PR on the run

Not much I can add about the death of Tim Russert yesterday. Except that he represented the best of what we describe now as traditional journalism: honest, truthful, tough but fair. Those comments about Russert came from those who knew him, ranging from elected officials to fellow journalists.

I learned about his death on Twitter. And then headed to the TV and MSNBC.  So in less than a minute or so I made the journey from new media to old. Yet it struck me listening to the comments about Russert that there is still a deep regard and appreciation for journalism ethics. Maybe part of his legacy is to remind all of us about just how important the principles of honesty and truthful, fair reporting really all. Hope we don’t lose sight of that as journalism — and public relations/communications in general — continue to evolve.

And the portrait of Russert that emerges is of a man with integrity and character — who loved his job but put his family first. Can’t beat that.

Lots of stories and commentaries about Russert on the Web and elsewhere today. Here’s one on Politico.com that shows some highlights from Russert’s interviews over the years.

There are days when I just can’t wait to get out on the road at 5 a.m. for my five-mile run. Today was one of them. Perfect weather. And the prospect of having something interesting to think about: PRSA’s defense of professionalism in public relations.

I first noticed this when I checked my e-mail: “Urgent News From PRSA…” Sent at 10:05 Sunday night. (For my running friends, poets and most everyone else who could care less about this, PRSA stands for Public Relations Society of America.) Here’s the message: “PRSA today submitted a letter in response to a commentary on CBS Sunday Morning by legal analyst Andrew Cohen in which he challenged the integrity of the public relations profession.”

OMG. Have we really reached the point in this country where someone with a law degree is smug enough to question the integrity of anyone else? I digress. (But Cohen also has a degree in journalism; that moves him up a notch. I guess.)

Actually, this is an important issue — one that should be taken seriously. I’ve argued on this blog many times that ethics and professionalism form the foundation for public relations. And absent ethics and professionalism, public relations people end up like, well, Scott McClellan.

Here’s from Cohen’s commentary:

But in every tragic drama comes a moment of comedic Zen. And in L’Affair McClellan, that has come from the public relations community, where some now wonder whether the former flack violated the “ethics” of his craft.

Apparently, an industry the very essence of which is to try to convince people that a turkey is really an eagle has a rule that condemns lying.

The Public Relations Society of America states: “We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent…” This clause strikes me as if the Burglars Association of America had as its creed “Thou Shalt Not Steal.”

Show me a PR person who is “accurate” and “truthful,” and I’ll show you a PR person who is unemployed.

Ouch. I wonder if Cohen believes that all journalists are liars and plagarists in the mold of Jayson Blair? I digress again.

So I give PRSA credit for responding — although I believe that the organization should have denounced McClellan and taken a public stand on this issue — ethics and professionalism — when it first surfaced last week. Here’s from the PRSA statement by Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Julin:

Regarding your commentary on today’s CBS Sunday Morning, the Board of Directors of the Public Relations Society finds it imperative to affirm the professionalism of public relations practitioners and to take exception with what we regard as a misguided opinion. The PRSA Code of Ethics, to which all members pledge, embodies a strict set of guidelines defining ethical and professional practice in public relations. Professionals who meet the Code’s standards stand in stark contrast to the simplistic, erroneous characterization of the profession you presented.

Contrary to baseless assertions, truth and accuracy are the bread and butter of the public relations profession. In a business where success hinges on critical relationships built over many years with clients, journalists and a Web 2.0-empowered public, one’s credibility is the singular badge of viability. All professionals, including attorneys, accountants and physicians, aspire to ethical standards, and public relations professionals are no different, always striving for the ideal.

This is a great country. In the span of about 24 hours I’ve had the opportunity to write about the nadir of ethics (Scott McClellan) and the pinnacle of political correctness (Dunkin’ Donuts). And I don’t believe Rachael Ray is a terrorist. There. I’ve said it. Scott McClellan: If you know something I don’t about this Rachael Ray debacle — speak up now.

