website statistics Trust Us, We're Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future - PDF Books Online
Hot Best Seller

Trust Us, We're Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future

Availability: Ready to download

The authors of Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! unmask the sneaky and widespread methods industry uses to influence opinion through bogus experts, doctored data, and manufactured facts. We count on the experts. We count on them to tell us who to vote for, what to eat, how to raise our children. We watch them on TV, listen to them on the radio, read their opinions in magazine The authors of Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! unmask the sneaky and widespread methods industry uses to influence opinion through bogus experts, doctored data, and manufactured facts. We count on the experts. We count on them to tell us who to vote for, what to eat, how to raise our children. We watch them on TV, listen to them on the radio, read their opinions in magazine and newspaper articles and letters to the editor. We trust them to tell us what to think, because there’s too much information out there and not enough hours in a day to sort it all out. We should stop trusting them right this second. In their new book Trust Us, We’re Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, authors of Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, offer a chilling exposé on the manufacturing of "independent experts." Public relations firms and corporations know well how to exploit your trust to get you to buy what they have to sell: Let you hear it from a neutral third party, like a professor or a pediatrician or a soccer mom or a watchdog group. The problem is, these third parties are usually anything but neutral. They have been handpicked, cultivated, and meticulously packaged in order to make you believe what they have to say—preferably in an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the editor. And in some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their "opinions." For example: You think that nonprofit organizations just give away their stamps of approval on products? Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $600,000 to the American Heart Association for the right to display AHA’s name and logo in ads for its cholesterol-lowering drug Pravachol. SmithKline Beecham paid the American Cancer Society $1 million for the right to use its logo in ads for Beecham’s Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking ads. You think that a study out of a prestigious university is completely unbiased? In 1997, Georgetown University’s Credit Research Center issued a study which concluded that many debtors are using bankruptcy as an excuse to wriggle out of their obligations to creditors. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen cited the study in a Washington Times column and advocated for changes in federal law to make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy relief. What Bentsen failed to mention was that the Credit Research Center is funded in its entirety by credit card companies, banks, retailers, and others in the credit industry; that the study itself was produced with a $100,000 grant from VISA USA, Inc. and MasterCard International; and that Bentsen himself had been hired to work as a credit-industry lobbyist. You think that all grassroots organizations are truly grassroots? In 1993, a group called Mothers Opposing Pollution (MOP) appeared, calling itself "the largest women’s environmental group in Australia, with thousands of supporters across the country." Their cause: A campaign against plastic milk bottles. It turned out that the group’s spokesperson, Alana Maloney, was in truth a woman named Janet Rundle, the business partner of a man who did P.R. for the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers—the makers of paper milk cartons. You think that if a scientist says so, it must be true? In the early 1990s, tobacco companies secretly paid thirteen scientists a total of $156,000 to write a few letters to influential medical journals. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing a single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. A cancer researcher received $20,137 for writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and The Wall Street Journal. Rampton and Sta...


Compare

The authors of Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! unmask the sneaky and widespread methods industry uses to influence opinion through bogus experts, doctored data, and manufactured facts. We count on the experts. We count on them to tell us who to vote for, what to eat, how to raise our children. We watch them on TV, listen to them on the radio, read their opinions in magazine The authors of Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! unmask the sneaky and widespread methods industry uses to influence opinion through bogus experts, doctored data, and manufactured facts. We count on the experts. We count on them to tell us who to vote for, what to eat, how to raise our children. We watch them on TV, listen to them on the radio, read their opinions in magazine and newspaper articles and letters to the editor. We trust them to tell us what to think, because there’s too much information out there and not enough hours in a day to sort it all out. We should stop trusting them right this second. In their new book Trust Us, We’re Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, authors of Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, offer a chilling exposé on the manufacturing of "independent experts." Public relations firms and corporations know well how to exploit your trust to get you to buy what they have to sell: Let you hear it from a neutral third party, like a professor or a pediatrician or a soccer mom or a watchdog group. The problem is, these third parties are usually anything but neutral. They have been handpicked, cultivated, and meticulously packaged in order to make you believe what they have to say—preferably in an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the editor. And in some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their "opinions." For example: You think that nonprofit organizations just give away their stamps of approval on products? Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $600,000 to the American Heart Association for the right to display AHA’s name and logo in ads for its cholesterol-lowering drug Pravachol. SmithKline Beecham paid the American Cancer Society $1 million for the right to use its logo in ads for Beecham’s Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking ads. You think that a study out of a prestigious university is completely unbiased? In 1997, Georgetown University’s Credit Research Center issued a study which concluded that many debtors are using bankruptcy as an excuse to wriggle out of their obligations to creditors. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen cited the study in a Washington Times column and advocated for changes in federal law to make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy relief. What Bentsen failed to mention was that the Credit Research Center is funded in its entirety by credit card companies, banks, retailers, and others in the credit industry; that the study itself was produced with a $100,000 grant from VISA USA, Inc. and MasterCard International; and that Bentsen himself had been hired to work as a credit-industry lobbyist. You think that all grassroots organizations are truly grassroots? In 1993, a group called Mothers Opposing Pollution (MOP) appeared, calling itself "the largest women’s environmental group in Australia, with thousands of supporters across the country." Their cause: A campaign against plastic milk bottles. It turned out that the group’s spokesperson, Alana Maloney, was in truth a woman named Janet Rundle, the business partner of a man who did P.R. for the Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers—the makers of paper milk cartons. You think that if a scientist says so, it must be true? In the early 1990s, tobacco companies secretly paid thirteen scientists a total of $156,000 to write a few letters to influential medical journals. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing a single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. A cancer researcher received $20,137 for writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and The Wall Street Journal. Rampton and Sta...

