likely is a DTC advertising moratorium? How can I build a product launch plan that will prepare for such action?" |
Weekly SpinRecent blog posts
Upcoming events |