Anyway, here’s the story. Rachael Ray has been doing a series of ads for Dunkin’ Donuts. In the latest one, she was wearing a black-and-white scarf. The problem? Conservative Fox News talking head Michelle Malkin, and others, opined that the scarf looked like a keffiyeh, described in a Boston.com article, “Dunkin’ Donuts yanks Rachael Ray ad,” as a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.

Here’s from the article:

Some observers, including ultra-conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin, were so incensed by the ad that there was even talk of a Dunkin’ Donuts boycott.

‘‘The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,’’ Malkin yowls in her syndicated column.

‘‘Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.’’

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be easier just to yank the ad.

Oh, mama. I wonder what Starbucks would have done?

Adrants puts this fiasco into historical context. Yet it troubles me that Dunkin’ Donuts would cave on this — especially at a time when it appears that we can’t get any honest answers from our own government about the “war on terrorism.” And when companies are lined up to sponsor the Summer Olympics in a country that should raise some concerns beyond who is wearing a black-and-white scarf.

Well, I guess what I am saying is that I would stand next to Rachael Ray on this one even if she were wearing nothing. Ah, that didn’t come out exactly right. But you get the point.

And then there is Scott McClellan. Plenty of articles to read today if you are interested in him and his book. But here’s the lead from a story that was on the front page of the Akron Beacon Journal this morning:

From Beacon Journal wire services
WASHINGTON: In a White House full of Bush loyalists, none was more loyal than Scott McClellan, the bland press secretary who spread the company line for all the government to follow each day. His word, it turns out, was worthless, his confessional memoir a glimpse into Washington’s world of spin and even outright deception.

Gee, wonder what Michele Malkin and her counterparts believe is the bigger threat to our country and democracy. A White House press secretary who can’t tell the truth — or a celebrity who is wearing a scarf in a Dunkin’ Donuts ad?

WTF

It appears that former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan wants to tell the truth. Finally. Here’s my reaction: What took you so long? I guess that another thought that comes to mind is douche bag. But I digress.

McClellan has written a book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.” Michael D. Shear, writing in The Washington Post this morning (”Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq“):

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by President Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”

McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception,” that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a “lack of inquisitiveness,” says the White House operated in “permanent campaign” mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president’s inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative’s name.

OK. Ho-hum. Is there a thinking person anywhere in the world that doesn’t believe this to be true — and who hasn’t come to the same conclusion months maybe years before now? (And if you are interested in more detail about McClellan and his book, which apparently goes on sale next week, here’s an article by Mike Allen on Politico.com, “Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House.”

The question is where was McClellan when all this was taking place? When he was getting paid as the public voice/face of the administration? I expect that being White House press secretary is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. Every comment counts. Small mistakes matter. You are expected to be knowledgeable on a host of very complex domestic and international issues. And in theory at least you are dealing daily with some of the best and most experienced reporters in the world. I wouldn’t want the job. And I doubt that I could do it.

Yet McClellan wanted it. Doesn’t that job come with some obligation to tell the truth? To serve the American people as well as the administration? And if so, why didn’t he say or do something when events were unfolding — not years later after the damage has been done? I don’t know. He’s not alone in this. And it’s unfair to focus on Scott McClellan given the administration’s record for openness and honestly in total.

Yet we talk about truth, ethics and professionalism a lot in public relations. Wouldn’t it be great for the public to see some examples of these principles in action in a venue where they really should matter?

Instead, here is the view that many see — and I believe it helps shape an overall negative opinion of public relations and public relations professions. It’s a clip from the Imus in the Morning program.

Anyway, I expect that McClellan will be a guest now on all the talk shows promoting the book. Since I know the talking head hosts are busy these days, here two questions I would ask the former press secretary.

If you knew all this at the time, why didn’t you say something publicly? Or resign?

Gee, then we might have had some open and honest discussions at a time when they actually mattered.

Got back from my morning run a few hours ago. And figured that with nothing more productive to do I might as well catch up on some reading. Glad I did as I found two articles that are particularly revealing about the state of the news media today — and tomorrow.

