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.

Domino's Pizza Dilemma

In the spring of 2009, Domino’s Pizza became the target of a gross video made by two employees at a store in Conover, North Carolina. They filmed them selves doing gross things to the ingredients they were serving to their customers, which they then posted to YouTube. By the next day, the video had gone viral and hit a million views. 

I think Domino’s handed the public relations fallout correctly, by initiating contact with those talking about the video through the social media outlets they were using. It would have been a poor choice for them to have responded through their own website or through print or news media. But they had the right idea addressing consumers concerns and issues directly and through their own blogs, was the right decision. However, Domino’s should have taken the time to listen to every type of discussion about the video. Creating an account on NetVibes.com or a similar social media listening dashboard would have been an easy way for them to keep track of the many different mediums being used to discuss the video.

Besides ignoring the importance of Twitter, I think Domino’s had a good plan for dealing with issue, because giving too much attention to a video before it becomes viral will only elevate the amount of discussion about it. If however, they had seen how the video was blowing up on Twitter then they might have been able to respond to those comments individually and stopped the video from spreading further.

Once they finally did see the importance of Twitter they did exactly what one would hope. They started their own account and started tweeting articles about the incident and responding to customers.

I think that there probably won’t be any long-term impact on the Dominos brand, although people might think twice about who’s delivering their pizza. But in all reality, Domino’s customers will probably forget and let it go. After all, it was only two employees that created the video. So although it looks bad for the company, I would assume that most customers would not hold them responsible. 

Larry Craig's tap shoes.

In June 2007, Senator Larry Craig was arrested for suggesting to an under cover police officer for disorderly conduct. The officer stated that Craig had peeked through the bathroom stall and tapped his foot to suggest that he wanted to engage in “lewd conduct.” When he was charged he signed a guilty plea and later attempt to reverse it.

From a public relations standpoint, it was too late. The damage had been done. Once he pled guilty it changed the way that the public—and the senate—perceived the situation. I would explain that removing the guilty plea would solely be for legal purposes, and that if he did remove the plea he would be going back on his word. He would seem wishy-washy and the public would assume that he was a liar. You can’t plead guilty and then take it back without the public assuming that you were guilty in the first place. 

I do understand that there are reasons why someone might plead guilty even if they weren’t, but a Senator should know better.

I believe that Craig should have considered the repercussions far before pleading guilty. But after he had pled guilty I would have advised that he move onto the case and get it over with as quickly as possible, to minimize the time that his name spent in the headlines.

If I was Craig’s lawyer however, I would have advised a completely different plan. If Craig was solely considering this from a legal standpoint, it would be better to go ahead and plead not guilty and give the jury and judge the ability to decide.

I believe than the mistake that was made here was the guilty plea. If he could have avoided this then the sex sting might not have been so harsh and the appeal wouldn’t have made Craig look as indecisive. All around, I think the best decision for him would have been to go the way that he had been going in the beginning. When he announced plans to resign in September and not finish his third term.  Regardless of sexual orientation, the unsolicited conduct that occurred in an airport bathroom was not the sort for any senator. And the right thing to do, to earn the most respect, would be to have backed down and admitted wrong doing. 

What Happened, Scott?

                  George W. Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan was one of the weakest in history. Bush loyally transferred McClellan with him from Texas to Washington D.C. when he was elected. But when McClellan  left his position he started pointing fingers at Bush in his instant best-seller, “What Happened.”

                  I understand the idea that McClellan had an ethical responsibility to reveal what happened in the White House, but his timing was all wrong. If McClellan had truly just wanted to reveal what happened behind closed doors, he could have released that information during his time as a press secretary, not after Fox News broadcaster Tony Snow had replaced him. And if that really was the only reason, which I highly doubt, then he would not have released it as a memoir that gained him profit. If McClellan thought that Bush’s campaign relied on “ propaganda” to sell the war in Iraq, was “terribly off course” in war policy, was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing. Then why didn’t he tell Bush that? Why didn’t he show Bush the ways that he could have improved his campaign? And if Bush didn’t listen, then McClellan needed to share that information with the public right then—not years down the road.

         If anything I think McClellan should have remained loyal to Bush. Saying one thing during his position and then turning around and saying the opposite after he was “relieved” of his duties, made McClellan, as well as the Bush administration, look dishonest. There is no more room for dishonesty in public relations. PR is supposed to create transparency, so that we can truly see what public entities are about. Public relations is already receiving a bad rap because of recent scandals in the media. In reality, PR is the opposite of lying; it’s showing the public the truth. But for most, I think the words truth and PR have no relation to one another.

         Either way, McClellan is still being dishonest, but if he remained loyal to Bush at least his future clients would have seen him as loyal. Now how will his clients know that he will not trash talk them in front of the entire nation after he has worked with them. They won’t; and his career in PR will probably suffer from that. 

Hillary's double crossed again

          In the spring of 2008, Democratic presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton’s chief advisor, Mark Penn, was involved in a heated controversy that landed him in the media’s spotlight. The Colombian government hired his public relations counseling firm to help them pass a free-trade pact. This was in direct conflict with Clinton’s stance—which opposed the pact. And when Clinton’s competitors saw the chance, they jumped on it.

         Penn should have quickly seen the conflict of interest and refused to work on the Colombian account. He was working against himself, trying to oppose the pact and confirm the pact at the same time. It not only made him look like a hypocrite, but his clients as well. Although having both of these large accounts could be very tempting, if you are CEO of a public relations agency you should know that it is important to keep affiliations separate, and that devotion to your clients is extremely important.

         I have always been a strong believer that you should admire the company that you work for. If you don’t agree with what your organization or clients are saying or doing and don’t think that you could stand behind their morals, then that’s not the right place for you. Particularly from a public relations standpoint where you have to show your clients in their best light and champion them to public, you have to be honest about who they are and what they are about. And if you don’t believe in them, then you will have to be dishonest. And in PR, honesty is key.

         Penn’s decision to juggle both a public relations firm and a political candidate campaign was probably not the best choice, because political candidates are notoriously black-and-white on many key issues. The odds of all of your firm’s clients and the candidate’s interests not overlapping would be very slim. In order to represent both without conflict or inattention would be a very difficult job to manage.