"Forest Ethics"?

Green Groups Find Their 'Green' Can't Buy Ad Space
By J. Zane Walley

Something new is in the wind. Newspapers have begun refusing to run attack ads from radical environmental groups.
Anti-timber campaigns run by coalitions that include the Rainforest Action Network, American Lands Alliance, Forest Action Network, Student Environmental Action Coalition, EarthFirst!, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council have used full page ads to pressure retailers like Home Depot to stop selling wood products.

Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, readily accept green-group ads making the most outrageous claims so long as they skirt the libel law. Many other newspapers used to do the same, but now a few are holding environmentalist attacks to a higher standard than merely evading prosecution.

In March of 2001, the Boston Globe refused to run an attack ad against Staples; the respected paper products retail chain. A little-known Berkeley, California-based organization, "Forest Ethics," which has never filed an IRS report form and doesn't exist in California Department of Justice nonprofit organization records, submitted the ad. The group, which is actually a front for the multi-million-dollar Rainforest Action Network (RAN), attempted to smear Staples by name and the Globe turned them down.

"The ugly truth is that thousands of acres of forest are needlessly destroyed every year to supply Staples with cheap, disposable paper products," the Rainforest Action Network ad said. RAN’s ad implied that everyone should stop using wood to make paper and that Staples was somehow bad for selling paper made out of trees.

The RAN ad urged readers to call Tom Stemberg, Staples' CEO, "at (508) 253-7143 and ask him to stop destroying our forests, or send him a fax at www.StopStaples.com."

The RAN ad was a masterpiece of propaganda writing. It misdirected attention toward one target by mentioning no other paper retailer than Staples. It asserted that making paper from trees was "wrong," and accused Staples of "destroying our forests," as if they were going out into the woods with a bulldozer and smashing trees into useless splinters for the sheer meanness of it. It offered the reader a "fleeced" opportunity to scold a corporate executive.

The worst was invisible. The RAN ad had a hidden agenda: the campaign behind it was actually created and funded by wealthy foundations and designed to force Staples and all forest-related firms into a "certification" program operated by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). FSC is a foundation-created group that offers a "seal of approval" to companies that subordinate their operations to foundation-funded overseers.

And, most loathsome of all, the campaign was designed to force Staples into signing an agreement to pay environmental groups so they would stop the harassing tactics of the campaign. That sounds a great deal like extortion.

The Boston Globe refused to run the ad. The "Forest Ethics" front-group offered to take out the phone information. The Globe still said no and refused to run an ad that mentioned Staples by name. Dennis Lloyd, an advertisement manager at the paper, confirmed they would not run the ad.

The paper's refusal to carry malignant advertisements criticizing corporations is a gratifying reinforcement of the notion that the press will serve as an institutional check on abuses of power. The social and political clout of massed environmental groups orchestrated by enormously wealthy foundations has long crossed the line into abuse of power. It’s about time newspapers start acting responsibly and refuse to be tools of elitist propaganda.

The Seattle Times, too, acted responsibly -- by refusing to run a different Rainforest Action Network ad. This ad was one proposed during the "Green Building Conference," a meeting held in Seattle in March 2001, to persuade homebuilders to stop using wood.

RAN wanted an advertisement that smeared the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), a certification program of the American Forest and Paper Association and the American Tree Farm System that competes with the Forest Stewardship Council’s certification program. The FSC is funded by a number of the same foundations that fund RAN -- and RAN is also a member of the Council.

RAN wanted to say the Sustainable Forestry Initiative is "a sham," and urge wood buyers to give preference to wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, which RAN sweetly called, "an independent organization." It’s certainly not independent from RAN.

RAN's proposed ad mocked the SFI's "bold approach to sustainable forest management" with a picture of a cutover area in British Columbia, logged by the Interfor Co., which SFI had recently certified as sustainable -- evidently with the belief that any tree cutting whatsoever is unsustainable. Asking whether SFI was "promoting green wood or a greenwash," the RAN ad also criticized the SFI certification of Boise Cascade. RAN has been running a vicious anti-Boise Cascade campaign for months. "SFI's endorsement of Boise Cascade, the largest logger of old-growth in the U.S., is further evidence of SFI's toothless standards," the ad's text read.

The Seattle Times refused to run it. The sticking point, according to Todd Paglia, anti-logging campaign director, was the mention of Interfor and Boise Cascade by name. But "at that point, the ad is worthless," Paglia said.

The Seattle Times disputes Paglia's version of events. Lloyd Stull, national sales manager for the paper, said the Seattle Times only requested documentation to support RAN's assertions. RAN and its allies decided not to allow the ad to run if they couldn’t mention the two companies by name.

Environmentalists don’t like to document their claims because most of them are misleading, erroneous, or flat-out lies. In RAN’s case, it is more anti-corporate ideology than concern for nature that drives their campaigns. It’s about time newspapers caught on.

Congratulations, Seattle Times and Boston Globe.

We hope your new "Truth in Whining" policy gets around.

This article was made possible by a grant from the Paragon Foundation. If you would like more information on how special interest groups use paid advertisements as a propaganda tool, contact the Paragon Foundation toll free at 1-877-847-3443

THE PARAGON FOUNDATION
PRESS RELEASE
Alamogordo, New Mexico
Office of Public Relations
505-653-4024
Toll Free 1-877-847-3443
For Immediate Release: April 20, 2001