ABC News: Gore spoof video linked to Republican/Exxon Spinster

Fri, 2006-08-04 13:14Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

ABC News: Gore spoof video linked to Republican/Exxon Spinster

ABC news is reporting that a popular YouTube.com video mocking Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, first purported to be created by a 29-year old, was actually created by the PR firm, DCI Group. ABC also rightly reports that the infamous climate change “skeptic” funder ExxonMobil is a DCI client. Coincidently, the DCI group  is responsible for the creation of “Tech Central Station,” a forum for climate change deniers that just so happens to have received funding directly from Exxon for so-called “climate change support.”

Exxon denies they had anyting to do with the video and ABC reports a DCI representative as stating:

“We do not disclose the names of our clients, nor do we discuss the work we do on behalf of our clients.”

This is yet another in a long list of examples of underhanded PR spin being used to attack the scientific consensus on climate change - it is also an extremely amateurish and immature example of PR in general. DCI's unwillingness to disclose the client footing the bill for this sad little video means they're probably raring up for some damage control on this one. This is a bad PR move on the part of DCI, by covering up their client they are only drawing more attention to the story and making themselves and Exxon look all that more guilty.

Of course, questionable PR tactics by DCI are not surprising, when you consider that DCI's current CEO, Doug Goodyear, was also heavily involved as a PR consultant in RJ Reynold's efforts to manufacture a grassroots campaign against tougher tobacco laws.

I guess when it comes to PR and climate change, we just have to keep “smoking” these guys out of their holes. Sorry, bad pun, had to be done.

Comments

I guess PR firms working public opinion on global warming have moved past blogs. What’s next: DeSmogBlog, The Movie? Do post a link when its ready for viewing.

Come on. Even you tartly must agree that this is at least a little bit sordid. You yourself admitted that scientists need to be more open on their funding, shouldn’t PR people be as well? We here at the DeSmogBlog have been more than open about our funding source. By the way, you have always been such an astute commentator on the subject of climate change, would you care to tell us what your interest is in the subject?

I’d suggest putting labels on videos without a problem. Can’t go as far as ‘sordid’ in this case because the video was harmless and silly. If it had libeled Gore or been pornographic or something of that nature then sordid would surely apply. The Wall Street Journal said the Gore movie people also distributed a You Tube video. I suppose these videos are seen as the latest thing for marketing, but to me they look like a waste of money. I can’t imagine deciding to see a movie because someone made a You Tube video about it, or not seeing it because someone did.

As for the rest of it, I agree that it is clear that a PR agency owns this website. I am sure that if DCI starts a blog you will assume it reflects the personal opinions of DCI staff and that no clients are involved. I share your sentiments here.

It is clear by reading the about page:

“This site is the project of Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, and one of Canada’s leading public relations professionals.”

PR for what though?

“I am sure that if DCI starts a blog you will assume it reflects the personal opinions of DCI staff and that no clients are involved. I share your sentiments here.” - Tartly Critical

I believe what the argument would have us assume is that to condemn one PR firm, is to in fact condemn them all.

Disclosure is important to those who wish to elect fact. Fact takes data and shifts from time to time. One however, rarely needs fact to mark profit…other than the fact that someone is willing to pay for something.

I visit the JH&A Blog and see:

“The Scientific Consensus
Here is a review by Science magazine that looked at 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change.”  Not one of these studies disagreed with consensus view on climate change.” (links to AAAS owned magazine)

I visit the DCI About Us (they have no blog) and see:

DCI Group is a full-service public and government affairs firm comprised of more than 150 veterans of federal and state politics and public policy.”

How do the heads of 150 veterans hang while viewing this YouTube piece? It wasn’t done very well – does it signal incompetence? This seems to create more forums and discussion _for_ the movie. Rather, highlights it that much more.

Why would someone pay for this? Did someone pay for this?

Even if it was the personal opinion of someone from DCI, I would have to conclude that their hiring process allows l4mers to produce media and furthermore, a lam3r with an immature and ignorant view of the world.  So 1ame in fact, he used what appears to be obfuscated identity information. Nothing more than that though. This is not a big deal. It is just lame.

150 veterans, I ask you: do you hang your head low because of that low-laying media? Or because today you are its lame focus? 

…but they are not here to respond. And here JH&A have a comment box for me to make my comment and yours.

DCI issues a lame video and JH&A issues links to dispel it.

There is no equality here with respect to supporting the movement to abstain from poisoning ourselves.

>||;) 

1. dirty or squalid

2. ignoble, mean or mercenary

3. mean or niggardly

4. dull-coloured

 I’d say that #2 applies perfectly … 

To bored animated penguins?

Can you be the same man who wrote that Tucker Carlson’s tie is cutting the oxygen off from his brain?