Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘spin’

Spinning it with John

Posted by Clare Curran on August 2nd, 2011

The  public relations firm paid $10,000 to broker John Key’s appearance on the Letterman Show was Hill & Knowlton, the PR firm that became notorious for its involvement in the Kuwaiti embassy’s lobbying of congress to provoke a military response to the Iraq invasion back in 1991.

This involved creating an artificial scandal over Iraq troops murdering Kuwaiti babies in incubators, using the Kuwaiti ambassador’s family as stooges claiming to have witnessed these atrocities.

Congress bought it, and Hill & Knowlton was rewarded handsomely for their assistance in facilitating a military response.

Even Crosby Textor looks tame compared with these guys.

Read this extract from  The Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch

Hill & Knowlton, then the world’s largest PR firm, served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign. Its activities alone would have constituted the largest foreign-funded campaign ever aimed at manipulating American public opinion. By law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act should have exposed this propaganda campaign to the American people, but the Justice Department chose not to enforce it. Nine days after Saddam’s army marched into Kuwait, the Emir’s government agreed to fund a contract under which Hill & Knowlton would represent “Citizens for a Free Kuwait,” a classic PR front group designed to hide the real role of the Kuwaiti government and its collusion with the Bush administration. Over the next six months, the Kuwaiti government channeled $11.9 million dollars to Citizens for a Free Kuwait, whose only other funding totalled $17,861 from 78 individuals. Virtually all of CFK’s budget – $10.8 million – went to Hill & Knowlton in the form of fees.74

The man running Hill & Knowlton’s Washington office was Craig Fuller, one of Bush’s closest friends and inside political advisors. The news media never bothered to examine Fuller’s role until after the war had ended, but if America’s editors had read the PR trade press, they might have noticed this announcement, published in O’Dwyer’s PR Services before the fighting began: “Craig L. Fuller, chief of staff to Bush when he was vice-president, has been on the Kuwaiti account at Hill & Knowlton since the first day.

and this one

Every big media event needs what journalists and flacks alike refer to as “the hook.” An ideal hook becomes the central element of a story that makes it newsworthy, evokes a strong emotional response, and sticks in the memory. In the case of the Gulf War, the “hook” was invented by Hill & Knowlton. In style, substance and mode of delivery, it bore an uncanny resemblance to England’s World War I hearings that accused German soldiers of killing babies.


Mums, Dads and other spin

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 27th, 2011

Its always interesting the morning after a big announcement to look at the spin and lines that get trotted out. National pay a lot of attention to this stuff, and Crosby Textor and Mr Joyce have been working hard to get their lines and their “independent” commentators out there. Let’s just look at a few examples:

“Selling assets will give Mum and Dad investors a chance to get a stake”. Well, to start with Kiwi Mums and Dads already have a stake in them, since along with the rest of us Kiwis they already own them. For a large number of Mums and Dads they are worried about paying the power bill, not owning the company.

As an aside I find the omnipresence of Mark Weldon talking about how good this will be is hilarious. Mark is the CE of the NZ Stock Exchange, I kind of expect he might like the idea. Its in the same vein as bank economists being put up as the commentators on interest rates. Just a slight vested interested there.

“This will not increase power prices” So, what exactly will the new investors in these companies be looking for? A warm feeling of social responsibility? No, presumably a profit, which won’t exactly be helped by lowering power prices. There is a discussion to be had about how we best leverage our collective ownership of these assets, and whether the dividend policy needs to change to help address power prices, but I am damn sure that wont happen by selling them off.

“We have to sell assets and further slash government expenditure because we have a huge debt problem” Where to start? Perhaps where John Key said “we don’t have a debt problem, we have a growth problem.” Of course any government needs to be a prudent manager of the economy, but the truth is that our debt is quite different from the PIGS. Their problem is soaring government debt. In New Zealand the National Party inherited zero net government debt. It has increased under National’s watch, but even still not to the point of being anything like the PIGS.

If we are in such a parlous state, perhaps its time for John Key to look in the mirror, Two Budgets with tax cuts targeted at the wealthy and no economic recovery plan. Time for National to take some responsibility.

“Which schools and hospitals would you not build if we did not do this” Utter nonsense. This is pure spin developed to meet the polling results that New Zealanders want to see better investment in education and health. Investing in schools and hospitals is a priority totally seperate from the ownership of SOEs.

But my favourite piece of spin comes directly from the PMs speech

I am convinced that Air New Zealand would not be run as well, nor provide as good a service to customers if it was owned 100% by the government

Let’s remember Air New Zealand was bailed out by the 5th Labour Government after it was driven into the ground by its private owners. A bailout incidentally opposed by National at the time. For New Zealand a functioning airline is essential, and it was highly at risk without government involvement. As it happens I think one of the reasons Air New Zealand has been innovative is that it has had the security of government ownership.

There is more, and feel free to contribute any other myths and spin in the comments.


Hide blatantly misleads on local boards

Posted by Phil Twyford on March 5th, 2010

The Government must know they are pushing the super city up hill in the face of an increasingly sceptical public and news media. This morning’s Herald declares:

The way it is shaping up, the single mayor and council will be a puppet show, purely for democratic appearances, while the real decisions are made by people the public has not elected and will never see. It cannot stand.

The Herald was talking about what it calls the Orwellian-named Council Controlled Organisations, but the issue of local boards is just as troubling to the Government right now, with widespread suspicion that the boards will be paper tigers. A good indicator is the level of  Government spin.

Rodney Hide and his associate minister of local government John Carter are going around town saying their local boards will have the power to “make by-laws”, when they have specifically ruled out the local boards having any rule-making powers.

Have a listen to Hide on BFM’s The Wire yesterday. Breathtaking spin. And select committee chair John Carter has been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of submitters all week with this line about local boards being able to make by-laws.

The sad truth of the Hide super city model is that the local boards can only advocate to the Super Council for a by-law, and lobby them to pass it, just like any other lobby group in Auckland can. In fact, the government banned the local boards from having any regulatory powers in their second super city bill passed last year.

The Super Council is only allowed to delegate certain non-regulatory powers to local boards in areas like parks and libraries, except where a coordinated approach outweighs the benefits of a local decision, except where decision making would be more effective if integrated with other Council decisions, and except where the impact of a decision goes beyond the local board area.

You could drive a truck through all those exceptions. Does anyone really think the new Council will willingly delegate powers downwards to local boards?

Rodney  Hide can spin all he likes about how local boards “are key to encouraging Aucklanders to become more actively engaged” but that won’t happen if the government leaves local boards as toothless talkshops.


Who tells Key?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on September 18th, 2009

Interesting bit in Dompost recently about a poor speech Key made at an award ceremony. What became clear is that there isn’t a system – formal or informal – for telling Key when he has not done well or has something wrong. Not always a great role to have but someone (or more often 2/3 people) has to do it.

Greasing up to a leader is easy.  Giving a full frank and differing opinion sometimes isn’t.

Then again maybe we should believe the spin that Key is so good he gets everything right first time.