There are a lot of conflicts in our society over a wide range of issues. The debates sometimes become pretty heated. But, these debates are healthy. It is only by acknowledging and considering a wide range of perspectives that wise choices can be made on how to solve problems.

Sometimes parties with a vested interest try to stifle debate, especially if they have a lot of wealth and influence. We see large corporations behaving this way with increasing frequency. I recently read a quote by an Australian writer, Alex Carey, that describes this trend rather nicely.

He wrote "the twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

How is corporate propaganda disseminated? Through advertising of course, but also through public relation firms. According to John Stauber, founder and editor of the quarterly investigative journal, PR Watch, almost half of everything in the news actually originates from PR firms. This is in addition to the more than $100 billion a year corporations spend on advertising.

In fact, John Stauber maintains "The PR industry just might be the single most powerful political institution in the world. It expropriates and exploits the democratic rights of millions on behalf of big business by fooling the public about the issues."

An example of an aggressive PR campaign being waged is that by Arch Coal over the upcoming trial over the legality of the permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine near Blair. They would have you believe this is only a "jobs" issue because it is in their best interest to limit it to that. The impact on jobs is an important issue but there are a lot of other important issues involved.

The tragedy is that they are spending a lot of money on this PR campaign which may end up being counted as overhead against the profitability of West Virginia mining. In the long run it may cost jobs! They should be spending that money finding ways to mine that entails getting legal permits. (Surprise! Yes, some people against illegal mines actually think there is such a thing as a legal mine, contrary to PR propaganda.)

One irony in this situation is that mounting a PR campaign in this situation is probably a waste of money. Manipulating public attitudes works when trying to get a favorite candidate elected to public office. In this case, it is unlikely to influence a conservative Republican-appointed federal judge.

You see, corporations don’t like liberal judges (largely Democrats) that interpret laws to right social wrongs. During the civil rights struggles, women’s liberation struggles, and handicap rights movements, liberal judges cost them a lot of money. Corporations therefor support the Republican party in part to get conservative judges appointed that will uphold a strict, literal interpretation of the law. Corporations contribute heavily to get their legislators elected to pass favorable laws and want judges that will narrowly uphold them.

Arch Coal would love desperately to influence Judge Haden. Having a conservative judge preside over this trial will probably backfire on corporate interests because if he is true to form, he will rule only on whether or not their permit complies with the law. He will not take it upon himself to change federal mining regulations. That is a debate for the halls of Congress. That is where the 1977 Federal Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act was passed that has authority over this case.

Of course Arch Coal may in this case be itself a victim of a PR firm. In order to drum up business, a PR firm may have convinced Arch Coal that they can influence anything using clever propaganda. In this case they just may be wrong.