Speech made on a seminar about animal rights and eco-terrorism organzided by the International Fur Trade Federation in London 2004
How Extremists Influence Public Opinion
Coming from Germany it is not easy to tell something new about Animal
Rights and Eco Terrorism - specially here the United Kingdom where the
news happens. You all know how recently the plans for a brain research
center in Cambridge were given up. You are also aware how in 2003 Huntington
Life Sciences were almost driven from the country. Here, in the United
Kingdom the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) started bombing already in the
seventies. Here, there are more militant animal rights activists than
on the Continent. So, what interesting news can I bring to you from Germany?
That in Germany the terror of the animal rights movement up to now has not been as fierce as in the United Kingdom is not based on the fact that our animal rights activists are more reasonable. It is also not based on the victims of campaigns having reacted more smartly, or that our politicians had given a clearer reply to the challenge. The fact that the activists' terrorism in Germany remained so far on a relatively low level is simply because the militant scene is divided, and that their prominent people were so far not able, to develop clandestine structures. Put it down to luck. Up to now.
Where the animal rights activists and other extremists have always achieved outstanding success in Germany however, is in influencing the media and blackmailing the industry. And this leads me to my topic: How extremists influence public opinion! I would like to report to you the extremely successful process of the campaign against plant bio-technology, which led in Germany to the fact that all large food companies have given into blackmail. I believe that it can be very useful to look and beyond the extent of one's own industry, and to analyse how the same game works elsewhere.
Almost all scientific experts declare that there is no danger to health from genetically modified plants (GMs) engineering. Even the European Union consumer commissioner David Byrne, whom one can certainly not accuse of thoughtlessness, says: "All scientific studies arrive at the same result: Genetically modified food is just as safe as conventional food." The European commission published 81 studies, which had involved 400 research teams and which costs more than 60 million Euro. world-wide, since 1996, genetically modified plants are cultivated commercially, now on 67 million hectare. The opponents of genetic engineering cannot prove one single case that a person has even got a spot from eating GM food.
Such facts are however hardly reported in the German media. Instead, one adopts 100 per cent the opinion of the opponents. When journalists do not have proof, they can nevertheless set the tone and that begins with the choice of words. Even when reporting is relatively objectively readers can be manipulated by clever use of the right language. It is sufficient to sound scary and threatening: GM grain is genetically "contaminated" that is what you hear time and time again.That sounds like poisoned and it is meant to. Most newspaper readers read only the headlines. Therefore it is particularly important that risk and danger are always signaled there. "The seed of the unknown" was the headline of the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung" (11.02.04) on a report about the cultivation of GM corn. If all scientists are united, and only a few Activist groups are of a different opinion, then, in the language of the media, GMs are nevertheless "doubtful."
Still more effective than text are the pictures. The articles about genetic engineering are illustrated again and again with photomontage: Enormous monster tomatoes or grain glistening in shock colours. Also the actions of the activists on the GM fields are often shown. They wear face masks, white protective suits and hold up yellow warnings signs.So far I have never read below the picture that these costumes are completely idiotic and only serve as a performance for the media. Instead the viewers get the impression, whoever enters a field with GM corn, must wear a breathing mask and decontamination suit.
The uncritical attitude of many journalists does not only begin with commentating, but begins already with the research. Data of NGOs are not examined. Hardly someone asks, which self-interests NGOs may have. Also no counter check with the victim of the respective campaign takes place (a severe omission contrary to journalistic basic rules). Many activist groups are often astonished how easily their statements get into the media. Thus some years ago a practical joker from Bavaria sent an obviously satirical text regarding an alleged food scandal. He "divulged" that in the beer of different breweries ethanol (thus alcohol) was discovered. Several newspapers took this seriously and composed reports full of indignation. Large organisations, such as Greenpeace, meanwhile offer ready made tv- or radio-productions which are sent to the broadcasting stations which often transmit them.
Why are journalists so uncritical? They have a feeling that with their reporting they support a good cause. They want to help making the world a better place. They know, that explanations by industrial representatives and politicians must be critically examined, because they are interest led. They falsely believe that the activists and NGOs do not have ulterior motives and especially no economic interests. There is also a completely natural reflex. Each normal human being has a tendency to defend small ones against large ones and weak ones against strong ones. And that is good as the world would be a worse place, if people would not feel in such a way.
The large mistake consists only if the fact that David and Goliath are often confused. Who is David, who is Goliath? PeTA or the German furriers and fur farmers? In the USA alone PeTA takes in about 23 million dollars annually. What power do the 150 Norwegian whalers have against Greenpeace? In 2002 Greenpeace received world-wide 165 million Euro, in Germany alone nearly 39 million Euro. The American Institute of Philantrophy stated of these incomes between 26 and 56 per cent are not used for their purpose but for further donation collecting. Those approximate 35,000 NGOs, which exist today world-wide, for instance turn over a trillion Euro. It is important here to say that a large part of it is spent on truly good purposes and helps humans. NGOs today are the eighth-largest economic sector in the world. Only the environmental groups among the NGOs have a global annual turnover of approximately eight billion dollar. The European Union supports NGOs annually with a billion Euro. Who is David, who is Goliath?
The misinformation, which the activists spread with the help of the media, functions as a closed argumentation cycle. The campaign itself produces the arguments to which they then refer. First they destroy the experimental fields with GM plants. Then they protest that the plants are investigated too little.
The population in Germany has in this way been systematically mislead.
Since the activists did not find any scientists as principal witnesses,
they recruited prominent star cooks and actors for their campaigns. That
led to still more media reports, which were hardly ever concerned with
advantages, but always with potential dangers and risks of the GM crops.
Polls found that genetically modified food was rejected by seventy per
cent of the population. Media reports and inquiries were again used, in
order to intimidate the industry still more strongly.
