Vy Blog

More on keyboard cowards: I wish I had written these two pieces

Oh, man, how do I.  On my pet issue of keyboard cowards, the get-a-life people who descend immediately into the mud with the launch of the first comment.

John Wagner puts it more intelligently than I have in more than half a dozen attempts at it:

We are "word police," always on the lookout for something that we don't like, something we can criticize.

That type of attitude is a major detriment to true communication, and a real reason why so many companies/organizations/people are afraid to truly dialog with others.

Most importantly, it takes a medium that has great potential to increase understanding and help people find common ground -- the internet -- and turns it into one big shouting match, with no one really learning anything other than how to pick apart another's point of view.

Exactly, John.  It's like a Jerry Springer show.

John makes reference to this piece from Dorian Lynskey, the British music critic, who got a whoopin' for daring to criticize Bruce Springsteen.  Oh the humanity.  Lynskey writes:

The most belligerent voices on the blogs speak with either a weary, condescending sneer or a florid pomposity redolent of Ignatius J Reilly in A Confederacy of Dunces. If, as they imply, their taste is flawless and their intellect mighty, then perhaps they could find a better use for these prodigious gifts than taking potshots on websites. Just a thought.

Why am I so exercised about this?  Because it's such a giant waste of potential.  What could be valuable and helpful ends up an exercise in defensiveness and anger. 

And any of you who disagree with me obviously have not read what I wrote.

I think Kevin Murphy is on to us

Kevin Murphy is bureau chief for Computerwire in San Francisco.  (Disclosure: He's covered the industry I'm currently involved in.)  He knows his crap and has a ferocious wit, as you'll see.

He writes a post today about "How to Blag an Interview" that will look not only familiar, but exactly familiar to, oh, about every single PR agency operative of the most recent generations.  In my opinion, it should be required reading for the next several to follow -- it shows how staid, predictable and all-too-full-of-pretense briefings have become.

This is uncomfortable to me as well because I've conducted briefings like this one.  Many times.  But I hope my thinking has evolved now to the point I can find my way clear to do something more valuable for both sides involved.

What would be better?  How about a conversation?  One where there's genuine listening going on, where everyone in the room asks smart questions about what's interesting to the other?  How about some brainstorming on what the journalist wants to cover, and where he can find some useful resources? 

And here's a barn-burner: How about doing this before you ever launch a product?

Angry DAs Battle Press on the Web

The legal arena is a tricky place to do PR, since public statements can so often have an impact -- appropriately or not -- on the outcome of a case.  Most lawyers tend to make very carefully scripted public statements about cases so as not to contaminate what's happening in the courtroom.

Except for these people.  A group of district attorneys in California are angry with newspaper reporters they believe are -- to put it mildly -- incorrectly covering their cases.  So what are they doing about it?  Going to the web and publishing their side of the story.  Example:

[Kern County District Attorney Edward Jagels] launched what he promised to be a weekly column on the county government's Web page called "Every Lie They Print," taking on the Bakersfield Californian's crime reporting.

Jagels was particularly upset by reporting of the appellate reversal of a murder conviction based on a prosecutor withholding from the defense negative details about an informant in the case.

Jagels said that if the honesty and integrity of police and the district attorney's office is "maligned through innuendo and scandal mongering, it is essential that I comment."

The paper has written about Jagels' Web site and pointed readers to it from the Californian's Web site. There are mixed feelings about it in the newsroom, according to Assistant Managing Editor Lois Henry.

"There are people here who feel this is a breathless abuse of power by a very, very powerful man ... . Others in the newsroom think it is an interesting exchange that we would not be able to do without the technology," Henry said.

Elsewhere in the story it alludes to the worn but still generally useful advice not to argue with people who buy ink by the barrel.  Translated, that says of course: "Newspapers speak to everyone at once.  You can't, so don't try -- it's not that you're right or wrong, it's that you can't win."

Is that the case any longer?  If the balance isn't equal, it's getting closer to equal.  To refute the journalist's side of the story, you just publish your own web page.  More and more people are bound to see it. 

The question at that point becomes which has more of the objective facts on its side.  Traditionally you would assume the journalist does, thanks to its heritage as a de facto public advocate.  As I've said many a time, I admire journalism and journalists, but objectively I would say there's growing perception that agenda-free journalism ain't what it used to be.  (There's a very good example of that here.)

I have heard of companies, when convinced they're about to be hatcheted by a broadcast story, will hire their own camera crew and film the interview right alongside the journalists.  If they don't like the shading of the edited story, they'll publish the interview on a web page as a way to present their side of the story and, one would presume, expose the bias of the journalist.

I don't know that this is a great way to build media relationships, and I don't think, generally speaking, that I would counsel a client to take up that sword.  I find it particularly interesting that the ease of tool usage makes everyone capable of presenting a point of view, and that it's going to further impact the way journalism, and media relations, are practiced.

The discussion of what we don't know about

The NYC plane crash: 

We all know the "news" is distorted.  Coverage of the Lidle accident is another example.  It distresses me particularly because I have a pilot's license and know about the flight rules that apply to different areas.

The truth is that aircraft of many types regularly fly without talking to air traffic control.  In good weather (under what's known as VFR, or visual flight rules), pilots take the primary responsibility for "separation," or staying out of each others' way.  It is perfectly safe.  In very congested places, even near more than one very busy airport, you'd be surprised at how well this works.  In fact, it works incredibly well overall. 

