E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Seth Wenig / AP
Joe Bongioni makes sure he is covered with indoor tanning lotion, before stepping into a tanning booth in New York on March 24, 2010.
A new campaign by the tanning industry to promote the safety of sunbed use has come under fierce attack from the American Academy of Dermatology, which is accusing the industry of making claims that are “ridiculous” and unsupported by scientific evidence.
In the latest exchange between the two sides, the dermatologists blasted the newly formed American Suntanning Association for disputing the medical consensus that tanning indoors increases the risk of skin cancers, including melanoma, the deadliest kind.
“The recent statements by the American Suntanning Association (ASA) are ridiculous and there is no data to support them,” the dermatology group said in a statement. “Indoor tanning is dangerous.”
In a statement responding to the charge, the tanning association said: "The public does not benefit from the continuation of a protracted, sound-bite oriented fight between professional sunbed salons and anti-UV (ultraviolet light) lobbying groups about the relative safety of UV exposure. We promote a fair and balanced message about UV exposure.’’
The creation last month of the tanning association, made up of 1,400 salon owners, steps up the $5 billion industry’s campaign to defend itself against mounting evidence of the harms caused by indoor tanning. Already, industry members have mounted an extraordinary effort to portray doctors and other health authorities as conspiring to unnecessarily scare the public about tanning, as FairWarning reported in August.
The tanning association describes its strategy in a document bearing its letterhead that was posted last month on TanToday, an online industry forum: “Promoting the indoor tanning industry will require retention of scientists throughout the world to help us debunk the scientific reports being used against us, and a major PR and lobbying campaign to bring the truth about indoor tanning to the government and to the public at large.”
Alex Howe, a spokesman for the group, said the passage is not the group’s official position. He did not respond to follow-up questions about why the statement was prepared.
However, the tanning association has hired a major public relations firm, is planning a lobbying campaign, and, Howe said, will work with what he characterized as “the many scientists who already support a balanced message about UV exposure.”
In a podcast last week, Doug McNabb, a board member of the tanning association described the new group’s goal: “The sort of mission of the organization that we all agreed on was that our main objective has to be to get more people in tanning beds. … The direction we’re going to take is going to be around media relations and regulatory relations that direct people to indoor tanning salons.”
Deceptive statements?
The World Health Organization says ultraviolet light from sunbeds causes cancer. DeAnn Lazovich, a cancer epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, whose own research has linked sunbed use to melanoma, said the industry’s long-running efforts to cast doubt on the science are just “smoke and mirrors” and an attempt to continue selling a service linked to cancer.
“They say, ‘Tan responsibly,’ but I think it is irresponsible for them to promote their product when we know it is a cause of skin cancer,” said Lazovich, whose work previously has been attacked by the tanning industry.
Jerod Stapleton, an assistant professor of medicine at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey who has studied the tanning industry, said many of the contrary studies cited by indoor tanning proponents are not peer reviewed and appear to rely on cherry-picked data, have methodological flaws or have been funded by industry. “It’s an interesting way of going about it,” he said. “If you don’t like what the science says, just go do your own.”
The tanning association has hired the prominent public relations firm Global Strategy Group, which lists high-profile companies like Goldman Sachs, General Electric and the New York Yankees among its clients, to represent it.
Howe, the salon association’s spokesperson, would not respond to questions about the group’s legislative strategy. But the industry wants to persuade the Food and Drug Administration not to tighten restrictions on sunbeds, as the American Cancer Society and other groups are advocating.
Even before the new group formed, the industry was trying to prevent states and local governments from passing laws making it illegal for teens to tan indoors. At least 30 states already have imposed some limits on teen tanning and Vermont and California ban anyone under age 18 from using a sunbed.
The industry has argued that tanning is a good source of Vitamin D, which is created by the body in response to UV light. It blames dermatologists for scaring people about exposure to the sun and inducing an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in the process.
As FairWarning has reported, tanning’s proponents – including a network of non-profit organizations with ties to tanning salons – tout the vitamin as a panacea for ills ranging from autism to breast cancer. However, the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, says there isn’t enough evidence to say the vitamin provides any benefits other than improving bone health and disputes the notion that there is an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency.
