Trust Us We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future [Paperback]

Sheldon Rampton (Author), John Stauber (Author)

Book Description

Release date: January 14, 2002

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...

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Fearless investigative journalists Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! and Mad Cow U.S.A.) are back with a gripping exposé of the public relations industry and the scientists who back their business-funded, anti-consumer-safety agendas. There are two kinds of "experts" in question--the PR spin doctors behind the scenes and the "independent" experts paraded before the public, scientists who have been hand-selected, cultivated, and paid handsomely to promote the views of corporations involved in controversial actions. Lively writing on controversial topics such as dioxin, bovine growth hormone, and genetically modified food makes this a real page-turner, shocking in its portrayal of the real and potential dangers in each of these technological innovations and of the "media pseudo-environment" created to obfuscate the risks. By financing and publicizing views that support the goals of corporate sponsors, PR campaigns have, over the course of the century, managed to suppress the dangers of lead poisoning for decades, silence the scientist who discovered that rats fed on genetically modified corn had significant organ abnormalities, squelch television and newspaper stories about the risks of bovine growth hormone, and place enough confusion and doubt in the public's mind about global warming to suppress any mobilization for action.

Rampton and Stauber introduce the movers and shakers of the PR industry, from the "risk communicators" (whose job is to downplay all risks) and "outrage managers" (with their four strategies--deflect, defer, dismiss, or defeat) to those who specialize in "public policy intelligence" (spying on opponents). Evidently, these elaborate PR campaigns are created for our own good. According to public relations philosophers, the public reacts emotionally to topics related to health and safety and is incapable of holding rational discourse. Needless to say, Rampton and Stauber find these views rather antidemocratic and intend to pull back the curtain to reveal the real wizard in Oz. This is one wake-up call that's hard to resist. --Lesley Reed --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

Recent surveys show that "national experts" are the third most trusted type of public figure (after Supreme Court justices and schoolteachers). Hard-hitting investigative journalists Rampton and Stauber (Toxic Sludge Is Good for You!) ask whether that trust is misplaced. They assert that, with highly technical issues like environmental pollution and bioengineered foodstuffs, "people are encouraged to suspend their own judgment and abandon responsibility to the experts." The authors examine the opinions of many so-called experts to show how their opinions are often marred by conflicts of interest. Peering behind the curtain of decision making, they catch more than a few with blood money on their hands. From spin doctors with dubious credentials to think tanks that do everything but think and scientists who work backwards to engineer desired experimental results, Rampton and Stauber present an astonishing compendium of alleged abuses of the public's willingness to believe. Particularly sobering is their summary of the historical use of "experts" by the tobacco and mining industries, which, they reveal, have suppressed and manipulated information in order to slow industrial reform. Their allegation that industry flaks may be purposely clouding the current debates swirling around "junk science" and global warming issues should provoke readers to reexamine these matters. Rampton and Stauber's impassioned call for skepticism goes beyond rhetoricAthey also offer practical guidelines for separating propaganda from useful information. Agent, Tom Grady. (Jan. 2) Forecast: The authors' gloves-off approach, which is effectively signaled by the pointed and irreverent cartoon-style jacket, will appeal to fans of Bill Moyers, Jeremy Rifkin and Barbara Ehrenreich (who all blurbed the book).
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 368 pages
• Publisher: Tarcher; 1st edition (January 14, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1585421391
• ISBN-13: 978-1585421398
• Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.8 x 8.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (46 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #553,971 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

72 of 75 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Believe none of what you hear.... June 14, 2003

By Timothy P. Scanlon VINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback

...and only half of what you see. That's how an old friend paraphrased some public figure many years ago. And this book makes that statement far less cynical.

While "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" by the same authors was a fine book, this is somewhat of an evolution. It's even better.

So, let's see, you may have been impressed with the findings of a study that has been in all the major daily newspapers and network news. After all, the findings were applauded by the Association for Warm Cuddly Chemicals, they were endorsed by your favorite authors, and, after all, what would we do without the wonderful products available that were the subject of the study?

What the trusty newspapers and networks didn't tell you is that the aforementioned association--the list of such front organizations will boggle your mind--is a front for the manufacturers of the chemicals making up the product they're endorsing, and the "study" written up by professional PR flacks. (I took a writing course six years ago in which the instructor, who claimed to be well-informed, was astonished when I told her the percentage of column inches in the most well-read newspapers in the US have been composed by PR "professionals.")

As the structure of a text means a lot to me, this is one I endorse on that ground too. It starts with a history of the public relations industry. Of course, Edward Bernays--an old New Deal liberal, incidentally--was PR's patron saint.

The authors dissect the PR process brilliantly. For instance, PR professionals have their consultants to call upon. I was amazed and amused by the process our favorite software manufacturer used to minimize the allegations of monopoly. One of the "consultants" called upon was a former Supreme Court nominee who has vigorously argued against antitrust laws. Once hired by the corporation, though, he issued a 7,000 word tirade against federal prosecutors in favor of the company. Various other politicians, also getting paid by the company, were also enlisted as spokespeople for the company. Shocked, huh?