30 review for Trust Us, We're Experts!: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future

  1. 4 out of 5

    Anna

    This book was not an easy read and it took me ages to finish it. First of all, the subject itself is not much fun to think about. It's rather all doom and gloom, although I firmly believe everyone should familiarize themselves with this kind of information instead of hiding our heads in the sand and pretending everything's ok. Secondly, the book has a very dry, textbook-like style, and that's a pity because more people would read it if it were more accessible and "fun". Of course, it's hard to ex This book was not an easy read and it took me ages to finish it. First of all, the subject itself is not much fun to think about. It's rather all doom and gloom, although I firmly believe everyone should familiarize themselves with this kind of information instead of hiding our heads in the sand and pretending everything's ok. Secondly, the book has a very dry, textbook-like style, and that's a pity because more people would read it if it were more accessible and "fun". Of course, it's hard to expect fun in a book dealing with such subjects as propaganda, false science, dirty money, greenhouse effect, pollution and corporate lies. But unfortunately, it's also hard to expect people who are already tired juggling their work and family lives to make an effort and dig into a "difficult kind of book" after a long exhausting day at the office. The information presented in the book is not brand new - it mostly covers the 90s - however, it does not make the facts any less appropriate and true. And, unfortunately, it does not mean that the kind of malpractice, manipulation and misinformation of the Big Corps have diminished in scope. Quite on the contrary... This book shows a long history of propaganda and how it is being used at present by governments and corporations - especially the latter. It's full of shocking stories of how industries pay enormous amounts of money to scientists, magazines, think tanks and successfully manipulate public opinion to accept things that are bad for the people's health, well-being and even life but good for the corporate profits. It explains how many ways there are (and you'll be surprised just how many) to do scientific research and get the required results without actually resorting to outward lying. It analyzes well-known and well-documented cases of corporate-funded scientific studies gone wrong, of petitions being falsified, of creating misleading organizations and programs of the "Environmental Panel for Clean Air" kind to promote things such as smoking, GMO, pesticides, nuclear programs etc. And my oh my, aren't those names just fantastic! For as long as we don't know who they are funded by, we may be really misled by the beautiful logos, mottos and whatever else not. However, their real aim is not to defend "sound science". It's to make more dollars. It's to make us believe their products are safe and indispensable. And also to make us deaf and blind to any warnings, side-effects and risks. It's not that I didn't know all of these things existed. It's just that I didn't know the scale of the phenomenon, and frankly, it is scary. I will never look at any piece of supposedly scientific information with the same eyes again. Next time I see another note in another newspaper telling me that "Scientists from the University X have proved that Y is good for you", I will not just take it for granted but ask myself who may benefit from it and just how close or far it is from the good old common sense. As the authors of the book rightly conclude, "Just as war is too important to leave it to the generals, science and technology are too important to leave in the hands of the experts" - especially if those hands regularly get lots of greeny-green dollars from Monsanto, DuPont, Phillip Morris, Unilever, Shell, Procter&Gamble and others. So let's not allow the greedy CEOs fool ourselves. Let's ask questions and read a bit to see both sides of every story. Let's not forget that the issues such as GMO labelling, greenhouse effect or bovine growth hormone are not something irrelevant, unimportant and far from our everyday lives. Both our future and that of our planet is at stake here. So let's be vigilant...

