05/30

Increasingly, this seems to be a case facing the Bush administration over its allegations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the presence of Saddam Hussein in a bunker on the night the war opened.  It seems now that a palace compound, called Dora Farms, on the southern outskirts of Baghdad did not have an underground bunker.  At least a U.S. Army colonel can't find the bunker after diligent searching nor can the CIA.   So while four 2,000-pound bombs obliterated the building, it is unclear whether they struck anyone inside and whether Hussein was there.  No one can find bodies in the wreckage either. 

All this contributes to eroding credibility for the Bush administration's actions.  It hasn't become a chorus of complaint yet, but anyone who follows blogs and online news sites will note rising questioning about what the administration claimed and intelligence on which it relied.

While no one argues whether Hussein and his sons are bad people, the justification for the war is getting shaky.  The US appears more and more to be a bully rather than a country defending itself.

All this spotlights a fundamental PR premise.  Know the facts before you speak.  It may be the Bush administration was given "solid" data from intelligence sources that now looks not so firm.  As in all things, there is no way to know whether a report is true except by going to the site to check.  But, to check the US had to invade.  With checking underway, there must be some recrimination behind the scenes. 

One thing the US is doing, which is commendable, is making sure it verifies with strong evidence anything it finds in Iraq.  There have been several probables that have turned into nothing when checking was complete.  There is now only one highly suspect indication that Hussein could make biological weapons, and these are the two trailers discovered in the north of the country. 

Are two trailers enough to justify an invasion?  Only voters can decide that.  I suspect Bush's critics will ask questions loudly as the reelection campaign gets into full swing.  The administration had better be ready to defend its credibility.

05/29

I can only image that corporate communicators at the Times are in despair.  I also imagine Times editors are trying to remind reporters that public bickering only further hurts the reputation of the newspaper of record. 

No matter, the words keep coming and in no small measure various blog writers are joining in the bashing to get even with or defend the Times.  In one way, it is healthy because the Times had become "holier than thou" about its objectivity and approach to journalism, but in another way, the Times is digging a Public Relations pit that will take it time to get out of. 

Can normal PR activities like press releases and interviews help the Times recover?  Not until the war of words stops.  The first task is to get everyone refocused on journalism rather than fratricide.  This may take the head of one or more editors.

Perhaps because journalists are good at expressing themselves, publishing fights become public quickly and sides are taken rapidly.  This is clearly what happened at AOL TIme Warner where heads rolled at AOL from the bitterness over the decline in the company's stock price.  The public whisperings emanating from the corporate tower were ugly -- just like they are at the Times right now.  It was made worse because there were hints of mismanagement and fraud -- just like the Times right now. 

It will settle down, but I'm sure it can't go away fast enough for PR practitioners fielding phone calls at the Times.
 

05/28

For those of you who have not followed the case, the Times ran a correction a few days ago that acknowledged its top reporter, Rick Bragg, had used interns, freelancers and stringers to help report many of his stories, and these individuals should have shared a byline with him.  The Times suspended Bragg. 

Bragg protested.  He had followed all the rules, he said.  Moreover, the Times editors knew he was using interns, stringers and freelancers, which is an accepted custom, and it wasn't the Times policy to give bylines to interns, stringers and freelancers.  So who is in the wrong here?  On the surface, it looks like the Times changed the rules and newsmen are mystified why, especially why now when the paper is trying to regain credibility after being bamboozled by one of its own.

I don't have an answer for these questions nor am I going to speculate.  But Times management has shifted and made a proper act improper thereby placing someone who thought he was following the rules on the wrong side of them.  This happens frequently and someone always gets hurt who believes he or she is innocent. 

Think of smoking.  For hundreds of years, it was a proper to puff.  In the last 40 years, it has become a despised  habit and smokers are exiled to the doorways of buildings to suck on  "cancer sticks."  I 'm against smoking and I'm happy to have it outlawed, but on the other hand,  I'm old enough to remember when every Hollywood actor and actress exhaled clouds on the big screen, and one couldn't play jazz piano without a white stick hanging from his lip.  Or, think of fast food.  It was cool to go to McDonalds for decades.  It's dangerous now.  Or, more seriously, consider presidents and their actions.  What Clinton did with an intern is what Kennedy did to an intern.  No one thought much about it in Kennedy's time, but it got Clinton into trouble.

