Blagojevich's mastery of the spoken word

In the winter of 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was accused, through government wiretaps, of trying to peddle President-elect Barack Obama’s U. S. Senate seat to the highest bidder. He was warned by his own Democratic Party not to try to appoint a successor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed that no person the defiant governor appointed would have a chance being seated as a U. S. senator. But the governor ignored their pleads and immediately held a news conference to announce that he had selected Illinois’ first African American Attorney General, Roland Burris, as his choice to fill out the Obama term.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/

“The people of Illinois are entitled to have two U. S. Senators represent them in Washington, D. C.,” Blagojevich began the news conference. “As governor, I am required to make this appointment. If I don’t make this appointment, then the people of Illinois will be deprived of their appropriate voice and voice in the U. S. Senate. Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man.”

His choice, Roland Burris, was seated as the successor to President Barack Obama.

While Blagojevich’s charges were pending against him, I believe that any public relations practitioner would have encouraged him to try to minimize the press on him and the incident. The less said about the situation, the less the public would have been aware of his peddling.

However, this might not have been the best choice for Blagojevich, as it appears that he was still able to come out looking good. Surprising to many, including the senate, Blagojevich was still able to have a say in the appointment of the next senator. This made him appear to be committed to his position and it’s duties, even while being impeached by the Illinois legislature.

Upon the seating of Ronald Burris as senator, I would have encouraged Blagojevich to point towards his dedication to his job.

I think Blagojevich found a way to make the best out of his situation. I would like to think that I could have foreseen how the senator might of used his rhetoric and reasonability to make a public appointment of the next senator. But if the senator had not used the words he used the way that he did, any recommendation he made probably would have been ignored.

This example shows the ability of Blagojevich to persuade though his speech, even when everyone else doubted him. I hope to be able to share the same dexterous poise some day. 

Press releases in an over sensitive society

In the winter of 2001, the Washington Post Magazine called out public relations firm, Porter Novelli International, for what the paper called a tasteless news release for one of their clients, Chef America’s Hot Pockets sandwiches.

The Porter Novelli release in question said: Although the last few weeks have been a challenging time for everyone both personally and professionally, I know that we are all striving to return to “normal.” In the coming weeks as you begin to return to your regular areas of focus; I want you to be familiar with Chef America, makers of HOT POCKETS brand sandwiches.

One of their columnists, Gene Weingarten, criticized the release saying, “People don’t buy HOT POCKETS because they are grateful to the manufacturers for their humanitarian gestures. They buy HOT POCKETS because they’re scared of Osama.”

http://scienceblogs.com/

The firm was criticized for trying to capitalize on the terrorist attacks. I’m not really sure that I see the point here. It seems to me that the public relations firm was only trying to acknowledge what was on everyone’s mind at the time. I mean isn’t it a little awkward to just go on with business like everything’s fine?

What was the release supposed to say, “Hey, I know we just suffered a huge loss of precious life and now we as country are afraid for the safety of our citizens but, on the bright side, we just invented a new type of HOT POCKET! I mean honestly, to me this seems to be nothing more than business can’t just stop dead, no matter what’s going on in the world.

However, I suppose there’s always something more that could be looked at when you’re writing a press release. You have to consider every word that you’re writing, because it is a representation of your firm and of your clients. 

I believe that since releases are written so often, they are often overlooked. A public relations professional should take extra care when delivering a press release and be sure edit it for clarity; because as you can see from the controversy over this press release, one small error could have you defending yourself and your clients. 

China's unexpected response

When the Communist nation of Myanmar suffered a devastating cyclone in May 2008, the world responded immediately to the country’s pressing need for food and water for 220,000 cyclone victims. The United States immediately dispatched four Navy ships carrying supplies to deliver to areas hit by the storm. But their military regime feared that the supplies were a ruse to attack the country.

http://msatokyo.wordpress.com/

After circling for days, the four U. S. ships gave up without delivering the humanitarian supplies. Finally, when supplies were ultimately distributed, the ruling Myanmar junta plastered the boxes with the names of top generals, attempting to turn the relief effort into an exercise in propaganda.

The Myanmar generals’ attempt to influence public opinion was dishonest, at best. They were attempting to put their generals’ names on supplies that were not provided by the generals. In fact the military leaders denied their transport based on distrust for Western culture, which cost many citizens their lives. 


More than 23,000 people died and 37,000 went missing as a result of the Myanmar cyclone, despite the International Red Cross and the United States attempting to provide assistance.

That same month, China’s Sichuan Province experienced the 19th deadliest earthquake of all time, resulting in 69,000 deaths. This disaster occurred two months prior to the Olympics in China. As the death toll rose in the province, China went against past diplomatic practice and openly accepted disaster relief and equipment from other nations, including historical adversaries Japan and Taiwan. While the response to the Myanmar stonewalling was highly criticized, the response by the Chinese gained worldwide praise.

The previous disaster in Myanmar combined with the upcoming Olympics probably led to China’s open and accommodative response to the help of other nations. From a public relations perspective, refusing help from those competing in the Olympics would have been insulting and could have jeopardized the success of the upcoming event. Therefore, China’s public relations response to the earthquake was most definitely affected by the timing of the Olympics.

If they had refused to receive assistance, world opinion might have changed leaving the world regretting hosting the Olympics in China. In addition, some countries might have thought the insult too great and might have backed out of the competition.  

American Apparel's overly sexualized work environment.

http://straightfromthea.com

American Apparel (AA) is an edgy, progressive clothes emporium known for its snug-fitting, logo-free T-shirts, underwear, and casual clothes. American Apparel founder Dov Charney, may be the most controversial aspect of the company.

There were five cases in five years filed about Charney’s behavior. In 2008, a former employee sued Charney for sexual harrassment. Specifically, the former AA employee charged that Charney barged into her office shouting obscenities and physical threats and simulating sexual acts. In addition in 2005, another employee claimed Charney once greeted her wearing one of their socks draped over his genitals.

This type of behavior might ultimately hurt AA. But, for right now, it’s just making American Apparel that much more hip and trendy. From a Public Relations standpoint, this type of behavior makes my stomach do a flip. But the company has positioned itself as controversial, and perhaps that’s why it’s popular with celebrities.

http://www.juxtapoz.com/

In the fashion world, things got out of style faster than other types of retail. AA has found a way to connect with consumers, and by working in non-traditional ways. For example, the company selects clothing models with physical imperfections and enhances them, rather than covering them up with Photoshop. Where as the majority of retailers, wouldn’t even consider publishing a photo of a model without at least some teeth whitening.

It’s a hard thing to do though, because AA is dependent on remaining controversial and unique. This rogue brand persona might soon go out of style. I don’t think that being controversial is just a fad. Controversial companies, people, and products will probably always be a hot topic and in that sense American Apparel has found a way to be controversial without offending their consumers. If they can continue to do so, then these types of antics might not be hurtful to the company.

What I do see as an issue here is Charney’s blatant disregard for sexual harassment in the workplace. Although the American public enjoys a bit of bad-boy never-follows-the-rules charm, sexual harassment is a serious charge. The CEO needs to find a way to remain controversial without causing emotional harm to his employees. If he continues to harass those who work for his company, it will surely fail. 

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.