  2. 5 out of 5

    Ian

    The subject matter was very interesting (and pretty scary), but the prose was very dry. Also, given that it was written in the late 90's, much of the information is dated. Having said that, I still found the book to be interesting and enjoyable. The subject matter was very interesting (and pretty scary), but the prose was very dry. Also, given that it was written in the late 90's, much of the information is dated. Having said that, I still found the book to be interesting and enjoyable.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Koshin

    A very entertaining book on how everything in the media is spun and how easy it is to fabricate the truth.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Simon Wood

    THE WHORES OF DECEPTION "Trust Us, Were Experts" is one in that pair of intrepid reporters (John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton) remarkable series of books on the Public Relations industry and the manipulations and deceptions that go on in so-called Democracies. In this outing they don their white coats, enter the lab and firmly fix the genus Impartialis Expertis under the microscope. The results are not edifying. The idea of scientists being full of integrity, "scientific", rigorous and impartial i THE WHORES OF DECEPTION "Trust Us, Were Experts" is one in that pair of intrepid reporters (John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton) remarkable series of books on the Public Relations industry and the manipulations and deceptions that go on in so-called Democracies. In this outing they don their white coats, enter the lab and firmly fix the genus Impartialis Expertis under the microscope. The results are not edifying. The idea of scientists being full of integrity, "scientific", rigorous and impartial in the search for the truth that is out there is shown to be problematic, especially when Corporate interests become involved. The authors cite a number of examples (Tobacco, Asbestos, Organochlorines, Pesticides, Lead, etc) where people with scientific credentials have pimped their expertise to Corporations to either derail regulation, cast doubt on scientific evidence, or mislead the public in ways that have often been grotesquely harmful to society. One of the examples that I was completely unaware of was the "Hawks Nest" tunnelling project. Anything from several hundred to two thousand black workers (like Iraq no-one was counting) died of the then well known condition Silicosis while drilling a two mile tunnel through quartz rock. Stauber and Rampton detail the efforts of Corporate interests and their "experts" to derail regulations designed to prevent silicosis, their failure to provide safety equipment to the workers or even to inform them of the known risks (a company expert is quoted as saying "We expected them to die but not that quick"), and the lengths the Corporation involved and their experts went to fight of demands by the surviving workers and their families for compensation. Besides specific case studies such as the Hawks Nest example above, the book contains a short history of public relations as it developed with particular regard to its relationships with scientists and experts; examples of the efforts of whistleblowers and other activists in their fights for justice; the relationship between politics, think tanks and Corporations (including their industry bodies), and their public relations and lobbying efforts. It also offers some insight into the world of Academia, the relationship between Corporate cash and that world, including the dubieties of Corporate sponsored institutions and research, and insight into how the peer review system and academic journals are supposed to function, and how they often function. At the end of the book there is an excellent list of further reading. Though the focus is mostly on examples from the United States, the book has a relevance for any country where Public Relations and Corporations function, and is an enlightening read on how these interests seek to undermine the democratic process and further their financial interests at the expense of the public. Well recommended reading - it can also be picked up second fairly cheap!

  5. 5 out of 5

    Scott

    Although dated and dry, it was very interesting and well researched. It offered many ways we can think more critically about the propaganda that we encounter and some tips to try and figure out if somethings actually true or not. It goes into detail about some common tricks used by companies and PR firms to appear reputable or legit when they’re really not. Now more than ever - in the era of everyone screaming “fake news” at anything they don’t like, and posting “alternative facts” from dodgy bl Although dated and dry, it was very interesting and well researched. It offered many ways we can think more critically about the propaganda that we encounter and some tips to try and figure out if somethings actually true or not. It goes into detail about some common tricks used by companies and PR firms to appear reputable or legit when they’re really not. Now more than ever - in the era of everyone screaming “fake news” at anything they don’t like, and posting “alternative facts” from dodgy blogs as gospel truth - this book is very much relevant and even more necessary than it was in the late 90s when it was written. If anything, the lies being fed to everyone have gotten even more blatant and extreme.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Matthew

    Fantastic book on how the media influences public perception / opinion. Big business bribes politicians and manipulates science daily in medicine, agriculture, and technology. Once you learn how to spot propaganda, you can make better decisions that will help you live a better quality of life in all areas. This is an eye-opening book about the public relations industry and how the public is deceived daily.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Taryn

    I read this for my Law & the Media class. Really interesting.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Alan Chen