UV light for medical treatments
As the statement last week from the American Academy of Dermatology noted, in 2010 the Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with another industry group, the Indoor Tanning Association, over allegations it made misleading statements about the health benefits of sunbeds. The FTC says that under the settlement, the ITA agreed to refrain from making deceptive statements.
Separately, the Texas Attorney General has sued a salon chain for claiming sunbeds reduce the risk of cancer and provide other health benefits. That case is set to go to trial in September.
The dermatologists group, in its recent statement, specifically criticized the American Suntanning Association for claiming that research pointing to indoor tanning’s ill effects is misleading. The ASA maintains that much of this research wrongly lumps in sunbed use at professional salons – which it contends is less risky – with sunbed use at doctor’s offices and homes. When the use of sunbeds in salons is considered on its own, “the risk virtually disappears,” the salon group said.
The dermatologists dismissed that claim, saying ultraviolet light is used in treatments for some skin conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The “crucial disparity,” the dermatologists’ group said, is that the procedure is done by a medical doctor with appropriate training and expertise. “This type of medical care is not provided at an indoor tanning salon, where operators have minimal knowledge about the potential side effects of UV light,” the statement said.
Related: Embattled tanning industry fights back, taking its cues from Big Tobacco
FairWarning is an investigative news organization based in Los Angeles that focuses on on safety and health issues.
More from Open Channel:
- Air Force searches out porn, other 'offensive' materials on its bases
- Canadian cleric leaps into center of Pakistan's political maelstrom
- Feds investigate how alleged white supremacist -- a felon -- obtained arsenal
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
When organizations like this use the word "truth", they mean their version of it. In other words, complete lies. As the work of lobbyists becomes more known, people are learning to not trust them. Lobbyists must absolutely HATE the Internet. It makes it more difficult for them to spread their "truth" (bull@!$%#).
After years of commenting, this stupid commenting application still says ...
Consult the mods about your posting situation and they'll fix it.
Calista Ballistic,
"When organizations like this use the word "truth", they mean their version of it. In other words"
That's true. Clearly what they are talking about is a propaganda campaign. That's what PR and lobbying are all about, and the idea of paying "scientists" to produce the desired results is just revolting and contrary to the objectivity that science is supposed to represent, although I'm sure it can be and has been done before. It's the same as bribing a judge or jury.
Everyone who gets a indoor tan or outdoor tan should have to see what skin cancer treatment does to your body. One would think twice about doing it.
I don't use tanning equipment, but since Science gave it to us they can build it to have a controlled amount of UV light. States could require records on the people using said equipment be kept, How long and how often. Oh that's right, keeping you safe would be against your Constitutionaal Rights! You do have the right to expect that your technition is qualified and should have a deploma of sorts to proove it posted on the wall like a business license. It's you butt, you decide. By the way if you get skin cancer, why should my insurance co pay for your bad judgement. I think you should get seperate insurance to do this. I know in the long run I'm paying thru my insurance for you lack of judgement.
With the information now available, continuing to tan indoors is like continuing to smoke.It's very, very, bad for you.
when they said they promoted a "fair and balanced" message it pretty much sealed their fate as professional liars. They must have taken a cue from the Republican party and hired Roger Ailles as their propagandist.
Smitty, are you saying the government should not allow people to lay out in the sun unless they have met some government requirements first? I haven't had my coffee yet. Maybe I'm missing your sarcasm. You can't possibly be serious. Next I suppose you'll want the government to send someone around to make sure everybody brushes their teeth. Would you also like to have a govrnment employee come and tuck you in at night?
Think about this: Dermatologists have a lot of business to gain with increases in tanning booths and a lot to lose if people start understanding how melanoma's are triggered in the skin by UV exposure.
The tanning industry is much like the tobacco industry in many ways. Both have dangerous products that produce effects that people like. Both try and say a little bit is not harmful to you.....so come on and enjoy the "benefits". Both have their paid "medical consultants" who support the claims that there "must be more research"; the claims of harm are "exaggerated" and there "is no credible scientific proof" that "moderate use of these products cause cancer"!
Sound familiar? Same script different show.
John Boehner could not be reached for comment.
Just like election night, I keep watching Florida. When everyone in Florida is dead, I'll stop going outside.
