Submitted by Bob Burton on
George Monbiot argues that journalists and media outlets routinely fail to ensure adequate disclosure of the funding sources when including interviewing staff from think tanks on global warming. "While the BBC would seldom allow someone from Bell Pottinger or Burson-Marsteller on air to discuss an issue of concern to their sponsors without revealing the sponsors' identity, the BBC has frequently allowed International Policy Network's executive director, Julian Morris, to present IPN's case without declaring its backers. IPN has so far received $295,000 from Exxon's corporate headquarters in the US." He points out that while the BBC's guidelines are clear that the broadcaster should not "get involved with campaigning programming which is politically contentious" not all groups describe themselves in those terms. IPN, he suggests, would be better described as a "lobby group" than as a think tank.
jupiter replied on Permalink
They're all the same
They're all the same underneath --- whether they call themselves a "think tank" or a "lobby group." Their label is just their exterior.
Which reminds me of front groups, which they almost are too. Just earlier today, some satire on front groups came to me:
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ---- haw! I got me a front group! And ye'd never guess what one!!!! The STATE BOARD of COFFEE POT SANITATION!!!!!!!
I mean, that's almost as good as guisin' around as the freshmen girls Bible study teacher!!!!
There's no tellin' how many coffee pots I'll sell, what with the new germ-free regulatin' that's comin' around the corner. I'm gonna get that competition but bad!
Those secretaries are gonna have ta spend a half hour every morning just cleaning all the germs outa the competition's coffee pots, what with this new disease scare we got cooked up. . . . .
What better front group could their possibly be, than THE STATE BOARD (and like all with hints of public health and all).