    The book is a systematic takedown of the various conflicts of interest, spin methods, public relation artists, corruption antics, back scratching, pseudoscientific, dirt digging, expert posing, fact manufacturing, misleading, mis-characterizing, and outright lying used by professional operatives hired by various odious industries to control the future, shift thinking, stop watchdogs and fatten their profits. Or at least, that's what the authors want you to think. In reality, the book fails for a The book is a systematic takedown of the various conflicts of interest, spin methods, public relation artists, corruption antics, back scratching, pseudoscientific, dirt digging, expert posing, fact manufacturing, misleading, mis-characterizing, and outright lying used by professional operatives hired by various odious industries to control the future, shift thinking, stop watchdogs and fatten their profits. Or at least, that's what the authors want you to think. In reality, the book fails for a variety of reasons. First in the batting order, it often lapses into editorialism when discussing the latest policy it has uncovered, instead of taking the harder road of restraint by taking a neutral, objective look and examination of the case wherein they let the reader decide for themselves. For a book written by two reporters, the text often takes the time to lay down harangues and straw-man arguments instead of...merely reporting the facts. Secondly, the authors also fail to recognize that they themselves face the same scrutiny themselves when the reader, having become more aware of the techniques by reading this book, starts applying them to the words used here and finds it wanting. For instance, these editors seem to believe it's fair to cite experts, insert quotes, get the reviews of people who are only incidentally involved in the case, use literary devices, dismiss the public as stupid, and say that their opponents are complaining because they're receiving extra attention, but flip the players and suddenly the same tactics are dubious, maliciously dastardly deeds employed by a death squad. In one instance, the authors pointed out that they had inserted quotes from famous people on the back of their book in the hopes that more people would buy it. As this occurred early on, I hoped that that the authors were self-aware that they used the same tactics, and that they would continue to admit this while moving on. Instead, this was the only "lampshade hanging" of the book. It would seem that after some initial self-doubt, the authors gained moral certainty that their cause was just and that no explanation or admissions would be ethical, needed or even warranted. Third, the book could use an editor. I can't count the number of lists that name various companies who are connected to a certain firm. In the best traditions of grab-bag "round up the usual suspects" literary devices, the lists often include the same cast of evil companies and corporations connected to various industries, such as Monsanto, Exxon-Mobile, RJ Reynolds, McDonald's, and Republicans. This is a transparent maneuver done to paint the associated firm, be it a lobbying or publicity company, as a servant of the odious - but the very same maneuver is denounced when used by those same companies to smear acceptable, liberal causes. I recognize that the use of lists is occasionally necessary. But couldn't they have found a less ham-fisted way of conveying the same information? The fact that 15 odious conglomerates use the same law firm does not further convince me that the law firm is evil any more than if only 5 odious conglomerates were named. Finally, and most subtly, the authors are guilty of not being the people they study. They aren't scientists or researchers working from the inside - they're journalists who purport to be on the side of the public, but who also don't or can't accept the existence of gray areas and the idea that moral certainty cannot be applied to all situations. Instead, in their vision of the world, there exist only white and black hats, paragons of virtue who are victims of the looming corporate machine and dastardly villains who would stroke mustaches if facial hair hadn't gone out of style. The simple fact of the matter is than practically anything can be used as a force for good or be used to step on others. This includes laws that are ostensibly used to protect the public but which can be abused to obstruct and block. I counted exactly 2, TWO instances when the authors even acknowledged that possibility. However, in both instances the authors were unable to make it through a single paragraph before Perhaps that's the biggest problem - the authors are journalists. The goal of the authors is to inform, yes, but it is also to gain publicity and thus more revenue by increasing the spotlight on wrong doing, because bad news sells, and oh by the way, make a tidy profit from royalties. I have three specific gripes about the book: 1) Yucca Mountain - near the end, the book relates an anecdote about how citizen activists opposed to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump met with government officials in an attempt to reach a compromise. The activists said that under no circumstances would the construction site be acceptable, so they were labeled "unreasonable." Uh, when you go to negotiate a compromise and declare you won't compromise from the outset, you're being unreasonable. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of unreasonable. 2) Sewage - the book spends a small but intense portion harping on how government officials keep trying to minimize the public's perception of sewage and how they consider the public to be "irrational" about sewage. If the authors worked in the field, they would know that the public IS irrational about sewage. More than 10 years after the book came out, there are now water-conservation plants being put into place to reclaim and process sewage water so that the contaminants can be used as fertilizer and the water put back into the system. No matter how much the water is cleaned, though, people still inherently recoil at the thought of drinking water that was once sewage and raise a ruckus about it. Thus, a green, innovative program has progressed nowhere as much as it should have by now. 3) Psychiatry - the book also hammers on psychiatry and how it is a pseudoscience. While it may be true that psychiatry may seem less grounded and more speculative than physical medicine, psychiatry is not in the same domain is witch doctoring. It does its best with the little it has to work with (though now there are more qualitative measures), and it has helped a lot of people work through and manage issues that would've been completely hopeless in the past. There is one redeeming section near the end of the book. The authors have compiled a sort of "watch list" of phrases, persuasion tricks, and other manipulative tactics to watch out for. It's a nice inclusion that puts all of the preceding passages into actionable items for the reader to use going forward. But it's too little, far too late. RATING: 2 stars: ("Not only do I not like it, significantly serious shortcomings make it hard to recommend to others even if they like the author/genre.") This book was doomed to failure from the start, but I wonder if the authors knew that... However, what pushes the rating from 3 stars to 2 is the intellectual laziness. It's important when doing any type of work that is critical (in both senses of the word) to be objective in order to establish trust and show that you are not a partisan who only sees the faults of others while being blind to the missteps of your side. By only making concessions twice in the whole book, the authors show themselves to be blatantly, unabashedly partisan. That kind of work makes for good red meat among your base, but it does little to win over people on the fence. TL;DR The authors throw away their chance to write about what is ostensibly a topic that the public needs to be educated in by often deviating away from the facts and lapsing into blatant partisanship with editorials that can easily distract a reader from some admittedly solid warnings.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Antonio Meridda

