Tony wrote:

>Incorrect information can be
> corrected; CORRECT information is more difficult for industry to
> fight

While I agree with the latter statement, I am not so sure on the former
(well, at least not corrected *easily*).  I have seen any amount of
incorrect info given media headlines, while a rebuttal is often relegated to
page 12, or might not make the media at all because the argument is too
complex.  There are real problems where the incorrect message is also the
simplist message.  If the rebuttal requires a complex argument, then only a
very good documentary, long magazine article or book can do the job - often
from someone who is independent.  The mass media live off the bumper
sticker - "evil man kills tree" - that sort of thing.  For those accused of
some act by someone writing bumper stickers, the only effective response is
often to just deny, try to discredit the accuser, or say nothing and hope it
goes away.

As an example of initial accusations having great power (especially if
within a context of fear and distrust) and rebuttals having not much power
at all, we need only look to the witchhunts of the past, McCarthy, the Brent
Spar, even the hype some years ago that portrayed a very high proportion of
men as child molesters (strangely enough often dressed up with accusations
of satanic rites, and covens).  Mud sticks, and those that want to think
worse of people don't go looking for objective information, or rational
analysis.  An outspoken accusation is enough for them to have their dislike
confirmed.  The whole process gets infinitely worse when politicians become
involved - especially when a ballot box looms.  Then you have fertile ground
for a real witchhunt.

Chris P