Then stop selling bacon, it causes heart disease. Wood causes splinters. Small dogs cause headaches, so "guvment" can get rid of those too. Sugar causes cavities. Soda causes stomach cancer. The sun causes skin cancer as well. AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Please Just Stop!!! What in the hell does it matter if other people are tanning? Leave them alone and stop pressing your freaking mother hen beliefs down the rest of our throats. Keep America free! If people start dying like crazy from a product, the open market will take care of it and a safe alternative will be produced if possible.
OBX,
"Think about this: Dermatologists have a lot of business to gain with increases in tanning booths and a lot to lose if people start understanding how melanoma's are triggered in the skin by UV exposure."
That's a good observation and very true. When you think about it, every doctor is working against himself. They strive to make people healthy, but healthy people do not need doctors.
They are taking the playbook straight from the hands of the tobacco and oil industry.
Ever see those old cigarettes ads? Oh, they are classic -
http://wellmedicated.com/lists/40-gorgeous-vintage-tobacco-advertisements/
"9 out of 10 Doctors agree - Lucky Strikes are good for your thoat. So cool, so smooth."
When tobacco finally waved the white flag in the 70s and started to "grow emerging markets" aka addicting a billion China men, the oil industry ran with their playbook in the late 80s, 90s, and early 2000s...
the theme is "discredit and question". And it works wonders when you have billion dollar pockets. "Well, we dont really know for sure.." or "how can we know all the answers?"
Well, the oil industry gave up denying climate change a couple years ago, so now it's the tanning industry's turn: scientific consensus versus a well-oiled PR firm, GO!
D. Man,
Thanks for the link. Those old cigarette ads are great. I especially like the one that says, "More doctors smoke Camel than any other cigarette" to give people the false impression that if doctors smoke, smoking must be good for you. Sadly enough, a lot of doctors really did used to smoke. I hope the number who do has dwindled to none by now.
D.Man -- so true.
They're doing it with fracking as we speak.
Melanoma is a viscous killer as well. Protect your kids especially. If you have a kids that wants to tan make sure they know the possible consequences. It's so sad the people would subject themselves to such a risk for the sake of a suntan of all things. Shame on those that would try to deceive someone into getting into one of these cancer coffins. I will believe an MD before I believe a tanning association of all things. I wonder how much money they have to spend before congress tells us tanning beds are great?
Travis E thinks getting skin cancer is the same as getting a cavity--brilliant!
Travis E.-They have just instituted another rule for you tanners. They must smoke at least 3 cigarettes before tanning, that way it's the tobacco that causes cancer not the suntan bed! Keep America Free (from idiots like yourself!).
I fail to see how the tanning industry is any different than oh... I don't know... The tobacco, alcohol, firearms, or pharmaceutical, industries. They all sell death at a premium.
People are always going to do things that are bad for them. Myself included because I....
a) smoke (yes I know it's bad for me)
b) drink (again... yes I know it's bad for me)
c) eat red meat (bad)
d) do not yet own any guns (I will not until I can afford a very nice and secure safe) but soon will.
and e) prefer mary jane over ANY thing big pharma is pushing.
I do not tan but believe people can and will make their own choices. This reminds me of years ago when the Tobacco industry execs sat in front of congress and blatantly stated, "Smoking does not cause cancer." They eventually caved and put warnings on cigarettes, but you can still buy 'em. The tanning industry will (or should) eventually have to have warning stickers.
Other than "they are picking on us", has the ASA (ass?) actually identified a reason why dermatologists might against the practice? I mean, sure, cancer is bad, but is that all? C'mon, at least I'll be handsome in my casket, unless the melanoma is on my face.
Also, I agree, the new user comment is complete BS. Why should I need to consult a moderater, and how does one actally do that?
Just get Fox news and the republicans involved, so far they have convinced the idiot brigade that guns don't actually kill people, that global warming is a myth, and that social security is in some kind of crisis. I am sure they convince them that tanning is healthy.
What is odd to me is that they are fighting this out, people already know the link between melanoma and sun tanning, and they still tan. By fighting, it's getting press which surely favors the doctors.
What an absolutely moronic statement! Why wouldn't people want full information about a potentially serious medical hazard before they or, more likely, their teenaged daughter, climbs into a tanning booth?
The point of this article, in case you missed it, is that medical professionals are countering what they believe are erroneous statements by the tanning industry in the interest of public health. People can make their own choices about whether or not to tan.
