Dezenhall, who's clients include Exxon Mobil, apparently advised the Association to use some of the following language in framing their defense and the efforts of patient advocates:
Public access equals government censorship.
Government [is] seeking to nationalize science and be a publisher.
Here's the clincher, as Weiss, one of the best in business, writes at the Post:
Kevin McCauley, editor of the trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Report and the man who coined Dezenhall's "pit bull" appellation in a 2006 interview with Business Week, said the publishing association may live to regret the image of desperation that comes with an association with Dezenhall.
"The question I want to ask the publishing association is why a group that publishes scholarly journals feels the need to go this route," McCauley said.
His question might best be answered by the one-page statement the association released yesterday, which Schroeder confirmed was written internally and not by Dezenhall.
"Private sector non-profit and commercial publishers serve researchers and scientists by managing and funding the peer review process, disseminating authors' work, investing in technology and preserving millions of peer-reviewed articles as part of the permanent record of science," the statement read, in part.