    Libro di denuncia su alcune discutibilissime analisi scientifiche, che hanno portato alla diffusioni di abitudini assai pericolose, come l'uso intensivo di pesticidi in agricoltura. Libro di denuncia su alcune discutibilissime analisi scientifiche, che hanno portato alla diffusioni di abitudini assai pericolose, come l'uso intensivo di pesticidi in agricoltura.

  10. 4 out of 5

    yamiyoghurt

    Interesting, but very dense.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Jenine Young

    It seemed to be a regurgitation of Toxic Sludge is Good For You.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Todd Martin

    "Trust Us We're the Experts" is very similar to the authors' earlier work "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" in that it discusses how pervasive the Public Relations industry has become and the many ways they are able to influence attitudes (both for good and bad). There are two important points that the authors make that everyone should be aware of: 1) PR is EVERYWHERE and more often than not it is cleverly disguised (since its disclosure reduces its effectiveness). It takes the form of astro turf or "Trust Us We're the Experts" is very similar to the authors' earlier work "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" in that it discusses how pervasive the Public Relations industry has become and the many ways they are able to influence attitudes (both for good and bad). There are two important points that the authors make that everyone should be aware of: 1) PR is EVERYWHERE and more often than not it is cleverly disguised (since its disclosure reduces its effectiveness). It takes the form of astro turf organizations (fake grass roots groups), in video news releases that are often indistinguishable from regular news stories, in expert testimony, newspaper and magazine articles - many positive stories are written by individuals who may appear to be impartial observers, but are actually on the payroll of the interests for whom they appear to lend their unbiased support. Unless you are aware of its existence and cognizant of its presence you are likely to be fooled. Of course if you enjoy being a tool, more power to you. 2) Science, which is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of truth, is not immune to bias. As an example, scientists funded by Pharmaceutical Companies are much more likely to find the company's drug effective than those funded by other means. Seems an unlikely coincidence. Not unlike congressmen who support the issues of most interest to their campaign donors. Pure coincidence I'm sure. The downside of the book is that it has a distinctly anti-intellectual slant. The authors diminish the value of experts who spend their lives in pursuit of various academic interests while elevating the emotional reaction of a herd to the same level of validity. Many people do not have the intellectual capacity to evaluate science or the associated risks of a particular technology. They react emotionally and are easily swayed by emotional appeals. This is easily seen by the reaction of the public to sharks vs hogs. Sharks are scary, yet hogs kill many more people each year. Terrorism sends people into a frenzy of pant wetting behavior as opposed to cell phone use & driving which kills many more year after year. Rampton and Stauber should be aware of the difference, although given their irrational fear of genetically modified foods it's clear they are not.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Mike

