Difference between revisions of "Risk of Freedom Briefing"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:We have also published ''[[Risk of Freedom Briefing]]'', circulated to journalists (including some on the ''[[Guardian]]'') the purpose of which is to stimulate debate. This carries my name as editor and JTI's name as sponsor. We have never concealed the relationship, but have tried to make clear we are related to our client not as advocates but as advisers. <ref name="Scruton"/> | :We have also published ''[[Risk of Freedom Briefing]]'', circulated to journalists (including some on the ''[[Guardian]]'') the purpose of which is to stimulate debate. This carries my name as editor and JTI's name as sponsor. We have never concealed the relationship, but have tried to make clear we are related to our client not as advocates but as advisers. <ref name="Scruton"/> | ||
| − | The briefing published extracts from the speeches given at successive [[Lanesborough Lunches]] an informal dining club also funded by [[Japan Tobacco International]].<ref>School of Advanced Study, [www.sas.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/about/00-01_AnnualReport.pdf Annual Report 2000/01] </ref> The first lunch speaker was [[Frank Furedi]] of the [[LM network]].<ref></ref> The lunches were cited by lobbyists | + | The briefing published extracts from the speeches given at successive [[Lanesborough Lunches]] an informal dining club also funded by [[Japan Tobacco International]].<ref>School of Advanced Study, [www.sas.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/about/00-01_AnnualReport.pdf Annual Report 2000/01] </ref> The first lunch speaker was [[Frank Furedi]] of the [[LM network]].<ref></ref> The lunches were cited by lobbyists [[Edouard Peter]] and [[Michael McKay]] as an example of a 'platform and follow-through series' which can help in 'conditioning public debate'.<ref name="Lobby">Edouard Peter and Michael McKay [http://www.advisio-intl.com/thought/doc/CorporatepositioningPA.pdf Proactive Positioning – a Public Affairs approach] A White Paper Jedco Conseil, posted 15 August 2005 |
| + | </ref> The strategy recommended is | ||
| + | |||
| + | :First, elevate the issue as high up the scale of logic, objectivity and social relevance as possible: It is not about this or that product, it is the boundaries to freedom of commerce... For example, practically all products may have negative health consequences, yet there is the broader issue of personal choice that needs to be balanced with an inclination to regulate. The freedom for adults to make their good or bad choices attracts influential audiences who otherwise may have no particular interest in the particular products. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Second, have a prestigious and credible third party assume the public debate on your behalf. The corporation doesn’t hide, yet its spokespersons never take the front of the stage in the public debate. Wherever possible, the third party is an independent institution, a recognized platform for objective debate among experts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Bringing these two conditions together requires enormous tact, long-standing networks of relations at the highest levels and the ability to behave in a neutral fashion as a bridge between academic, political, media and commercial thought processes. The latter often disqualifies large, well-known consultancies. That is why this approach is not applied more often. Or if it is, can’t attract attention to itself and risk self-defeat.<ref name="Lobby"/> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==People== | ==People== | ||
Editor: [[Roger Scruton]] | Editorial assistant: [[Sophie Jeffreys]]<ref>Risk of Freedom Briefing [http://web.archive.org/web/20060616140335/riskoffreedom.com/archive.php Archive]</ref> | Editor: [[Roger Scruton]] | Editorial assistant: [[Sophie Jeffreys]]<ref>Risk of Freedom Briefing [http://web.archive.org/web/20060616140335/riskoffreedom.com/archive.php Archive]</ref> | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 24 March 2011
Risk of Freedom Briefing, edited by Roger Scruton, funded by Japan Tobacco International. Issue 12, July 2002 showing contributions from Frank Furedi, Mike Fitzpatrick and Bill Durodie of the LM network.
The Risk of Freedom Briefing was a publication edited by conservative activist Roger Scruton between October 1999 and July 2007[1] and funded by Japan Tobacco International.[2]
- My wife and I have a company devoted to public affairs, the aim of which is to help clients to find the language appropriate to their concerns and to promote debate of those concerns in the media. Japan Tobacco International has been our client for the last three years. We have advised JTI on language and arguments and arranged debates, seminars and conferences on risk and freedom, with their declared sponsorship.
- We have also published Risk of Freedom Briefing, circulated to journalists (including some on the Guardian) the purpose of which is to stimulate debate. This carries my name as editor and JTI's name as sponsor. We have never concealed the relationship, but have tried to make clear we are related to our client not as advocates but as advisers. [2]
The briefing published extracts from the speeches given at successive Lanesborough Lunches an informal dining club also funded by Japan Tobacco International.[3] The first lunch speaker was Frank Furedi of the LM network.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag;
refs with no name must have content The lunches were cited by lobbyists Edouard Peter and Michael McKay as an example of a 'platform and follow-through series' which can help in 'conditioning public debate'.[4] The strategy recommended is
- First, elevate the issue as high up the scale of logic, objectivity and social relevance as possible: It is not about this or that product, it is the boundaries to freedom of commerce... For example, practically all products may have negative health consequences, yet there is the broader issue of personal choice that needs to be balanced with an inclination to regulate. The freedom for adults to make their good or bad choices attracts influential audiences who otherwise may have no particular interest in the particular products.
- Second, have a prestigious and credible third party assume the public debate on your behalf. The corporation doesn’t hide, yet its spokespersons never take the front of the stage in the public debate. Wherever possible, the third party is an independent institution, a recognized platform for objective debate among experts.
- Bringing these two conditions together requires enormous tact, long-standing networks of relations at the highest levels and the ability to behave in a neutral fashion as a bridge between academic, political, media and commercial thought processes. The latter often disqualifies large, well-known consultancies. That is why this approach is not applied more often. Or if it is, can’t attract attention to itself and risk self-defeat.[4]
People
Editor: Roger Scruton | Editorial assistant: Sophie Jeffreys[5] Amongst those published in the briefing:
- J.R. Lucas of Merton College, Oxford[6]
- Bill Durodie of the LM network.[7]
- Norman Barry of the University of Buckingham [8]
Resources
- Archive the the briefing: http://web.archive.org/web/20060616140335/riskoffreedom.com/archive.php
Notes
- ↑ See the holdings in the Internet Archive: The risk of freedom Briefing Archive, retrieved from the Internet Archive of 22 April 2008
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Roger Scruton A puff for the Scrutons The Guardian, Monday 28 January 2002 01.33 GMT
- ↑ School of Advanced Study, [www.sas.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/about/00-01_AnnualReport.pdf Annual Report 2000/01]
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Edouard Peter and Michael McKay Proactive Positioning – a Public Affairs approach A White Paper Jedco Conseil, posted 15 August 2005
- ↑ Risk of Freedom Briefing Archive
- ↑ J.R. Lucas ACE: Assess Cost of Error published in The Risk of Freedom Briefing, Issue no.5 October 2000
- ↑ Bill Durodie The precautionary principle is causing a scare Risk of Freedom Briefing, July 2002.
- ↑ Norman Barry Capitalism - the threat from within. Risk of Freedom Briefing 22, January 2005
