{"id":134,"date":"2015-02-16T20:25:32","date_gmt":"2015-02-16T20:25:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/cfacontrolthemessage\/?post_type=chapter&p=134"},"modified":"2015-02-17T21:17:47","modified_gmt":"2015-02-17T21:17:47","slug":"flak-new","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/snhu-cfacontrolthemessage\/chapter\/flak-new\/","title":{"raw":"Flak","rendered":"Flak"},"content":{"raw":"'Flak', described by Herman and Chomsky as 'negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and Bills before Congress and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action'. Business organizations regularly come together to form flak machines. An example is the US-based Global Climate Coalition<\/a> (GCC) - comprising fossil fuel and automobile companies such as Exxon, Texaco and Ford. The GCC was started up by Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations companies, to attack the credibility of climate scientists and 'scare stories' about global warming.\r\n\r\nFor Chomsky and Herman \"flak\" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. The term \"flak\" has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power (e.g.<\/i>, \"The Establishment<\/a>\"). Unlike the first three \"filtering\" mechanisms \u2014 which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms \u2014 flak is characterized by concerted efforts to manage public information.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Examples of Flak Campaigns:<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n

1. Flak Over 'Fast Food Nation'<\/h3>\r\n

\"Fast Food Nation\" is a fictionalized movie based on Eric Schlosser's book, aired at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006.<\/p>\r\n

The film alleges that fast-food chains contribute to the nation's obesity epidemic and other problems.\u00a0 It tells the story of an executive from a hamburger chain called Mickey's who visits a Colorado meatpacking town to determine why there's something wrong with the meat in the company's popular sandwich, the Big One. The plant is staffed with illegal immigrants who work in unpleasant conditions. Other story lines include a teenager who works at a Mickey's who is frightened by a string of robberies at nearby fast-food restaurants. Actors Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke are among the cast.<\/p>\r\n

An array of U.S. food companies\u00a0 launched a campaign to rebut the allegations in the film, and more than a dozen trade groups representing producers of beef, potatoes, milk and snacks, along with restaurant groups, fought back with a media campaign to counter what one groups contends is the \"indigestible propaganda\" Mr. Schlosser was spreading.<\/p>\r\n

Janet Adamy and Richard Gibson wrote an article on\u00a0 May 18, 2006 for the Wall Street Journal entitled<\/p>\r\n

Flak Over \u2018Fast Food Nation\u2019<\/strong><\/em>\r\n U.S. Food Manufacturers Rally To Oppose a Film and a Book That Blame Them for Obesity<\/em><\/p>\r\n

In the article Adamy and Gibson detail the efforts and media campaigns that many trade groups and restaurants associated with fast food, are undertaking. Fast Food News<\/a> provides details on the responses by food industry groups, and discusses the \"Best Food Nation\" <\/a>website that they established in response to the film.\u00a0 In the article, they claim that McDonald's Corp also funded TCS Daily, an arm of the Washington lobbying and public-relations firm DCI Group to launch pointed attacks directly on Mr. Scholsser.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

2.\u00a0 Philip Morris Accuses ABC of Libel<\/h3>\r\n
Libel suits, also an example of flak, are difficult to mount and even more difficult to win. When ABC's television magazine program \"Day One\" contended that cigarette companies commonly add extra nicotine to cigarettes, Philip Morris claimed that they suffered \"massive harm\" as a result of the statements.\u00a0 Read more of Michael Janofsky's March 25, 1994 NY Time article:\u00a0 Philip Morris Accuses ABC of Libel<\/em><\/a>.<\/div>\r\n
ABC agreed to a settlement,\u00a0 publicly apologized, and was required to pay Philip Morris' legal expenses in the amount of $2.5 million to $3 million. That expense, plus the value of the broadcast time for the apologies, make this one of the costliest settlements of a libel case ever. \u00a0The Media Business; ABC News Settles Suits on Tobacco.<\/a><\/em><\/div>\r\n
<\/div>","rendered":"

‘Flak’, described by Herman and Chomsky as ‘negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and Bills before Congress and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action’. Business organizations regularly come together to form flak machines. An example is the US-based Global Climate Coalition<\/a> (GCC) – comprising fossil fuel and automobile companies such as Exxon, Texaco and Ford. The GCC was started up by Burson-Marsteller, one of the world’s largest public relations companies, to attack the credibility of climate scientists and ‘scare stories’ about global warming.<\/p>\n

For Chomsky and Herman “flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. The term “flak” has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power (e.g.<\/i>, “The Establishment<\/a>“). Unlike the first three “filtering” mechanisms \u2014 which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms \u2014 flak is characterized by concerted efforts to manage public information.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Examples of Flak Campaigns:<\/strong><\/h2>\n

1. Flak Over ‘Fast Food Nation’<\/h3>\n

“Fast Food Nation” is a fictionalized movie based on Eric Schlosser’s book, aired at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006.<\/p>\n

The film alleges that fast-food chains contribute to the nation’s obesity epidemic and other problems.\u00a0 It tells the story of an executive from a hamburger chain called Mickey’s who visits a Colorado meatpacking town to determine why there’s something wrong with the meat in the company’s popular sandwich, the Big One. The plant is staffed with illegal immigrants who work in unpleasant conditions. Other story lines include a teenager who works at a Mickey’s who is frightened by a string of robberies at nearby fast-food restaurants. Actors Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke are among the cast.<\/p>\n

An array of U.S. food companies\u00a0 launched a campaign to rebut the allegations in the film, and more than a dozen trade groups representing producers of beef, potatoes, milk and snacks, along with restaurant groups, fought back with a media campaign to counter what one groups contends is the “indigestible propaganda” Mr. Schlosser was spreading.<\/p>\n

Janet Adamy and Richard Gibson wrote an article on\u00a0 May 18, 2006 for the Wall Street Journal entitled<\/p>\n

Flak Over \u2018Fast Food Nation\u2019<\/strong><\/em>
\n U.S. Food Manufacturers Rally To Oppose a Film and a Book That Blame Them for Obesity<\/em><\/p>\n

In the article Adamy and Gibson detail the efforts and media campaigns that many trade groups and restaurants associated with fast food, are undertaking. Fast Food News<\/a> provides details on the responses by food industry groups, and discusses the “Best Food Nation” <\/a>website that they established in response to the film.\u00a0 In the article, they claim that McDonald’s Corp also funded TCS Daily, an arm of the Washington lobbying and public-relations firm DCI Group to launch pointed attacks directly on Mr. Scholsser.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Philip Morris Accuses ABC of Libel<\/h3>\n
Libel suits, also an example of flak, are difficult to mount and even more difficult to win. When ABC’s television magazine program “Day One” contended that cigarette companies commonly add extra nicotine to cigarettes, Philip Morris claimed that they suffered “massive harm” as a result of the statements.\u00a0 Read more of Michael Janofsky’s March 25, 1994 NY Time article:\u00a0 Philip Morris Accuses ABC of Libel<\/em><\/a>.<\/div>\n
ABC agreed to a settlement,\u00a0 publicly apologized, and was required to pay Philip Morris’ legal expenses in the amount of $2.5 million to $3 million. That expense, plus the value of the broadcast time for the apologies, make this one of the costliest settlements of a libel case ever. \u00a0The Media Business; ABC News Settles Suits on Tobacco.<\/a><\/em><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>