Your statement about the "free market will take care of it" is laughably ignorant. The free market will respond to demand pressures and the tanning industry has no interest in developing a "safe alternative" except when government regulations or lack of demand push them in that direction. The statements by medical professionals do not, as you charge, restrict anyone's freedom. They do, however, give people the information that rational folks appreciate in the interest of a sound personal decision.
All I can say is, to those who want to ignore the real damage skin cancer causes, just wait until you have melanoma. Interferon is a brutal treatment (lasts for a year) and I'm pretty sure my life span will be much lower than before I took my time to check out that mole. Don't be stupid people, cancer is not for sissies.
I am all for free choice, but the sad truth is that people who make very poor choices face consequences (like cancer) they can rarely pay to address...and the costs get passed on to the rest of us.
Besides being dangerous, indoor tanning always looks ridiculous. It makes people look like walking oranges.
Right. There are few things more attractive than a chain-smoking tanning addict. Oh wait. We have one of those heading up the HoR, don't we.
Are you sure you're not talking about the frizzy haired guy in the White House.
Yeah, I'm sure he's not. His color is natural.
Yes, that would be like a pro-lifer pushing her fact-less, faith based beliefs on others.
Actually the walking oranges are people who use tanning additives such as sprays and lotions to amplify the tan from the tanning bed. I've been going tanning once a month for the last 10 years and I have never looked orange. But I have psoriasis pretty bad. UV rays actually dry out my spots and eventually slow the growth of my skin. This leaves me literally psoriasis free for about 10-15 days. After that, it slowly comes back and by the end of the month I have it bad again. The problem is that if I tan too often, my body overcomes the UV rays and it doesn't work. So I'll take 10-15 days of relief a month by tanning than taking some horrible drug that slows my immune system and kills my white blood cells. ultimately leaving my body completely vulnerable from fighting infections even down to a simple cold.
All in all, I don't really have any other choice but to tan.
Since this discussion has degenerated upon the usual path of digression, let me be of assistance: Maybe they can start to shape tanning beds to look like Assault Weapons, then the NRA will back them.....
Mark,
"Besides being dangerous, indoor tanning always looks ridiculous. It makes people look like walking oranges."
That wasn't an oblique reference to John Boehner, was it?
...Mr Tangerine man.
I think your thinking of those spray on tans !! Thats the orange glow stuff that Boehner likes !
Blake, you think psoriasis is bad, try melanoma. I've had eczema and this is waaaaaay worse. Way worse. Be very careful.
I'm not arguing that cancer is worse than psoriasis or not. I've had other forms of cancer and am well aware of its horror. I was simply hinting that people need to learn MODERATION. Once a month and I don't see an issue. Every single day is an issue.
Good luck, and I fully agree with 'moderation in all things'.
The Tanners sound just like the NRA. Must have same Crisis-Mitigation Consultant.
Yes General, that would be like an abortion supporter saying that tanning doesn't kill anyone.
Janine and GE- Let's just bring our personal pet peeves into it...how just like people who want to control other peoples lives to do something like that. hmph.
The only difference between Democrat freedom and Republican freedom is which freedom.
Democrats want freedom of choice-- Republicans want to stop abortions.
Republicans want freedom of arms-- Democrats want restrictions on gun sales.
The way I see it both keep the population down. One before birth and one after birth. Occasionally both at once.
What's next a National Association of Butt Enhancement Amateurs?
The other reason is: if you've had an MRI with "dye" or contrast, it's METAL called Gadolinium, it immediately deposits in the skin and bones for up to 8 years, Right? derm docs and kidney docs? no xrays or CT scans needed anymore once you have metal in your skin and bones and organs. read Radiation Experiments and ACHRE and ICRP 2012 parts 1 and 2 , see what that flash photo does when it passes through your tissues in 1 mS. It destroys DNA in 67% of cells. That's two thirds, sixty seven percent of your cells DNA. see radiation induced cataracts, meningiomas , depressed immune function, skin cancers, acute and latent and herpes simplex virus activation. see treatment of effects of Ionizing Radiation , even wiki has that info. Save your life. don't tan or use other forms, not radiation tanning ... just never stopped injecting metal into people, never learned, did you? Gadolinium metal is used in cell phones, CD, DVDs and so on. NO biological function and it does not exit the body in 96 hours. skin biopsy makes the diagnosis, the condition is NOT rare. see mriside effects and side effects of xrays. Stop injecting metal into people, children and other living things. Stop it.
