Retired Telco PR Exec Who Sent XYZ Corp. Letter To FCC Insists He Wrote It

from the uh-huh... dept

We've already written about how a former PR exec from what became AT&T has been outed as the guy who sent a letter to the FCC where he forgot to take out the boilerplate XYZ Organization that was almost certainly left there by the AT&T lobbyists who wrote the letter for him. However, one of our commenters noted that MediaPost spoke to the guy, Bob Sells, who insists that he wrote the letter with the XYZ part included:

Sells, a 77-year-old retired public relations executive in Little Rock, tells MediaPost that he often writes letters with placeholders and fills in the correct text later, but overlooked the reference to XYZ in this case.

Really? I'm really trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but I can't come up with a single explanation for why he would write "XYZ Organization" when writing a letter himself from a group of people he supposedly represents. If you're the one writing the letter, on behalf of your supposed organization, why would you include "XYZ Organization"?

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Guy Who Signed 'XYZ Corp.' Astroturf Letter... Worked As Telco PR Person For Nearly 3 Decades?

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

So, remember last week when we wrote about how anti-net neutrality lobbyists from AT&T had crafted astroturf letters for various "special interest groups" to sign -- but someone forgot to remove the boilerplate "XYZ Organization" in the first paragraph? We also noted that there was little evidence that the group -- the Arkansas Retired Seniors -- actually existed. However, Matt Cutts did a bit of digging and found that the name of the guy who signed the letter -- Bob Sells -- appears to have worked in PR for Southwestern Bell for 28 years (there appears to be only one Bob Sells or Robert Sells in Little Rock). Southwestern Bell, of course, became better known as SBC. SBC, of course, became AT&T after it bought the old AT&T and took on its name. So, if you're an AT&T lobbyist and you want to convince the FCC that "seniors" are against net neutrality -- and you don't want it to appear to come from AT&T employees -- who better to go to than an ex-employee? Still, next time you get a former employee to shill for you, remember to replace the bogus XYZ Organization you left for him in the text of the letter you sent him.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dear Lobbyists: When Crafting Astroturf Letters, Remember To Do A Search & Replace On XYZ Corp.

from the just-a-suggestion dept

We were just talking about how one of the worst tricks of DC lobbyists is to get various special interest groups to send letters on your behalf, even though those are really written by the lobbyists themselves. The quote in that original article that highlights the practice shows how it works:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Indeed. Well, it looks like in the process of faxing and telling a senior citizen's group what they were in favor of, AT&T's anti-net neutrality lobbyists forgot to do a bit of searching and replacing. Karl Bode points us to a hilarious letter filed with the FCC about net neutrality (pdf), officially on behalf of the Arkansas Retired Seniors Coalition -- the exact type of group often used in these astroturfing campaigns -- which suggests that someone didn't proofread the letter first: Right in the first paragraph, it looks like the Arkansas Retired Seniors (or perhaps the lobbyist directly) forgot to change out the boilerplate statement: "XYZ organization shares this concern." XYZ organization, huh? Here's an editing tip for AT&T's lobbyists: when crafting such letters with boilerplate language that's supposed to get changed at a later date before being sent off to the FCC, you should highlight that text in a different color. Saves embarrassing mistakes like this one.

In researching this further, Karl also can't find any other evidence that the Arkansas Retired Seniors exist. Separately, he found another mistake by the lobbyists when it sent a different anti-net neutrality letter from Grumman Shipbuilding (ship builders against neutrality?). This one wasn't as egregious, but the lobbyists forgot to remove the header info that says "Governor/PUC Letters to FCC on Net Neutrality" with the neat little classification system the lobbyists use: "Letter 2: Specific to Investment and Employment." Wonder what the original header for XYZ organization was?

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Tech Lobbying/PR Firm Outed For Faked Op-Eds

from the what-will-the-corn-farmers-do? dept

We get tons of PR spam here at Techdirt, most of which is simply an attempt to get us to write about this or that startup or product launch. It pretty much all gets trashed. Occasionally we hear from various tech lobbyists as well, pushing an angle on a story that supports the angle they're pushing. But one of the oddest experiences we've had was with a firm called LawMedia Group, which we wrote about earlier this year when Declan McCullagh outed the group as having allegedly composed a letter from a group of corn farmers somehow opposed to Google and Yahoo working together. Why corn farmers would be interested in such things isn't clear -- but McCullagh pulled back some of the curtain on the way these sorts of lobbyist groups act, picking a somewhat random "group" and then writing these sorts of letters and simply placing the group's name on the top -- even if (as in the corn farmers/internet advertising situation) the group has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In our case, as mentioned, the folks at LawMedia Group started out by acting as if we were close friends, and then insisting that they had some really secret info that was damaging to FCC boss Kevin Martin. It's no surprise why they would approach us on the subject -- as we've written critically about Martin for years. After ignoring repeated requests for a phone call during which this info would be "revealed," I finally said that if they had anything they wanted me to see, just send it over. And so they sent a bunch of stuff that basically confirmed what was well known: Kevin Martin has friends who work at AT&T. Shocking, right, that a telco regulator might have friends at a telco? But, of course, it was positioned in a way to make it look really secretive, even to the point of suggesting that Martin really worked for AT&T. In other words, it was totally bogus. I told the guy at LMG that the info seemed pretty pointless, and never spoke to him again -- though he and other colleagues keep emailing stories that might make Martin look bad.