    Very informative and the only fault I can find with it is their lack of dealing (much) with the MEDIA and how it is one of the greatest influences in the misuse of scientific data. Here is a portion of a review that can be found on Powell's Books: *You think that if a scientist says so, it must be true? In the early 1990s, tobacco companies secretly paid thirteen scientists a total of $156,000 to write a few letters to influential medical journals. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writin Very informative and the only fault I can find with it is their lack of dealing (much) with the MEDIA and how it is one of the greatest influences in the misuse of scientific data. Here is a portion of a review that can be found on Powell's Books: *You think that if a scientist says so, it must be true? In the early 1990s, tobacco companies secretly paid thirteen scientists a total of $156,000 to write a few letters to influential medical journals. One biostatistician received $10,000 for writing a single, eight-paragraph letter that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. A cancer researcher received $20,137 for writing four letters and an opinion piece to the Lancet, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and The Wall Street Journal.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Nancy

    Although I rated this book only 3 stars, I believe the information is more important than that. It's just that the same dirty tricks, just used in different industries and environments, were used again and again. After a while, I skimmed. It's very detailed, which makes it a good candidate for PR and journalism students. The best take-away for me was continue to distrust corporations and go to the Center for Media and Democracy when I want to find out who's really behind a consumer-friendly soun Although I rated this book only 3 stars, I believe the information is more important than that. It's just that the same dirty tricks, just used in different industries and environments, were used again and again. After a while, I skimmed. It's very detailed, which makes it a good candidate for PR and journalism students. The best take-away for me was continue to distrust corporations and go to the Center for Media and Democracy when I want to find out who's really behind a consumer-friendly sounding organization. Thank goodness for the authors.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Linda Riebel

    You won't be totally surprised to find out that people are making a lot of money by telling outrageous lies, but this book will show you how they do it for big business. The "experts" in the title are PR (public relations) specialists, aka spin doctors, who, for a fee, will set up phony front groups, create a fog of misinformation, conduct smear campaigns, and more. You won't be totally surprised to find out that people are making a lot of money by telling outrageous lies, but this book will show you how they do it for big business. The "experts" in the title are PR (public relations) specialists, aka spin doctors, who, for a fee, will set up phony front groups, create a fog of misinformation, conduct smear campaigns, and more.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Spencer

    The next time you buy something because it's been "tested" by a scientific panel or institution, you may want to read this book.....and then move to Bora Bora and go off the grid forever!! Some pretty messed up things going on under the aegis of "science". Caveat Emptor, baby!! The next time you buy something because it's been "tested" by a scientific panel or institution, you may want to read this book.....and then move to Bora Bora and go off the grid forever!! Some pretty messed up things going on under the aegis of "science". Caveat Emptor, baby!!

  17. 4 out of 5

    Harry Piuze

    That book was an eye opener many years ago. I never saw science and how our society prostituted it the same way after! Sadly ... It appeared after that it is the norm in almost everything. Economy over truth! All the time!

  18. 4 out of 5

    Kat Lynch

    Good stuff, covering a wide swath of industries/sectors.

  19. 4 out of 5

    sologdin

    good primer on PR industry. probably the signature text from this pair of authors, who've written number of other narrowly focused items on particular PR conduct. good primer on PR industry. probably the signature text from this pair of authors, who've written number of other narrowly focused items on particular PR conduct.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Jon

    good look at pr mischief, everyone and their mom should read this

  21. 5 out of 5

    Tom Darrow

    Good information and topic, but it's very dense and time consuming to read. It's very well researched, but most of the sources are 90s, which makes it less reliable than other, more modern, works. Good information and topic, but it's very dense and time consuming to read. It's very well researched, but most of the sources are 90s, which makes it less reliable than other, more modern, works.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Wyatt

    Manipulation is just another word for marketing! :-) Great read for looking at how far manipulative marketing techniques can go. Think black hat marketing.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Veronique Perrot

    I registered a book at BookCrossing.com! http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/12760868 I registered a book at BookCrossing.com! http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/12760868

  24. 5 out of 5

    Christopher Prosser

    becca

  25. 4 out of 5

    Nathan Janes

    A MUST READ!

  26. 5 out of 5

    Chandra

    Not that we are naiive, but pseudoscience is a lucrative industry. Industry pays more for science than NGO's can afford in most cases. Not that we are naiive, but pseudoscience is a lucrative industry. Industry pays more for science than NGO's can afford in most cases.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Sally

    at library

  28. 5 out of 5

    Rebecca

  29. 4 out of 5

    Ryan Kenshin

  30. 4 out of 5

    Mylinda

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...