There's a valuable analysis of how industry has taken the route of "risk analysis" rather than a principle of precaution, i.e., go for it because the consequences are likely minimal vs. let's wait until we find the product is safe before we release it. Industry pushes the former, though you think they--and we--would learn what with the number and amount of settlements in law suits against drug manufacturers, for example.

In addition to that level of commentary, the text reminds the reader of the perils of things like global warming. These are items industry goes out of its way to deny. After all, were we to face the consequences of our excess consumption, we might buy less! Oh, and there?s lots in the text to be learned about bovine growth hormone and its manufacturer/promoter. You'll learn a lot about things we've been prodded to take for granted.

A further complication of our perception is that there is a genre of commentator that a fellow skeptic refers to as "crank skeptic," i.e., an author or commentator who claims to challenge norms or speak for reality but who actually has an ideological motive. This text mentions a few of them whose names I'll let you get from the text.

The only thing I wish the book had covered more of is how the PR industry has infected the electoral process in the United States. In contemporary elections, ISSUES are meticulously avoided so that we can discuss the essentially meaningless (e.g., "character," whatever that is.) But I must admit that's probably the subject of a dozen books, and a slightly different focus than that of this book.

Were I taking notes while reading the book, there is far more I could have written. But I'd rather you take the time to read the book than my comments thereon.

I cannot recommend this book strongly enough. We MUST know how the PR process works, how we are influenced by it, and who controls the media by which we are ostensibly "informed."

67 of 72 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Trust Us, We're Experts! February 17, 2001

By J. Gear

Format:Hardcover

Having just finished "Trust Us, We're Experts" I was *astounded* to find the two reviews above saying (essentially) that it was bunk because it was anti-corporate and citing "cases" that the reviewers seem to think help their cause (when they actually just suggest that the reviewers are themselves either paid corporate PR drones or lobotomized "consumers" who abhor anyone actually peering behind the veil of monopoly media and showing that it is mainly about keeping the rabble in line).*****The most important thing about Stauber and Rampton's work from the point of view of a critical review is that it is extensively footnoted and sourced ... don't agree with their positions? Fine -- write a book even half as well sourced and you'll be far ahead of most of what passes for popular scientific literature.****Trust Us, We're Experts does, in fact, seem redundant to parts of "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" -- but that's not too surprising given that the same PR consultant/flacks are giving corporations the exact same advice on how to overcome public participation and avoid any real critical scrutiny.****These two books (and their newsletter "PR Watch") are among the most powerful deprogramming tools available today -- anyone interested in media, democracy, citizenship, public policy formation, or the environment should definitely equip themselves with them or, if only one, then "Trust Us!" because it's the most current.

55 of 59 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Patterns Give Away Deceit September 11, 2002

By Kevin L. Nenstiel TOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE

Format:Hardcover

The bulk of this book is given over to detailing the consistent patterns big money has used to manipulate the flow of knowledge from those who have it to those who need it. In practice, this means the book details how "industry" (a term used but never clearly defined) is standing in the way of public health, environmental concerns, and more. Perhaps this book was printed with soy ink on recycled paper? Or are publishers not an industry?

That quibble aside, Stauber and Rampton attempt to demonstrate, primarily through pattern recognition, how easy it is to see through PR-motivated lies and hucksterism if we simply know what to look for. Uncomfortably cozy relationships with "independent" third parties are an obvious example, as is a tendency to divert attention from the credibility of the statement to the credibility of who makes the statement. In fact, an elementary knowledge of the rules of formal debate are well rewarded in reading this book, since you quickly discover that, if an "expert" is defying these rules, that expert is probably trying to take you to the cleaners.

The book is patently left-leaning. The authors are idealistic about human nature, for example, believing people would do the greatest good for the greatest number if they knew how to do it. The authors also appear to believe that government regulation is the necessary answer to inevitable government excess. This seems awfully naïve in its sheer repetition at times. In Chapter Nine, the concession is briefly made that "public advocacy" groups will sometimes distort facts and figures to achieve their desired ends, but that assertion is ultimately deemed less important than the tendency of conservative forces to distort.

The ultimate chapter actually goes into some pointers for seeing through distortion and arming yourself to stand up for your beliefs. At least one previous reviewer seems to have missed this fact. This isn't just a list of information, there are actual pointers for action in here. Don't be shy about standing up for what you believe in, that's the message of this book, and one worth repeating, since we Americans allow ourselves to forget it all too easily.

This book shouldn't be sought out by anybody too in love with their conservative beliefs, their love of mass manufacturing, or a belief that prosperity must come on the heels of pollution. Despite its leanings, it maintains no sacred cows. Those willing to allow themselves to be challenged, however, will be richly rewarded by going out on a limb. This sophisticated, well-documented book tries to show the point where truth and lies intersect, and it is a view you will not soon forget.