Now Declan is back with more stories of questionable activities by LawMedia Group, including what would appear to be a series of op-ed pieces published in newspapers using the names of people who don't even agree with what's in the op-ed, but, from the sound of it, may have effectively rented their name out to LMG to use in the op-ed. Most of the article focuses on a guy in Boston who is in favor of net neutrality, but had an op-ed published under his name that strongly argues against net neutrality. The guy admitted that LMG had something to do with it, but refused to provide details. However, when asked his opinion on net neutrality, proceeded to stay stuff in direct contradiction with what was in the op-ed under his name.

While somewhat sleazy tactics like this may be every day business in Washington DC, it's good to see it exposed, especially when it's being done so egregiously. At the very least, maybe it'll get LMG to stop bothering me with bogus conspiracy theories about Kevin Martin.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NAB Spams FCC Over XM-Sirius Merger; Uses People Who Claim They Had Nothing To Do With It

from the sleazy-tactics dept

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has been pulling out all the stops in fighting the proposed merger between XM and Sirius. What's most amusing is that the NAB's active involvement in the campaign against the merger weakens its own argument. After all, if XM and Sirius really would represent a monopoly, then doesn't that mean that the terrestrial broadcasters the NAB represents don't compete with XM and Sirius and therefore shouldn't care about the merger? Yet, the NAB keeps on fighting despite this rather obvious problem with its position. It seems as though the NAB can't resist pulling out just about every dirty trick in the playbook. It set up astroturf groups to create a pretend grassroots campaign against the merger. It also paid for a "independent" report from a research firm who had previously claimed that terrestrial radio and satellite radio competed -- but quickly changed its tune when the NAB was funding a study.

The latest is that, in the tradition of many other astroturfing campaigns, it bombarded the FCC with letters from "real people" against the merger. There's just one big problem. It would appear that many of those people have no idea they wrote the FCC, and some even claim they're in favor of the merger. That's what a Washington Post investigation found when it tried to track down the people who supposedly used the NAB's spam-o-matic website to protest the merger. Most of the people couldn't even be reached at all, suggesting that they might not even exist. Of those who were actually reached, nine out of ten claimed they had nothing to do with contacting the FCC and the 10th says she remembered reading something about the merger but doesn't remember protesting it to the FCC.

The NAB insists that its program is perfectly legitimate, and that the emailers all meant to protest the merger. An NAB spokesperson claimed: "It was a fairly rigorous process." How rigorous? Take a look at some of the quotes from folks who the NAB claims are absolutely against the merger and then let us know just how "rigorous" the process was:

• "How did they get my name? I don't want someone using my name for something I don't even know about."
• "No sir, I never sent any notes to Washington. This call is the first time I've heard of this."
• "I never sent an e-mail. I don't even know about the issue."
• "I don't know what the merger is about and I don't care. I have no idea what you're talking about."
• "Where did they get my name? If anything, I'd be for [the merger]."

Quite rigorous over there at the NAB, huh?

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will 'Women Involved In Farm Economics' Tip The Balance In XM/Sirius Debate?

from the or-maybe-the-hispanic-chamber-of-commerce dept

Reasonable people could disagree about when it's best to disallow a given merger on antitrust grounds, but our current system seems both arbitrary and open to manipulation by interested parties. Standing athwart XM and Sirius' attempt to merge is the National Association of Broadcasters, which has tried to make the claim that the merger would eliminate any competition for the companies, a point which is undermined by the NAB's own interest in the outcome. It's obvious why the NAB is interested: It's not that it has some lofty ideals about competition, but rather it fears for the future of its own members, should the companies be allowed to merge. In addition to making its arguments directly, the NAB has also turned to the practice of astoturfing, the establishment of phony grassroots organizations that are in fact nothing more than shill groups. Blatantly self-interested lobbying isn't just limited to the NAB, however. Lobbyists representing the satellite radio firms have cobbled together an odd coalition of supporters, including Southern Baptists, businesswomen, rural voters and Hispanic chambers of commerce. A representative of one group, Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE), tells The Wall Street Journal that her group supports the merger because it could allow for expanded radio coverage in rural areas. She also makes the good point that the government seems to have multiple standards depending on the industry, noting that little has been done to prevent consolidation in the meatpacking market (which directly affects WIFE's constituents). Her points are valid, but it's still disturbing that these issues are decided, in large part, by which side can marshal the necessary lobbying firepower, rather than some standard for what's a legitimate level of consolidation within an industry.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..