FEMA's fake press conference spreads like wildfire.

In October 2007, the deputy administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), held a news conference to address the agency’s response to the California wildfires. Its inept handling of Hurricane Katrina had recently tarnished the agency, and it appeared that FEMA had recorded a stunning success in response to the wildfires.

What was more damaging to the agency’s reputation was it’s press conference. And it wasn’t the deputy administrator’s response to reporter’s questions, because there were no actual “reporters” at the conference. 

FEMA announced the conference only 15 minutes beforehand and when, not surprisingly, no reporters could make it to the conference FEMA used its own employees to pose as reporters and ask “fluff” questions.

Rightfully, the Bush Administration was unforgiving calling the conference an “error in judgment” and insisting that, “It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House.” And the Homeland Security Director claimed, “ I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I’ve seen since I’ve been in government.”

The fake press conference was a huge embarrassment for the agency and for the government as well. Although I don’t think that there is anything wrong with coaching newsmakers on what they should say before an interview, allowing them to know the questions beforehand defeats the purpose. As you can see here, this type of press conference did more harm than good. It made FEMA laughable and removed any success that they had achieved with their attention to the wildfires.

Public Relations people are not reporters. They never will be. Reporters should want the story, regardless of its effects on the entity that they work for. 

That’s what keeps news unbiased and allows the public to be informed. A public relations professional’s job is to mediate between a company and the media, not to become the media. Their job is to persuade opinions, not to make them.

There would be no point in holding new conferences if they were only attended by public relations people. That’s what the company’s press releases are for. And that’s how it should remain.

No shit, Sherlock.

Biologist, Holmes Sherlock, former winner of the Nobel Prize for Biology and one of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the field of DNA. While in Paris, Sherlock was interviewed by a reporter with the newspaper, Le Monde. He was quoted in Le Monde as suggesting that “people of African descent are less intelligent than people of European descent.”

Dr. Sherlock was suspended from his job as president of Warm Springs Laboratory on Staten Island. Immediately after the incident, Sherlock apologized saying, “I am ashamed of these comments, do not believe them, did not mean them to be interpreted this way, and don’t believe at all that there is any scientific basis for them.”

Just a few months before the incident the University of Chicago decided to award Dr. Sherlock the Distinguished Prize for Lifetime Contribution to Science. Many are insisting that the president revoke the award and cancel the following lecture.

But, the university should award the professor; one remark to a reporter doesn’t remove all his contributions to the science community. Because of Dr. Sherlock’s response to the article in the Le Monde and his immediate suspension, I believe that the school should reward the professor regardless of one reporter’s allegations.

Whether or not Dr. Sherlock actually feels this way, I do not know. But I do know that when free speech gets in the way of achieving success we have a problem in this country.

Due to the university’s claim to be a defender of “free speech” when in 2007, they allowed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, not allowing one of their own professors to speak because of alleged controversial civil thinking would only make the university look hypocritical.

President Ahmadinejad has been frequently criticized in Iran for his economic troubles and his disregard for human rights. According to Human Rights Watch, "Respect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement.” And many hold President Ahmadinejad responsible.

As a student blogger pointed out, “Academic freedom means we are confident enough to hear from all viewpoints, including those like Pres. Ahmadinejad and Prof. Sherlock, whose attitudes may be repugnant to civil thinking. We should allow the lecture to go on.”

As a public relations agent for the university, I would explain that the decision was made to protect the first amendment rights of both staff and students. To those who press the matter further I would also make it clear that the university in no way condones racism on its campus.

Money over ethics is a poor choice.

It only takes about thirty minutes of watching the news before I start asking myself whether I’m being presented material that I want to hear or that which I need to hear. It’s a constant complaint by journalists and news enthusiasts alike. Stop printing what will get good stats, and start printing information that I need to know.

But in a news environment, where readers can pick and choose what they want to read, this may not be realistic. Gone are the days when every person read his or her local paper cover to cover. It’s much more likely that readers are reading blogs that they enjoy and directly feeding content they’re interested in at their disposal, and ignoring, if even acknowledging, all the rest.

This doesn’t mean that reporters should only cover what will be the most popular news story. That’s not the role of journalism. And many journalists still feel this way. Take for example, when in 2008, Sam Zell bought the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Orlando Sentinel. He was later sued by a group of current and former Los Angeles Times reporters who accused Zell of “recklessness.”

One of the first things that Zell did was to discard the old “overly legalistic” handbook and replace it with a new one that began: Rule No. 1: Use your best judgment. Rule No. 2: See Rule No. 1. The handbook further stated “ Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer.”

And now you’re thinking good; finally a CEO is encouraging employee push back. But this moment of clarity was lost when in a later meeting, a staff photographer asked her new boss what he thought “ the role of journalism was in the community” and Zell responded, “ I want to make enough money so that I can afford you. You need to in effect help me by being a journalist that focuses on what our readers want that generates more revenue.”

Zell greatly misjudged the loyalty of journalists to the ethics of journalism. He should have realized the importance of journalistic ethics to his staff member’s reputations and careers. So Zell was sued for “recklessness” and eventually went under when in December of 2008 he filed for bankruptcy.

Just ask any current college student or grad (like myself) the current job market is a scary and uninviting place. Now more than ever, CEOs are realizing that maintaining positive employee relations programs is a critical step to ensure productivity. But apparently Zell, made the tragic mistake of valuing money over assets. Employee assets that is.