Ketchum Placed Controversial Putin Op-Ed

[ProSense]

Ketchum Placed Controversial Putin Op-Ed

The PR firm’s biggest Russia coup ever?

Rosie Gray

WASHINGTON — The public relations firm Ketchum is responsible for placing a controversial editorial that appeared under Russian President Vladimir Putin’s byline in the New York Times on Wednesday night.

“The op-ed came through the PR firm (Ketchum) and went thought the normal editing process,” said New York Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy in an email to BuzzFeed.

Spokespeople for Ketchum did not return requests for comment.

Ketchum is the main PR firm used by the Russian government. Using documents publicly filed with the Department of Justice, ProPublica showed last year how Ketchum places pro-Putin op-eds under the bylines of “seemingly independent professionals” in various news outlets like CNBC and the Huffington Post.

A tweet last week from Paddy Blewer, a Ketchum employee, appears to reference the work being done on the Putin op-ed:

Paddy Blewer@PadskyFollow

Great week. Gazprom (#client) results & strategic China deal. Big internal project. Countdown to #holiday has begun. Where's the trolley?

Reply Retweet Favorite

- more -

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ketchum-placed-controversial-putin-op-ed

Ah, pro-Putin propaganda pushed by the NYT.

[FSogol]

1. K & R. Does Ketchum Inc ring a bell?

From wiki

"The U.S. Department of Education has been accused of breaking Federal Law by paying commentators to publish articles and appear on talk shows promoting the agenda of the Bush Administration. The use of taxpayers money for this purpose is in violation of U.S. law and has been the subject of several Congressional investigations which reached their peak during the 2004 election battle. Some government reports have exonerated Ketchum and others strongly criticized the actions of the department and Ketchum. Further, Ketchum was strongly criticized by the public relations industry for its inept handling of this crisis."

and

"In 2004, Ketchum produced a controversial series of prepackaged news stories for HHS that featured actors posing as journalists and touted drug benefits. The ads aired on at least 40 television stations and violated a federal propaganda ban because they did not inform viewers that they came from the government, the Government Accountability Office stated."

MoRE hijinks at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchum_Inc.

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for posting. n/t

[FSogol]

6. Anytime. N/T

[ProSense]

9. Apparently, this is a good precedent.

No one should complain about propaganda again.

[dballance]

12. Thanks for the linking the dots.

Ketchum didn't really ring a bell.

[msanthrope]

18. Didn't Ketchum pay Maggie Gallagher (homophobe) to post propaganda??? nt

[FSogol]

21. Yup, good memeory.

From Washington Post in 2005:

"The Washington Post reported yesterday that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher was touting Bush's "healthy marriage" initiative while working on the program under a $21,500 contract from the Department of Health and Human Services. The news followed an earlier controversy over conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who has apologized for not disclosing a $241,000 Education Department contract to promote the president's No Child Left Behind law."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41183-2005Jan27.html

[MADem]

24. No wonder gay-hatin' Pootie loves 'em! nt

[leftstreet]

4. Obama could use a good PR firm about now! n/t

[ProSense]

7. Yeah, propaganda is good, right? n/t

[ProSense]

8. Welcome to DU. The PR firm is not the NYT editors.

One would hope.

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. What is your point?

Are you offering that Ketchum sucks or the editors at NYT suck or both?

[ProSense]

11. Point: The PR firm is not the NYT editors.

Is that hard to understand?

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Still not getting it!

Obviously, the PR firm and the NYT editorial staff are two different entities. My question is what is the point of the OP? Are you criticizing the PR firm or the NYT editors for printing Putin's OpEd?

[ProSense]

14. You

"Still not getting it! My question is what is the point of the OP? Are you criticizing the PR firm or the NYT editors for printing Putin's OpEd?"

...didn't ask that, and figure it out for yourself. I made my point.

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. Frankly, I have no idea what your OP means.

I have a very difficult time understanding your posts and this one is no exception.

WHY DID YOU POST THIS? Is it a criticism of the PR firm? Is it a criticism of the NYT editors? You obviously believe there is something important to be communicated here or you would not have posted it.

[msongs]

16. the point is OP viewpoint = good, other viewpoints = bad. standard PR campaign stuff nt

[ProSense]

17. I can't help you think. n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

19. No, but you can let me know what your OP is supposed to mean.

I hope all DU'ers take note of your unwillingness to engage in even the most basic of interactions with others here. I am beginning to believe YOU have no idea why you posted this OP.

Why not just change the headline to "Telephone cement Krakatoa pencil crocodile hockey stick bundt cake"

It would make equal sense in comparison to your headline.

[ProSense]

22. No, I can't because something clearly apparent

obvious to the letter including my brief comment in the OP isn't enough to help you think this through.

Also, it's not up to me to interpret the OP for you. It's there, make of it what you will.

"I hope all DU'ers take note of your unwillingness to engage in even the most basic of interactions with others here. I am beginning to believe YOU have no idea why you posted this OP. "

[Vinnie From Indy]

23. I guess you can add this response to the long list of your posts that

have me completely stumped.


No, I can't because something clearly apparent obvious to the letter including my brief comment in the OP isn't enough to help you think this through.

Ok! Now you are just screwing with me right? Try as I might, I cannot crack ProsenseSpeak. Is English your second language?

[Scurrilous]

20. Thanks ProSense.

K & R