Frequently Asked Questions

Topics:

What’s Full Frontal Scrutiny?

Full Frontal Scrutiny is a joint venture between Consumer Reports WebWatch and the Center for Media and Democracy. Our mission is to expose front groups, through our own efforts and those of citizen journalists like you. Full Frontal Scrutiny features blog entries by Consumer Reports WebWatch and the CMD, and links to a portal on front groups on the SourceWatch site, which is Wiki-based, and where we encourage you to contribute.

What's a Front Group?

A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the "third party technique," which means "put your words in someone else's mouth, " in the words of one PR executive.

For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.

Of course, not all organizations engaged in manipulative efforts to shape public opinion can be classified as "front groups." The now-defunct Tobacco Institute was highly deceptive, but it didn't hide the fact that it represented the tobacco industry.

There are also degrees of concealment. The Global Climate Coalition, for example, didn't hide the fact that its funding came from oil and coal companies, but nevertheless its name alone is sufficiently misleading that it can reasonably be considered a front group.

The shadowy way front groups operate makes it difficult to know whether a seemingly independent grassroots is actually representing some other entity. Thus, citizen smokers' rights groups and organizations of bartenders or restaurant workers working against smoking bans are sometimes characterized as front groups for the tobacco industry, but it is possible that some of these groups are self-initiated (although the tobacco industry has been known to use restaurant groups as fronts for its own interests).

What are some common traits of front groups?

A front group typically has some (but not necessarily all) of the following characteristics:

Avoids mentioning its main sources of funding. Note that this does not necessarily mean absolute concealment of sponsorship. Some front groups do indeed go to great lengths to conceal their origins, funders and personnel links to sponsors. However, the likelihood that these will be exposed anyway, with embarrassing consequences for a group's credibility, has led many companies and their sponsored organizations to opt for a strategy of selective disclosure, in which funders are mentioned in an annual report or other obscure publication, but are not mentioned in the organization's most common communications that reach the largest audience.
Is set up by and/or operated by another organization, particularly a public relations, grassroots campaigning, polling or surveying firm or consultancy.
Engages in actions that consistently and conspicuously benefit a third party, such as a company, industry or political candidate.
Effectively shields a third party from liability/responsibility/culpability.
Re-focuses debate about an issue onto a new or suspiciously unrelated topic, e.g., secondhand smoke as a property rights issue.
Has a misleading name that disguises its real agenda, such as the National Wetlands Coalition, which opposed policies to protect U.S. wetlands, or Citizens for a Free Kuwait, which purported to represent U.S. citizens but was actually funded almost entirely by the royal family of Kuwait. Sometimes a front group's name might seem to suggest academic or political neutrality ("Consumers' Research," "American Policy Center"), while in fact it consistently turns out opinions, research, surveys, reports, polls and other declarations that benefit the interests of a company, industry or political candidate.
Has the same address or phone number as a similar group that has since disbanded, or been forced out of business by exposure, lawsuits, etc.
Consists of a group of vocal, "esteemed" academic "experts" who go on national tours, put on media events, give press conferences, seminars, workshops, and give editorial board meetings around the country, etc., who ordinarily would not seem to have the budget or financial means to carry out such events
Touts repeatedly in communications that it is "independent," "esteemed," "credible" etc.

An organization that only has a few of these characteristics may not be a true front group. For example, the tobacco industry has given funding to youth organizations such as the Jaycees and 4-H clubs, which serves a public relations goal by helping the industry cultivate an image of corporate responsibility. This PR tactic is an example of the third party technique, and organizations that trade their reputations for corporate funding may be naive, gullible or opportunistic, but this in itself would not make them a front group.

What kinds of Front Groups will you be investigating?

We’re interested in exposing industry-funded front groups that maintain a Web presence and seek to mislead consumers in areas such as health care, finance, food and product safety, telecommunications, and environmental issues.

Are there any kinds of Front Groups you will not investigate?

Full Frontal Scrutiny leaves it to others to examine purely political front groups, like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that was created to damage the reputation of U.S. Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. That doesn’t mean we’ll avoid front groups that seek to influence politicians and legislation for their own commercial purposes. Front groups are exceptionally active in Washington D.C., and we’ll be watching them. If you’re interested in overtly political front groups, visit www.SourceWatch.org.

What about Consumers Union's Web sites like HearUsNow.org and StopHospitalInfections.org? Aren't those grassroots sites? What's the difference?

The difference is that those sites and their campaigns are clearly branded as Consumers Union efforts. There's no ambiguity about their identity.

Isn't this a little off-topic for what we've come to expect from Consumer Reports WebWatch?

Not at all. Full Frontal Scrutiny, and our partnership with the Center for Media and Democracy, evolves directly from our efforts over the last five years to create credibility standards for improving the content of Web sites. So far, more than 300 Web publishers and companies have taken a public pledge to uphold those guidelines. The WebWatch guidelines are all about disclosure -- the most trustworthy Web sites will tell you what their purpose and mission is, who owns and funds them, what their address and phone number is (and a real person answers the phone on the other end). Many, if not all, the Web sites of front groups would not pass one or more principles of WebWatch's credibility guidelines. Full Frontal Scrutiny is a method of applying our guidelines to a category of sites in a similar way we have applied them to health, travel, search and other types of sites.