The scary part of shifting mores is that whenever there is a change, the reputations of individuals and organizations are at stake.  It makes no difference that they were in the mainstream before.  They aren't now, and they are pilloried in the present for actions tolerated in the past. 

The PR practitioner's job is all the more difficult because appealing to past mores is insufficient in light of present thinking.  Practitioners are thrust into the spotlight to defend individuals and companies who have few ways to defend themselves.  Saying "everybody did it," doesn't wash because there will always be someone who didn't,  and there are always critics who appoint themselves guardians of ethics. 

It seems the best one can do is to say  "I did it and I won't do it again."  But that begs the question of whether what I did was wrong or acceptable.  Rick Bragg is asking that question now.
 

05/27

See http://deancalltoaction.blogspot.com/

This blog carries daily details that will not be printed in a newspaper but demonstrate momentum -- something a candidate needs.  There is a daily entry, indicating that someone is paying close attention to the blog.  The entries are more than press releases but carry detail that supporters would want to know and give a "you-are-there" feeling -- e.g., how many people are showing for campaign appearances in New Hampshire and the look of the halls in which Dean is speaking.   There are news items too including announcements of new staff and advisors and the number of people who have signed to receive e-mail newsletters from Dean.

It's a solid use of blogging and something PR practitioners anywhere can get ideas from.  Judging by the use of this blog, one immediate corporate application is to maintain contact and coordination over far-flung operations.  For example, a multi-market promotion or marketing campaign could benefit from blogging as a  central point of contact for those working in the field.  A PR department with operations in multiple cities can benefit from blogging that lets everyone know what is going on.  (I can think of one company that could use this tool now because of its size.)  Staff involved in a product rollout obviously could use blogging to report how it is going from one sales point to another.  Blogging uses like these, of course, need to be on secure intranets and not open on the Web.

We have written before that blogs are useful and being used in serving customers.  For example, bloggers list the kinds of service calls and questions they are getting and provide tips and advice to users of their products.

The Dean campaign, whether successful or not, is charting a path to consider.
 

05/26

As a Vietnam Veteran, I can write about contempt.   When Vietnam veterans returned 30+ years ago, they were often treated badly for having done their duty in an unjust conflict.   Yet, for another unjust conflict recently concluded in Iraq, the soldiers are raised as heroes.  Vietnam veterans were victims of their time as are veterans of Iraq.

Thinking about it, however, it is best that we are ambivalent about the military.  It is the warlike nature of major powers that prove their undoing in the long run.  America is a young country, and it's chance of long-term survival will come not from projecting power so much as fostering peace and Democracy.   On the other hand, the world will never become a safe place.  There is evil, and it will continue to work its way generation after generation. 

Ambivalence comes from desire for good but recognition that we cannot depend on good intentions.  As a president once said, "Trust but verify." 

Those who gave their lives for this country were not all believers in the cause for which they fought and not heroes either.   They were people like us who caught a bullet, shrapnel or other instrument of death.  They may have been good citizens had they returned from war -- or not.  We can never know. 

What we remember is the tragedy of death suffered for a cause.  But by the nature of being a Democracy,  there is rarely unanimity about a cause for war.  There hasn't been since even before the country was formed.  There wasn't during the Civil War when the North and South split, and there were draft riots in New York City.  There wasn't and shouldn't have been in the Spanish-American War -- an unjust war if there ever was one.  So too for World Wars I and II, for Korea, Vietnam and now, Iraq. 

Yet, many of us went to war anyway because our country told us to do so.  (I could have gone to Canada.  I had a friend teaching there who left the country to avoid the draft.  I could have told the doctor who examined me that I had a reason to be 4F because the doctor gave me the option in the privacy of his office.  I could have gone in as a grunt and got out in two years. I went to Officer Candidate School and came out a Lieutenant.) 

Did I believe in the Vietnam conflict?  Not particularly.  I was conflicted listening to both sides.  I had no certainty about anything.  I decided that when in doubt, I would do what I was supposed to do.  It's hard to memorialize that.  It's harder to forget that I hid my military service on my resume for several years after leaving the army.  It's hardest of all to accept that some males my age who never served today claimed they did.  But that's all part of the ambivalence we have in this country about military power. 

I suppose I can memorialize that.