First is the Media Notes column by Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post this morning, “Post Buyouts Come with an Emotional Cost.“

The Washington Post like many (most?) newspapers are cutting staff these days — and shifting resources from print to online editions. Without question, tough for the people involved, although at The Washington Post softened by voluntary buyouts. Probably not as good for thousands of journalists and related staff at other newspapers.

But here’s the point. We’re seeing a major shift in the newspaper industry. The question is whether in the long run it is going to be positive from the standpoint of those who believe, like me, that a strong, vigorous press still matters in this country. Kurtz writes:

“I know, I know. The future is digital. The Web is a cornucopia of fast-moving video and blogs and bulletins and gossip, while newspapers are old, slow and less than hip. That’s why The Post (and every other paper on the planet) is beefing up its online presence and why I write a daily blog for the Web site.

“But — and stop me if you’ve heard this one — newspapers matter. There isn’t a Web site around that can produce the probing work, such as the exposé of shoddy conditions at the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center, that won The Post six Pulitzer Prizes this year. The economics of the Web, for now, won’t support a staff that can hold public officials accountable across the region and still cover every Nationals game. So I cling to an old-fashioned, almost mystical belief in the power of ink on paper.”

As I mentioned in this blog many times, young people no longer read newspapers. From my experience with them in the classroom, they are informed and interested in events. But they get their news from other sources. In the column, Kurtz writes:

“In one sense, the Web is a blessing. Daily circulation for the newsprint Post, now 673,000, may be down from 813,000 in 2000, but we are drawing an eye-opening 9.4 million unique visitors online each month, 85 percent of them from outside the D.C. circulation area. Those readers don’t bring in the cash that print subscribers do — given the gotta-be-free mentality of the Web — but they do expand our reach.”

But with the Web comes a different style of reporting — and the ability for even obscure stories to gain major significance and readers. That’s the point in the second article — in Politico, “Media Hype: How small stories become big news,” by John F. Harris. Wish I would have had the opportunity to use this one in my ethics class.

Anyway, it focuses on the current flap involving Hillary Clinton and the remark in an interview that she made about Robert F. Kennedy. Harris writes:

“This weekend’s uproar over Hillary Rodham Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child — overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience.

“The truth about what Clinton said — and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant — was entirely beside the point.

“Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than with being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of The New York Times, was the lead story of The Washington Post and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC.”

Ouch. But accurate. And I’m not making an excuse for Clinton or her remarks. The same thing happened to Obama a few weeks ago when a blogger posted his comments about the “bitter” middle class. Were/are either — or both? — campaign-defining statements at this point?

Yet from Harris, here’s the point:

“Once, the elite papers and network news set the agenda, and others followed suit, following up on what these establishment pillars deemed important.

“Now it’s just the opposite. The conservative old voices increasingly take their cues from the newer, more daring ones.”

Maybe in the long run that will be better. More voices. More openness. But something tells me that Kurtz has a point. You don’t lose a 100 staffers at a newspaper like The Washington Post without it making a difference.

Oh by the way. This shift in news coverage has some major implications for those of us in public relations. Think about it. The era of the “one-day” story is over. And today even a so-called minor story about your organization can lead to major coverage and discussion. Are we ready to deal with a Clinton/Obama-type story? Oh, my.

Is there any group more self-righteous than reporters and editors? Particularly when comparing themselves to public relations professionals.

I was thinking about that this morning as I ran in a cold rain — again. Oh, well. I guess spring will be here soon. And what triggered this was a blog post I came across yesterday written by Ron Kaye, “A quiet revolution of the silenced majority…” Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News.

Kaye focuses on some important points ranging from the decline (collapse?) of the “watchdog” press to the growth of the Internet and the promise this has to reinvent news coverage. That’s a gross oversimplification of a very thoughtful post. And overall I agree with him. This is an important subject. Please take the time to read it.