Like all medicine you have to out weigh the risks versus the benefits in the case of MRI's. There is absolutely no compelling evidence to use a tanning bed and take such enormous risks with one's health.
Over the last 20 years, I have had many, many MRI's with and without contrast. I am totally without any concerns with lasting side effects, and the only one that I believe has been relatively scientifically substantiated is that people with renal problems might want to consult their doctor before getting a contrast of any kind injected. Your hysteria is just that - hysteria. I'll take advice from qualified MD's, thank you, and not from the medical tinfoil brigades.
Tanning isn't medicine. It's an Elective activity that those who use is have to understand they are taking their own lives in their hands.
They should have to sign a release paper stating such things so that 40yrs from now they or their decendents can't sue the tanning industry for their family member NOT KNOWING the risks.
Does that include iron and all the other metals and chemicals that comprise the human body Sunnytoo?
That said, any UV radiation can have negative effects on the skin and should be avoided as much as possible...no tanning beds and cover up outside.
Janine, not when the tanning industry says there is no risk. If the tanning industry informs customers that tanning can be a hazard to their health then your argument has merit.
Larry, I'm saying that they should be required to sign a release relieving the tanning industry and anyone else of any liability. It's like the same release you sign when you join a health club. If you hurt yourself the club isn't liable.
"........disputing the medical consensus" So some doctors don't think a tanning bed harms you and some do. So it is an open issue.
Are these the same scientists whose consensus is the 'the sky is falling' or is the sky really falling.
There is scientific dispute to be found on almost any study, but the dispute is argued through the interpretation of discovered data. Contrast that with the claims made by anti-scientists:
"I just don't believe that."
"My faith tells me that it isn't so."
"My self-proclaimed experts' opinions, formed without support, are just as good as your experts' peer-reviewed, meticulously tested and verifiable facts."
The sky may not be falling but, if there's a good chance that it will. I'll play the odds, thank you.
You pay some doctors a lot of money and he will say anything you want whether scientific evidence backs up his statement or not. He can always say it's his opinion.
That's true of any so called "expert" that the lawyers can call in. For the right amount of many, some will say whatever you want them to say.
I occasionally went to a tanning salon, but was an avid sunbather. I was diagnosed with melanoma 5 years ago. I am now, still battling stage 4 melanoma. I have had 3 surgeries and full brain radiation.
I wish I could let everyone know what I have been through and that it can be prevented. I wish I knew then what I know now.
You are so right! Back in the 1950's, when I was a youngster, nobody even heard the word cancer used in conjunction with sunburn, and we all blithely went out and played in the bright summer sun without any sort of skin protection whatsoever. And we got burned, blistered, healed, and repeated the process, not realizing that for anyone of very fair complexion and blonde hair, that was one of the worst things you could do to your skin. Fast forward fifty or sixty years, and I know my dermatologist like I know the conductor on the commuter train, and every time I go there, there's something "suspicious" that wasn't there before, like a basal cell carcinoma, or a squamous cell carcinoma.
I have been fortunate not to have gotten a melanoma yet, and may not ever, but my wife had a cousin who many years ago worked for some kind of Peace Corps organization in Africa, and got a lesion that went undiagnosed until it had metastasized everywhere. It was a malignant melanoma, and she was dead in less than a year, at the age of 26. Pretty sad business. If she had been stateside, she might have gotten a proper diagnosis and had it surgically excised, but that is pure speculation. I have a friend who had a MM on his forearm, and after the surgery, it looked like they excised a third of his forearm. Not pretty at all. I cannot believe that there are still proponents of UV-exposure tanning beds, and they disgust me, as merchants of death. All for vanity.
Sorry you are dealing with that, and best of luck.
I'm sorry you are dealing with that! My father also had melanoma, but one surgery took care of it thankfully. I had basal cell carcinoma from tanning, so I avoid it now and always wear sunscreen!
jac, I am with you, literally. Stage 3 melanoma and in the middle of Interferon treatments. I am blond and fair, and while I did go the beach and sunbathe with baby oil, it was no more than any other so Cal teen. Tanning bed use when we lived in Ireland for limited 'tanning', but I've really not sunbathed since I was first pregnant (before I was 30). I admit my mortality is weighing heavily on me now, this is brutal and scary.
