Reed Pence of MediaTracks Communications wants his fellow public relations professionals to know there's nothing wrong with "guaranteed placement" -- paying to have radio or television stations air fake news. "Many PR pros face the challenge of acquiring coverage for a product that isn't newsworthy," he writes in a letter to PR Week. "Some believe that [guaranteed placement] is just advertising," but it's not, he claims. "For example, when presented as part of a nationally syndicated radio news program, an audio news release might only have news content surrounding it. Selecting this vehicle eliminates the 'situated among advertisements' concern that listeners might tune the message out." Though Pence suggests using guaranteed placement for "stories with less news value," he also claims that stations air the guaranteed spots "not because they are paid to do so, but because the programs provide a service to listeners."

Two studies of internal Merck documents concluded that the pharmaceutical company had "violated scientific-publishing ethics by ghostwriting dozens of academic articles, and minimized the impact of patient deaths in its analyses of some human trials." The internal documents surfaced during litigation against Merck, by people who had taken the painkiller Vioxx and suffered heart attacks or other problems. Five of the six authors of the studies, which were published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, "served as paid consultants to plaintiffs' lawyers in Vioxx lawsuits." One study found that medical papers on Vioxx "were often prepared by unacknowledged authors and subsequently attributed authorship to academically affiliated investigators who often did not disclose financial support." The other study concluded that Merck "neither provided to the FDA nor made public in a timely fashion" evidence that Vioxx use was linked to increased risk of death. A Merck researcher called the findings "false and misleading."

"In a public relations coup for the coal industry," the Australian Coal Association is working with "two prominent environment groups, WWF and the Climate Institute, and the miners' union, to call on the Rudd Government to set up a national task force to develop 'Clean Coal,'" reports Marian Wilkinson. Australia's Green Party and other environmental groups are calling the new alliance "a greenwash for the coal industry over its response to global warming." Greens senator Christine Milne said the government shouldn't give the coal industry more subsidies. "If you believe the polluter should pay, the coal industry is the classic case," she said. "For the last 100 years it had made massive profits at the expense of the atmosphere and the climate and now is the time for them to pay for their own research." WWF's Greg Bourne said his group joined the industry effort because "we need to know quickly" whether "clean coal" technology can work. "If it's not going to work we need to know even more quickly," he added.

"Mywireless.org," a group that's "working hard to kill a cell phone reform bill at the Minnesota legislature," describes itself as "a non-profit consumer advocacy organization" formed to protect cell phone users' "freedom, value, security and mobility." But it's "staffed almost entirely by telecommunications industry executives, drawn mainly from the ranks of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association," reports Andy Birkey. The group claims that the Minnesota Wireless Telephone Consumer Protection Act would increase cell phone charges. It's hired corporate lobbyists and run ads against the bill, and is encouraging people "to send a canned and misleading e-mail message condemning the bill to their legislators." The bill actually "would guarantee customers accurate information about billing and service area coverage." One state legislator who received the Mywireless.org-generated emails responded, "It is no more expensive to make the terms of a [cell phone] contract transparent than to hide billing and pricing practices. ... The wireless companies lied to the public, convincing many to oppose a bill they would support if they saw the legislation."

Often readers and citizen journalists will come across a name of a group that seems a little at odds with the policy message they are promoting. Some of these names were added to the SourceWatch page on front groups with the intention of returning to create an article on that at a later date. Others were emailed to us by citizens, journalists or activists wanting to know if we knew anything about them. So if you would like to help investigate some of the groups that have been flagged as warranting further investigation, here's your chance. All the names are here on this page with some basic tips on how to investigate a group and create a SourceWatch page on them. If you like, you can also add names to the list. If this is your first time editing on SourceWatch, you can register here, and learn more about adding information to the site here, here and here. Hold onto your hat, have fun, and thanks for your help!