But here’s what bugs me. It’s the view that journalism is “a noble calling” — and if that doesn’t work out for whatever reason, then an option is just to slither over to a public relations job and enjoy the good life while apparently checking your integrity and ethics at the office door.  (My comment in italic.) And up until recently, many went into journalism because they didn’t want to work in business. Now they’re discovering it is a business and well, oh, my. I digress as usual.

Here’s from Kaye’s post:

Some of us with an excess of passion also formed an underground. We pushed the rules of corporate journalism to the edges and took our chances. Sometimes we went too far, sometimes we succumbed to alcoholism, or gave up and joined the fraternity of public manipulators in the world of public relations experts, lobbyists and political staff.

The collapse of newspapers in particular and news media in general that’s now under way has robbed even the most diehard journalists I know of all illusion. The game is up. At my former paper, four great journalists have quit in just a few weeks — all for public relations where they will earn a much better living, have more fun and salve their wounds knowing there is life after your dream is over.

Soon, a friend said recently, there will be no journalists left for all the p.r. types to manipulate.

Ron, c’mon. Give us a break. Most public relations professionals are honest, ethical and hard-working. They contribute to an understanding of public issues. And if journalists are that easily manipulated by the PR people who don’t have a sense of dealing with the public and the news media honestly and ethically — then journalism is in bad shape. Maybe worse than most of us imagine.

We need a strong, independent press. We need reporters and editors to question those in government, business, education, etc. I get a sense — perhaps unfairly — when reading comments like yours that this isn’t happening all that much these days.  Too bad. This country sure doesn’t need journalistic cheerleaders who salute and shout, “mission accomplished.”

And I don’t think it is a bad thing for more journalists to take jobs in public relations. I just hope they do it for the right reason: be an advocate for your organization but do it in a way that is honest and ethical. I think everyone wins under those conditions.

I’ll admit that I don’t know the exact definition of “spin” — from a public relations perspective. I guess it’s trying to put a smile face on everything. And I’m sure that during 30 years in corporate public relations I was as guilty of trying that (on occasion?) as the next guy.

But I have to say that I had a good laugh when I heard President Bush on the CNN news last night. He said we weren’t in a recession. We were just facing a slowdown. Well, I don’t know. I guess it is a matter of words — and in the case of the president — trust and credibility. How does the saying go? When your neighbor loses her job (or home) it’s a recession. When you lose yours it’s a depression.

Well, I clearly can’t figure it out. Maybe David Letterman can. Here goes.

Seriously folks. The problem is that most of us no longer believe what the president or members of his administration says. With little or no trust and credibility, it looks like all they have left is spin. Maybe words do matter.

The weather here in Northeast Ohio really has been great these past few days. So I’m off the treadmill and back on the concrete for my morning runs. And without a garbage truck in sight this morning I had plenty of time to think about a few things. Here goes.

The New York Times printed an extensive article Sunday that raises some important questions. Namely, are the military pundits — those distinguished talking heads — that we see regularly on TV in bed with the Pentagon and defense contractors? Howard Kurtz looked at that situation in The Washington Post Monday. And Editor & Publisher opined yesterday as well. If true, guess who is getting screwed.

The New York Times article, “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” is a long one. And you’ll need to read it to really understand the context for this next paragraph. But it will give you a sense for the story.

“Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used these analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.”

We spend a lot of time in my ethics class at Kent State talking about trust. If the allegations are true, then our trust in the administration and the news media takes another hit. It’s amazing that decision-makers can’t learn this lesson. Or maybe they don’t want to. And in this situation you would think that proper and timely disclosure would be all that is necessary. I’m sure I’m missing something.

But saying that — I wonder why it took The New York Times (or some other newspaper) five years to figure out that these retired military pooh-bahs might have conflicts of interest or be likely to receive special treatment by the Pentagon in return for special treatment on the airwaves? McCain’s right. This is going to be a 100-year war. Particularly if the few remaining strong media outlets — The Times, etc. — don’t have the resources or interest to question everything about this debacle in Iraq.

