Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday July 13 2015, @09:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the smoking-gun-found-next-to-skeleton-in-closet dept.

PandoDaily's Mark Ames has published a paywalled article [archive] entitled "Shillers for killers: Revealed: How the tobacco industry paid journalists, scientists, activists and lawyers to cover up the most deadly crime in human history." The article draws upon a new round of documents that was recently added to the University of California San Francisco's Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. The library contains 14 million documents and is growing, as noted on the Library's blog. Some bits are more relevant to our community.

In 1994, marketing director at the RJ Reynolds tobacco company wrote to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to discuss topics related to protecting tobacco advertising on the Internet. Later that year, EFF's executive director sent a proposal to RJ Reynolds's direct marketing manager, Peter Michaelson, soliciting money to fund an EFF project that would oppose government regulations on commercial tobacco advertising on the Web. An alternative plan is suggested:

"We are also prepared to pursue a legal test of this alternative approach to regulation. For example, if MARC [RJR's direct marketers] or RJR decided to put one or another sponsored on-line service up on the Internet or via America-on-Line or other on-line service, the white paper could become the basis of a legal brief challenging the constitutionality of any governmental effort to block the programming on the basis of current advertising bans in electronic media... We have not budgeted for this alternative at this point."

Years before Glenn Greenwald teamed up with Laura Poitras and whistleblower Edward Snowden to expose the NSA, he worked as a lawyer for Wachtell Lipton, a law firm that sued ABC-TV for $10 billion and helped to gag smoking industry whistleblowers. This had a chilling effect on CBS, which prevented the airing of a 60 Minutes program covering Merrell Williams and Jeffrey Wigand until the next year. These events were covered by the 1996 Frontline documentary "Smoke In The Eye" [Internet Archive] and Wigand's story inspired the 1999 film, The Insider.

It's reasonable to assume Greenwald—ever the diligent researcher—must have joined Wachtell fully aware that they were helping gag whistleblowers and threatening journalists: Greenwald says that he chose to work for Wachtell in 1994 after being recruited by over a dozen top law firms. But of course that doesn't necessarily mean he worked on the specific Philip Morris case. Except that a billing ledger discovered in the tobacco library shows Greenwald's name in a Wachtell Lipton bill to Philip Morris... Other Wachtell Lipton memos show Greenwald's name prominently displayed on the letterhead in aggressive, threatening letters against ABC-TV, against whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, and against whistleblower Merrell Williams...

[...] Again, in the two decades since, whistleblower champion Glenn Greenwald has never said a single word about this case or about the role his law firm played in crushing TV investigative journalism. As far as our research can tell, Greenwald has never taken a position on tobacco laws or spoken about the horrific death toll smoking is taking.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Eunuchswear on Monday July 13 2015, @01:14PM

    by Eunuchswear (525) on Monday July 13 2015, @01:14PM (#208454) Journal

    And it tastes like burning glue. That can't be good for you.

    And do you think the things they put in cigarettes to make them taste "better" are good for you?

    Anyway, you're missing the point -- it's documented fact that they paid people to influence these decisions. Do you think they did that for your good?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video [youtube.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by schad on Monday July 13 2015, @02:49PM

    by schad (2398) on Monday July 13 2015, @02:49PM (#208514)

    And do you think the things they put in cigarettes to make them taste "better" are good for you?

    I'm going to repeat the sentence immediately following the one you quoted: "I mean, it's not like cigarettes ever taste good or are healthy. But... maybe we shouldn't be making them worse on those two fronts than they already are, you know?"

    Anyway, you're missing the point -- it's documented fact that they paid people to influence these decisions. Do you think they did that for your good?

    Of course not. They did it for their own good. Are you one of those people who thinks that smokers believe cigarettes are made of vitamins?

    In this specific context, probably they resisted the idea for the exact reasons I mentioned. In short, it makes smoking a worse experience, and that may translate to an increased willingness to quit. I don't know if it does, but it's an obvious enough worry that I can definitely imagine cigarette makers spending money to stop it. So actually, in this particular case, the companies' sociopathic interests quite nicely aligned with mine, though for entirely different reasons.