This is Chapter 6 of my new book, working title “The Industry Playbook: Corporate Cartels, Corruption and Crimes Against Humanity” that is being published online chapter by chapter.
In addition to promoting your own science and agenda via all the available avenues of PR, it is important to play defense. A huge part of this defense is to smear or discredit anyone that has a message contrary to your own. This is one of the major strategies involved in public relations as it skews how the public (and professionals) see those that stand up against industry.
If you can’t bully the facts, you can at least bully the person that shares those facts. This technique is so common that it is hard not to see it.
Of course, some people should not have credit, thus looking at any case, it can be tough to sort through purposeful and illegitimate smears vs. legitimate criticism. And that is exactly why this technique works so well. (A helpful hint to tell the difference is that smears target the person while good criticism targets the facts and logic presented instead.)
Back in 1933, tobacco researcher Emil Bogen argued, “Any substance so widely and commonly used as the cigarette cannot be as dangerous and deleterious as the propaganda of the more fanatical ’no-tobacco’ advocates might lead one to infer.”
This was early on but notice that anyone against the pro-tobacco position was engaged in “propaganda” and “fanatical.” This kind of name calling is common. Labelling your enemy with negative terms helps to control the perspective. It puts them in a box with a tag on it.
It’s also a case of projection because they often say the exact opposite of what is true.
Here’s an example of this. Brandt writes, “Perhaps the most notorious known case was that of pathologist Freddy Homburger, whose Cambridge-based Microbiological Associates had been retained to conduct experiments on hamsters exposed to smoke. Homburger and his colleagues found precancerous lesions similar to earlier research conducted by pathologist Oscar Auerbach on beagles. But when he submitted the draft paper to CTR [Center for Tobacco Research], Hockett raised a series of objections, requesting that he substitute medical euphemisms to describe the characteristic malignant lesions; Hockett advised that he use the term pseudoepithieliomatous hyperplasia. When Homburger refused, he was notified that CTR would no longer fund his work. Further, they enlisted publicist Leonard Zahn (formerly of Hill & Knowlton) to attempt to discredit him.”
Think of it like this for any industry funded science:
- Pay for science, get the results you want. This may be true or it may be from designing the scientific trial for success in the first place. Obviously, this is the ideal outcome for industry.
- If the science doesn’t suit your agenda, then at least you can erase, downplay, somehow obfuscate the findings. In many cases this uses the “file drawer effect”, meaning the science isn’t published just put into the file drawer. Many scientists will play along with this as you’re paying them, and they might not have the power to get it published themselves. This is not great for industry, but it is also not damaging.
- Some scientists, those with strong ethics that can’t be bought like Homburger, will not play along. That’s where threats and action come in for damage control. You fire them. You smear them.
There is a key point of number three that goes beyond damage control. This action reinforces numbers one and two for other scientists. Big Tobacco discussed the power of their smears so much themselves.
In 1987, Philip Morris held a conference known as Project Down Under. One theme discussed at the conference was “Make It Hurt.” Noted in the conference minutes was, “Let pols know down side of anti activity. To do this, we take on vulnerable candidates, beat him/her, let people know we did it.”
Let me reiterate, we beat people and let others know we did it! There is a downside to going up against power. Everyone knows this. And that is why few people actually do it.
In the 80’s and 90’s Big Tobacco was battling the idea that secondhand smoke (known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) was dangerous. According to The Verdict is In, Big Tobacco had “the ETS Consultancy Program to attack and discredit the scientific consensus and underlying evidence.”
In the words of Brown & Williamson counsel Kendrick Wells: “The consultants groups’ operation is essentially a public relations program, not a scientific operation.”
One of the biggest whistleblowers of Big Tobacco, executive and scientist Jeffrey Wigand was put through the ringer. A 500-page dossier that Brown & Williamson had private investigators put together sought to discredit Wigand when he testified in court and on camera for 60 Minutes. This is also known as “opposition research.”
Many news organizations ran with this “intel”. The Wall Street Journal dug in deeper finding that “many of the serious allegations against Mr. Wigand are backed by scant or contradictory evidence. Some of the charges — including that he pleaded guilty to shoplifting — are demonstrably untrue.”
PR executive Pamela Whitney said, “the key to winning anything is opposition research.” And that is why smearing and discrediting is a key play in the Tobacco Playbook. The idea is to boost up your positive messages, while downplaying anything that runs counter to your message. This is war and you better make sure there are casualties on the other side. Make it hurt!
Key Takeaways on Smear Campaigns
- In science you will have a body of competing ideas. PR involves the boosting up of your own “pro” message while downplaying the “anti” message. This is not how the ideal of science works, that is following the evidence. But it is exactly how the game of PR is played.
- Industry funded research would often find the results they were looking for. Or at least poor results could be erased or downplayed. Only in a few instances did such scientists stand up against their employers where they would be fired and smeared.
- Smearing people not only discredits them but helps to keep others in line because they’re made aware of what will happen if they stand up against power. The more they “make it hurt” the more they can bully others into submission.
- Opposition research is one of the main components of the Industry Playbook as it is key to any smear campaign.
Please leave any comments or questions below. Feel free to share it with anyone you’d like.
Links to all published chapters of The Industry Playbook can be found here.
You can also support this project with a tip.
Exactly what we are seeing with this pandemic as they don’t have the good science but can twist a PR story and add bullying into the mix.
Not a new tactic just much more in your face these days. Look at Joe Rogan, even Niki Minaj just recently. Not to mention every scientist and doctor that hasn’t followed the party line.