Then maybe The Times isn’t so strong financially anymore. An article in the New York Post yesterday focused on the rumors that The Times might be receptive to hooking up with Bloomberg LP. The article says:

“Bloomberg [New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg] aides are reportedly encouraging him to consider merging financial-information giant Bloomberg LP with the Times, which is under pressure from dissident shareholders to revive ad sales and unload assets to boost its sagging share price.”

So it goes.

Oh, boy. Just as I am getting ready to retire from teaching at Kent State here comes a whole host of job opportunities. And maybe I will be rewarded for all the lonely hours I’ve spent cranking out copy for this blog.

It seems that companies are starting to hire “chief bloggers.” “Does Your Company Need a Chief Blogger?” That’s the headline for an Advertising Age article, published April 14. Here’s the beginning:

To blog or not to blog?

It’s a question marketers are still grappling with years after the first waves of corporate blogging flooded the web. But for better or worse, it seems corporate blogging — and the title of chief blogger — is beginning to hit its stride. Companies such as Coca-Cola, Marriott and Kodak all have recently recruited chief bloggers, with or without the actual title, to tell their stories and engage consumers.

I’m most likely missing the big picture here. But I recall having a job like this –”tell their stories and engage consumers” — 35 years ago. It was called newsletter editor.

I’m OK with having someone at a senior level advising management about communication strategy and techniques — with blogging included in the mix. And in fairness the article does get into this; it’s worth reading if you are interested in all of this or if you are considering a blog for your organization.

Here’s my take on all this. I understand how blogging can become an important part of the marketing mix if done effectively and ethically. And I guess a chief blogger could type his/her fingers off addressing sales (oops, meant marketing) and related subjects. Bob Lutz appears to gain high marks for this at General Motors. Although it hasn’t helped the share price much — or the employees who are trying to figure out whether it is better to take a buyout or stick around with the prospect of being laid off. I digress.

But if the corporation wants to opine on subjects covered by timely disclosure regulations, then the chief blogger better be the CEO. And that’s why blogs are never going to be a primary communications tool for publicly traded corporations — if you accept the idea, as I do, that blogs are really only beneficial when they lead to an exchange of views and information. Or, dare I say it, two-way communication?

The Advertising Age article says that today just more than 11 percent of Fortune 500 companies have corporate blogs, according to SocialText, and only a handful have a designated chief blogger.

Wonder if GE has a blog and a designed chief blogger? If so, I would like to know what the company’s sales and earnings forecasts are for the next several quarters. That way, my retirement savings accounts won’t take such a big hit — like last week — when GE reported lower-than-expected earnings.

And if AT&T blogs — think I could get an answer to my question about how much they are willing to pay for qualified customer service personnel? No response as yet (or ever) from the media relations staff.

Also, Jonathan Schwartz, the CEO/President of Sun Microsystems, is always mentioned in these articles and in every book about blogging. Maybe he is the best example — or the only one. I don’t know. But as a long-suffering shareholder, is there any chance he could take an occasional break from blogging and do something to increase shareholder value?

Chief blogger. Nah. Probably better off as a newsletter editor.

Oh, mama. Can it get any worse than this? The buzz in the community where I live is that a Super Wal-Mart is coming. Super.

The Akron Beacon Journal mentioned this last week — although admitting it is still in the rumor stage. But it is likely. I live in a suburb of Akron, Copley. And Copley is adjacent to Montrose — which is basically these days a parking lot of cars inching toward either Akron or Medina. When we moved here 15 some years ago, this was a scenic rural community. So it goes. Long gone are the small businesses that add character to a community.

But the public relations point is this. Why does Wal-Mart have such a bad reputation? Very few of us really embrace change. Yet in my ethics class at Kent State, I ask students early in the semester what company they consider to be unethical. Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart. Not even a close second. And this “reputation” makes it very difficult for the locals to get enthusiastic about a Super Wal-Mart down the street, in what was previously a pristine environment. Better we would get a Super Starbucks. Just kidding.

So who knows what will happen. A Wal-Mart spokesman says the company has not bought any property as yet. But the Beacon Journal indicated that property could be acquired by third parties.

Alert the poets.