Sounds like what the cigarette industry has said for years about no conclusive evidence that smoking causes cancer.
.
Smoking causes cancer? OMG! When did they discover this? Why didn't anyone ever tell me? I'm so upset, I'm going to my tanning salon and rest for a couple of hours.
Lets see, the sun will give you cancer. Here's a device that can concentrate a couple hours of sun exposure into a couple minutes. Nope, don't see a problem here....
hahhaha Exactly Brian.
I read an article by a scientist who predicted that someday the human race will be split into two different species.
One higher evolved more intelligent, and the other less evolved, less intelligent and more violent. Looking around at the actions of some, I see that happening already.
Janine - Are you sure that wasn't just "The Time Machine"? :)
No Dr. this wasn't fiction. It was a study a scientist did recently.
Yes Janine it is already happening, it seems those who don't believe in evolution have themselves actually stopped evolving. Unfortunately those who have failed to evolve with the rest of the human race are the most easily manipulated by propaganda so they can be conned into exterminating those of use who have evolved. Plus, as was the case in the 'documentary", Idiocracy, they lower IQ conservatives tend to breed like rabbits, so before long there won't be two seperate species of humans as that scientist predicted, but rather just one, very violent, very stupid race of humans as Idiocracy predicted.
Check out a site called "a well regulated militia", read their rules............
"We oppose: statism, liberalism, tribalism,
socialism, collectivism, internationalism, democracy (mob rule by the majority
over the minority), Corruption in government, Socialism, Fascism, Communism,
altruism, pull politics, and the New World Order; in short, the philosophies of
all tyrannies."
What I found most humorous was their name, "a well REGULATED militia", just who did the morons think our founders intended to regulate the militia if not the very government they claim they don't want regulating them. Our banks and Wall Street proved that self regulation does not work very well, especially when ran by conservative conmen.
One of their pictures, from what I can only assume was a personal ad from their site, hit facebook and has became a viral meme, it is of a fat hairy man with a "skullet", wearing a thong. He is laying next to his cache of weapons which he has spread out "seductively", his legs spread like an old whore and he has a pistol pointing at his testicles. He is one of those you speak of who failed to evolve.
Depro., Thats some scary @!$%# there bro !! Once we split into these two factions , maybe we can give each a name so we don't get confused...like the crazy lazy ones could be ...hmmm maybe the Conservatives and the smarter ones we can call the Liberals !?
It's not that they don't believe it; they do. The problem is they are in denial, and thinking about the truth is too scary.
Apparently the American Suntanning Association has taken a marketing lesson from the NRA say something often enough and some people will believe it.
Pffft. Wow.
This is starting to remind me of big tobacco in the sixties.
Hey, it worked for Hitler, at least for a while. Believe me, there is no shortage of slack-jawed idiots in this country just waiting to be told lies they want to hear, and then proceeding on the basis of them being truths. It's remarkably simple to get them to do what you want. At one point, people believed smoking was healthy, that seat belts would kill you, and that eating like a lumberjack all day, every day, was healthy. Some people still do.
Then there was all of those low information voters that believed anything Obama says, and still do apparently.
Rex - It's 2013, better put some sunscreen lotion on that 2012 election burn.....
Rex, a number of studies have been done that have proved that Fox Noise viewers are the least informed of all news viewers. When asked a series of questions regarding international events, Fox viewers could only answer 1 out of 10 correctly which was a far worse score than those who watched no news at all. So when you speak of "low information voters" you speak of yourself and those of your conservative ilk that believe anything Fox Noise tells them to believe. One of the keys to the effective use of propaganda is to reflect your shortcomings on those you oppose, so when the conservatives claim the liberals are rewriting history, indoctrinating our children or as you so ineptly attempted to claim, that liberals are low information voters it only means that you yourself are guilty of those very things. I studied Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, and the conservative movements use of it for the past 30 years and what I have found is that everything they (conservatives) say is a lie, pure propaganda.
14 ways Fox spreads misinformation.
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple
fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The
idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims
to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself,
the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't
activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize
your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational
brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And
when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like
to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to
dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives,
intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character
assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and
like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against
individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the
ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g.
"liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This
form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate
over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain
crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the
viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking
whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of
doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion,
where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate,
where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not
having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media
host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.
4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying
that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos
on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it
happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is
Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over
backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be
demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier
to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite
history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such
authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as
fact.
5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people
feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and
diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple
idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems,
you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b)
subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.
6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to
Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame"
(a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways
news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of
strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by
the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are
several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the
potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can
turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American
politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the
Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony)
moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.
7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several
Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems
to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to
the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp
of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by
berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed
people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to
end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is
then able to interpret that as a "win."
8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one
works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea
is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight
and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to
follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a
form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in
the viewer's mind.
9. Populism. This is especially popular in election
years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and
the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always
"elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government
insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to
make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often
goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism
bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost
always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate
for non-elite groups.
10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to
othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself
and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those
are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges
them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates
taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker
has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge
is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all
totalitarian entities from states to cults.
11. Saturation. There are three components to effective
saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The
message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be
shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard
data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a
psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over,
regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack
Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough
times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example
is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."
12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and
disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many
mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher
education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is
perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In
fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated
snidely and as anti-American. Education and other evidence of being trained in
critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why
they are so viscerally demeaned.
13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn
Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers
and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college
roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with
Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a
communist set on destroying America. Period.
14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the
media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable
direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where
most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN
or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association.
Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though
by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this
state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the
discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an
ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.
depro, that sounds like any media outlet to me. Liberal or Conservative. Except the God part. That is a pretty much purely Conservative thing. But I've seen NBC use every one of those tactics just as much as Fox does. Depends on which side of the hill you're standing on, how much you see the other side doing it. The other slope appears to be at a right angle to you, but it's all relative. Both slopes are at a pretty wicked tilt when viewed from the plains. Calling one side of the hill evil and the other virtuous is silly and naive. It's just a hill. One side is no more evil than the other. If anything is evil, it's the entire hill. And that's what we have. Us vs Them where both sides are "Us" and both sides are "Them". I don't trust a Republican any more than I do a Liberal. Neither could give two cents about the general population. They just need the support to allow them to be in their position of power. They'll do whatever is being cried out for on a particular day, no matter how foolish, no matter how impossible. They want to be seen to be trying when all they really do is hold their position, tossing out real effort and change only at the last minute, to avert disaster, to show "how hard we've been working and how evil and impossible to deal with the other side is". Both sides demonize eachother. Both sides pray on the people's emotions. It can't be said to be any one side's idea. The north slope doesn't fight the south slope for pebbles. The hill is the hill. It will always be a hill. It's not going to demolish one side of itself because then it wouldn't be a hill anymore. Same with the "2 parties". One can't exist without the other. So they do everything they can to infuriate the other party's supporters, strengthening their enemies because that strengthens them. If you honestly believe one side more than the other, you truly are a fool.
Well put. deprogrammer. Thanks.
Ash Don't you dare call hills evil, I like hills.
Other than that nice pointless rant.
They shoiuld allow cigarette smoking in the tanning beds. It is after all their target market - those who are not impressed by cancer statistics.
I find it quite interesting that the AAD's only response to the Suntanning Association's claims about their phototherapy practices is that they're doctors, so it's OK. They couldn't make an argument that there equipment is different -- because it's not. And they couldn't make an argument that it's less harmful -- because it's not. The WHO IARC report that groups like the AAD use to attack indoor tanning found a 75% increase in melanoma risk from using tanning beds before the age of 35. However, when you break down these numbers down, the risk comes almost completely from medical phototherapy (96%) and unmonitored home use (40%), while tanning salon use showed a statistically insignificant (6%) increase. These numbers are not tanning industry propaganda -- they are fact, and something that the AAD clearly had no response to. They accuse the tanning industry of using "smoke and mirrors," but then they offer up a lame response that avoids the subject of a very serious and factual claim.
Let's also keep in mind that medical phototherapy is used to treat conditions like psoriasis that are only cosmetic, not even close to life threatening. I'm not saying that they shouldn't use phototherapy, but it's absolutely absurd that they are using data that actually indicts their own practices, not indoor tanning salons, to attack the salons. I believe this is precisely what the Suntanning Association means when they ask for a more reasonable conversation about the matter. They are not arguing that there are no risks involved with indoor tanning -- they're promoting safer, responsible tanning and looking for a fair discussion about the risks and benefits.