When the first food chain then declared that they would not sell GM food
in their shops, others were thereby put under pressure.
The activists claim to be concerned with "freedom of choice". But it is completely obvious that they are interested in the exact opposite: The stupid consumer is definitely to be prevented in any case to be tempted to possibly discover a GM product in the supermarket (and to possibly like it). It has absolutely nothing to do with the much loved catch phrase by NGOs of "people power", but the more so with indoctrination. In a democracy it is left to the citizen which products they prefer. No fanatical moralistic guardian has the right to force their will on to others.
In the style of the Grand inquisition Greenpeace organised a questionnaire for food trade companies. Slogan: Are you with us or against us? Anyone who does not play along here, must not be surprised by a little psycho terror. The resisting Metro company (large German grocery chain) was told " We demand from the management a public clarification with a clear NO to Gene food ". When that did not work, masked activists arrived at the Metro head office. Next, they beamed an inscription on a ship carrying Soya into the port of Hamburg: "Gene Soya - Metro turns us into guinea pigs ", - very media effective. Demoralised Metro finally caved in. All the other large grocery chains had already previously submitted. "Food trade boycotts gene food ", that's what the media wrote triumphantly. The fact that the industry submitted to the pressure, is used again as an argument, true to the slogan: See, GM food is so dangerous that the food trade boycotts them.
When companies try to appease and make friends with their opponents, this has a contrary effect. It is regarded as an invitation to further moral extortion. Large enterprises, which pride themselves on their "Corporate Responsibility" should know: Responsible acts means also to resist Demagogues and never mind from which direction these come from. It also means to reject public panic creators and hysteria, which are not based on facts. Everything else is opportunism and cowardice. In Germany there is a proverb: Only the most stupid calves select their butchers themselves.
But exactly this takes place. According to a study of the Capital Research Centre in 1997 American enterprises donated substantially more money for green NGOs, than for groups which campaign for free trade economy, liberty and an open society. The organization EPE (European partner for Environment) is a good example of this wrong policy. Their members include Coca Cola, Unilever, Dow Europe, Monsanto, Sony, Deutsche Bank and many other large companies. The Dutchman Bart Jan Krouwel, president of the organisation writes in a policy paper: "Europe should be established as a player in the globalisation process with a project that is the exact opposite of the vision of a western, industrial predatory society." He, who takes over the language of anti-capitalism, should not be surprised, if anti-capitalism continues to increase. Experience showed that appeasement of this kind is counter productive. When moral activists get their teeth into an industry, they stay on to the end. The big mistake of the attacked: They believe, if only all negative factors are eliminated, one will be left in peace again. The activists, however, thrive on the fact that a problem exists and not that it is solved. When the things which went wrong in an industry are eliminated, they place new demands, as long as the industry exists. It always follows the same pattern. Firstly, they bring critical points to attention - often justified. In most cases the industry concerned tries to duck and hide at first. Then the industry concedes that change is necessary. New, better solutions are looked for and put into effect. Finally the press spokes-person presents proudly how much they have improved. They believe that now everything will be okay. But to their surprise, the next campaign follows immediately, this time with higher goals. And so on, etcetera, etcetera. Finally the goal is so high that it is not worthwhile any longer to produce goods or offer services. Exit of the industry!
In some cases, like nuclear energy, it is all in the open: Nuclear power, no thanks! No matter how high the safety standard is. With genetic engineering, animal testing, fur production and many others it works with the salami tactics. The stupid salami hopes thereby up to the last bit that the hunger of their adversary is now finally satisfied. The moral Goliath plays with the business David like the cat with the mouse. PeTA chairman Ingrid Newkirk explained again and again completely openly that her concerns are not reforms or improvements, but only the total release of the animals, and that alone.
How can an industry resist which is thus attacked by activists and the media? What should they communicate? The first step must always be self criticism. Are the aggressors' arguments correct? Are there things which went wrong? Be active! Be open! Do not wait until you find yourself in the headlines! Invite journalists! Talk openly with them, also about your own mistakes and wrongdoings in your own industry. Only in such a way does one win confidence.
After the shortcomings have been eliminated, one should go public, and not wait until the next attack. While scientific arguments alone do not work, it remains nevertheless important to state scientific arguments. On this basis one should self-confidently and with determination fight for moral high ground. An industry has already lost, if it accepted unconsciously, to be inferior and only carries on with a bad conscience.
Needless to say that in the case of the fur trade many social and ecological
factors speak for the use of animal skins. Fur farming is a part of normal
agriculture.
From the situation of the Karakul farmer in Namibia, to the situation
of the trapper in Canada and the Inuit in the high north, the fur industry
carries social responsibility. The problems with the brush tailed possum
in New Zealand and with the coypu in the south of the USA are impressive
examples, for the important ecological role the fur production can play.
These examples are well known to experts, but are however, much too little
communicated to the public. The broad public, at least in Germany, where
I can grasp it, does not know anything about these facts.
And finally humor and irony help, especially when the opponents are fanatics and ideologists. Let me give you another example from plant bio-technology. Greenpeace had destroyed an experimental field of the company Novartis' GM corn in Switzerland some years ago and poured the mowed plants in front of the firm's center in Basle (pronounced Baal). Thereupon Novartis invited several farmers to bring their cows to Basle, amongst them also a cow, which had won a competition 'Switzerland's mot beautiful cow'. The animals were allowed to eat this corn at the Novartis center. On this occasion, there did not appear a picture of Greenpeace Activists in white suits, but instead a photo of a happily munching cow and her owner, who stood alongside in his traditional national suit. I believe, this to be the correct way to re-conquer the lost terrain in the media.
Copyright © 1996-2011 Dirk Maxeiner and Michael Miersch.
All rights reserved.
