HSUS vs. CCF - Who is Winning?

Readers of this blog may be familiar with recent efforts from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to confront the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), an industry-backed front group that targets animal advocates and misinforms the public about a wide range of consumer issues. While CCF, its people, and its actions are certainly deplorable, it's worth asking whether or not a public response is the best option for HSUS or any other animal advocacy group being publicly attacked. In this post we provide a point/counterpoint on HSUS's "counterpunch," and we invite readers to weigh in with your own thoughts.

-----------------------

Point: Attempting to Negate the Frame
by Che Green, HRC Executive Director

Regular readers of this blog should be familiar with the concept of "framing," which describes the set of cognitive tools and cues that people use to interpret the world around them. The grandfather of public affairs framing is cognitive linguist George Lakoff, author of the book, "Don't Think of an Elephant." One of Lakoff's core rules of message framing is, in his words, "When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame." In other words, if we tell someone not to think of an elephant, the first thing that they'll do is think of an elephant.

For HSUS, the question is whether or not confronting CCF in such a public manner actually evokes the negative frame that CCF is attempting to create in the first place. In reality, most people have never heard of this industry front group; their reach is actually quite small. In fact, it's significantly smaller than HSUS's reach, so why would HSUS feel so compelled to take CCF head-on and bring more attention to the latter’s attempts at misinformation?

As an example, take a look at this early blog post from HSUS’s CEO, Wayne Pacelle. I think many would agree that this post assumes a defensive, almost unprofessional tone and it even quotes directly from the opponents. In doing so, HSUS may think it’s taking a leadership role and simply fending off a vocal opponent (or perhaps this is mostly a fundraising tactic), but the "counterpunch" is arguably just shining attention on CCF’s baseless claims against animal advocates and in defense of animal abusers.

Fortunately, HSUS seems to have improved its framing somewhat in more recent posts. For example, last week’s blog post does a much better job of shifting attention away from CCF and back to the core accomplishments of HSUS (which are many). That's what the group's supporters care about, and not the squabbling with a niche front group operated by industry lobbyists. The latter may be interesting to those of us who are full-time animal advocates, but I very much doubt that it's compelling for the average supporter. In attempting to negate the CCF “elephant,” HSUS may have only reinforced it.

Counterpoint: Strong Example of Rapid Response
by Anthony Bellotti, HRC Director

John Kerry and the Swift Boats. Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton. The annals of campaign history are full of losers who failed to publically, and definitively, respond to an attack. An unanswered charge can easily become “truth” if it’s not quickly countered. Fortunately, HSUS has not repeated this mistake in its recent squabble with CCF.

In politics and public affairs, it’s critical to stay on offense; you can’t score points if you’re stuck in a defensive position. Famed campaign manger, James Carville, put it best: “It’s hard for someone to hit you when you have your fist in their face.” By fully and clearly answering your critics, a properly executed response can turn the tables on your opponent and allow you to pivot back on message.

CEO Wayne Pacelle’s blog posts are a textbook case of proper rapid response. His responses are credible, well-documented, quickly delivered – and effective. Consider February 23’s “Follow the Money” post. Pacelle refutes the original CCF charge in asserting that HSUS runs the largest system of animal sanctuaries. He also specifically affirms HSUS’ respectable financial credentials (e.g. named by Worth magazine as one of the top 10 most fiscally responsible charities) in the face of CCF’s accusation that HSUS spends more on pension plans than animal shelters. Then, most importantly, his counterattack puts CCF into a defensive position by illuminating the front group's financial backers – animal abusing industries who’d prefer not to be disclosed.

Indeed, rapid response entails risks – you will, to a certain extent, draw attention to your opponent. But in a high stakes fight, rapid response is almost always worth it because it gets you off defense and back on offense. Defense may win hockey games, but offense usually wins in political and public affairs campaigns.

Please tell us your thoughts about the HSUS “counterstrike” campaign by adding your comments below (note: you must be logged in to use this feature).