And last I checked more people die from smoking then tanning beds. Both are bad for you but are a choice not something forced on you. Also more people are moving from tanning beds to spray tanning. And what does not cause cancer?
love the "fair and balanced" comment - sound familiar?
How do the dermatologists know if the persons skin cancer came from a tanning bed or from years in the sun as kids?
It's cumulative.
love the "fair and balanced" comment - sound familiar?
"Professional sunbed salons" haahaa
Where do you go to school to become a professional salon? What is that degree?
I can't decide which irritates me more the tanning industry, or people who continue to patron them.
fools and money!
These scumbags could give the tobacco industry a good name. Maybe even Scientology. As long as you're making money, who cares what happens to your victims? Free enterprise at its best. That's unfair - it's free enterprise at its worst.
Your comparison are a little on the extreme side don't you think ?
I used to frequent tanning salons, as I was a bodybuilder. Then two years ago, at age 48, I was diagnosed with melanoma. The initial diagnosis had me at Stage 2, with a 35% fatality rate. However, I found out after my first surgery that I had been extremely lucky. The cancer had not spread yet, and two surgeries have me apparently cancer free, though I must get myself thoroughly checked every few months.
Sure I also got some sunburns when I was young, so it can't be absolutely determined that sunbeds were the only cause: they were probably one of the causes. But DON'T risk death for a tan. And don't believe propanda from the tanning bed industry- they care more about the coins they collect from their machines every day then your life and death.
It's like anything else. Make a choice. If you smoke, then you run the risk of cancer and emphysema. If you drink and drive, you run the risk of bodily injury or death to you and possibly others. If you ski, you run the risk of breaking a leg. If you tan, you run the risk of melanoma. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the picture.
I agree totally... . This is the type of America people are getting used too. Strip searching before flights and "some high profile games". Limits on types of beverages (non alcoholic included) A bill coming that will help schools limit calorie intake for kids even after they go home for the day.Telling your child what they can wear and when. Gun control, What you can and cant do or have on your own land harmful or not. Like to gov will jail you for alter a "wet land" area that is larger than 12x12 ft on your property but then will FORCE you to accept the power company HIGH ENERGY lines on your land right by your house. This is America today. With it's population to frail and scared to stand up to daddy Big Gov... after all he pays our bills. keeps us all safe, giving us everything we want and need. "Bow down and worship saying who is as great as our Gov? Who can fight against it?"
My Personal Experience with Breast Cancer:
I was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma. Fortunately it is not the deadly kind, like melanoma. It started like a pimple on my nose and it kept coming back for a couple years... Finally it got to the point where it wouldn't heal and kept bleeding, so I went to a dermatologist. He confirmed it to be cancerous and not just a pimple. The cancer had spread very deep into my nose, so taking it out and covering it with skin, was not enough. It would leave a deep dent on my nose. I ended up having surgery to fill the hole with my own cells, in order to later place a piece of skin over it. The plastic surgeon had to pull a flap of skin from my forehead and bring it temporarily down to the tip of my nose (like a funnel). I had that funnel for 3 weeks until my second surgery was done! On the second surgery, the Dr. brought up the flap of skin and placed it back onto my forehead. Then, he got another piece of my forehead skin and placed it, over the spot on my nose. He later had to stretch the skin where the piece was taken from and stitch it together.This is what I went through, just because I got too much sun as a kid! ALWAYS wear a hat when you are out in the sun and use SUNSCREEN! If you have kids; make them wear sunscreen if they play outside!
That is a frightening story, and I hope you're doing well now. Good words to the wise as well. Thank you.
I'm in that process now. There's no skin on the body that looks like the nose (pores, texture, etc.), so I won't look the same. I'm a public figure, and a male. Makeup won't work for me. Maybe my nose will teach some lessons to others.
John Boehner must be jumping for joy. His day-glo look yesterday looked almost as utterly absurd as the party he speaks for.
When you only have to work a few weeks a year you have a lot of time on your hands and have to do something. Tanning for him breaks up the monotony.
Maybe he's trying to get as dark as obama. If he can reach that degree, All the liberals, dumb blacks and mexicans would be confused and vote for him.