As usual, we don't get all exercised about something that works well nearly 100% of the time until it doesn't work one time.

How many reports on the news have you seen where the reporter, in mock amazement, says, "Lidle wasn't even talking with controllers!"  Well, stupid, he wasn't required to, and you don't know enough about what you're reporting to know what kind of impact an ATC contact requirement would have.  Here are two I can think of right away:  1) The load on controllers in the busiest air corridor in the US would go way up, with little discernable benefit.  2) You would impede a lot of commercial activity -- there are hundreds of thousands of arrivals and departures per year in and out of Manhattan by helicopters alone.  Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.

The primary duty for ATC is to handle separation of IFR (instrument flight rules -- mostly commercial) aircraft, and in a list of descending priorities, separation of VFR aircraft is literally at the bottom.

The solution here in my mind is to not close off the airspace.  The solution is to have pilots who know what they're doing fly in that airspace, and pilots who don't to stay out of it.

I'm sure someone is saying that somewhat effectively, but s/he's being well-drowned by the hysteria.

Now, how does this relate to reporting?  Like this:  Heat does not resolve issues.  Light does.  Heat agitates.  Light does not.  Of course, heat is good for ratings, which is good for advertising, which is good for revenue.  I don't have a lot of hope for light over heat. 

So, if that's the case, and if we as news consumers continue to decide to use hysteria as the input for our decision-making, then the "garbage in, garbage out" rule applies very fully.  We'll end up with knee-jerk resolutions that might make some people feel better, but in reality won't help at all.

What always bugs me about situations like this is the discussion of what isn't known.  You may know that you can fly VFR below 1,100 feet around Manhattan, clear of LaGuardia airspace, but you may not know why that's safe.  You're assuming it's not, when in reality you don't know.  And presenting that in an incredulous, know-it-all way does not help anyone at all.

Playing Texas Hold'em with a monkey

Thanks to Jarvis, a great YouTube link to what should be an uncomfortable truth not just for journalists, but for us idiots that consume some of this "reporting."

Video here.

The story, only the story, nothing but the story

Last Sunday, a vintage jet crashed during the Hillsboro Airshow and destroyed a few houses on the ground.  The pilot was killed but no one was in any of the houses affected.

There's a link here to a local news story about it.  It's the local news issue I'm writing about.

I'll go ahead and begrudge local broadcast news a bit, because it looks to me like much of the time they frankly are reaching hard for relevance, if not resorting to outright stupidity.  (Live!  Late-breaking!  Investigative!)  There are four main network affiliates in Portland, and they were each on the air for a couple of hours solid, saying absolutely nothing more than, "A plane crashed, the pilot was killed, three homes are on fire, but no one was in any of them."  That's all the news there was.

That of course does not stop the search for self-relevance.  For two hours, there was no letup in either repetition of the above four or, worse, an endless stream of people who saw the plane struggle before it disappeared behind a grove of trees between the airport and the crash site -- each of whom told precisely the same story which added nothing of value.

I'm perfectly aware, of course, of the emotions that drive this kind of thing.  But have you noticed how much we can make out of something we know nothing about?  Next time you see a breaking story -- and this could be on local or network, anywhere -- pay attention to whether or not the anchor and reporters say "we don't know."  It's probably a lot. 

It really hit me between the eyes first right after the Supreme Court ruling in the 2000 election, when ABC went directly on the air to their legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin who, when asked by Peter Jennings for the result of the ruling, said, "Hold on, Peter...if you'll just give me a moment to read the ruling..."  Jennings awkwardly obliged, trying to fill the time between leaping onto the air and actually having a fact to report. 

It's happening more and more frequently, sometimes disastrously. 

Jeff Jarvis would have a lot more to add to this thought, but the fact of the matter is that today we have so many ways to get our information, local broadcast is feeling the head of competition and doesn't know how to respond.  So instead of self-critique or thoughtful exploration, you get more gimmick, overreach and we-caught-him-red-handed "journalism."

And I'm not putting all the blame on the talking heads, either.  We've lost our appetite for actual news in favor of entertaining sensation.

Hold on loosely, but don't let go

Hold on loosely, but don't let go
If you cling to tightly, you're gonna lose control

I've been ugly slammed since returning from the excellent NewCommForum last week -- kudos to Elizabeth and Jen for putting on a great event.

There's a ton to try to post about what we all learned there, and others are doing it much faster and with better articulation than I.  But if I were to summarize my biggest takeaway, it's the same as the lines from those wild-eyed Southern boys above.  If you're going to succeed in today's PR environment -- really do good work -- you're going to have to get comfortable with who's in charge.  And it ain't you.

Before, your company was in the middle, sending messages outward.  "Command and control," as it's known.  There was no Internet, no technology as a field for lightning-fast information and impression sharing.  Today, you have exactly that -- and your "targets" use it to talk with one another about you and your product.

That scares most practitioners, and it should, a little.  The idea of ceding a position of control is uncomfortable.  Here's the hitch:  You're not in control any more.  The customers are.  Go ahead and be a little apprehensive, but don't be scared -- this is an opportunity, as well.

Why?  Because in addition to each other, they're trying to talk to you, too.  Don't fret, it's not all going to be bad -- if you don't take it personally, the customer will lead you closer to the promised land than you've ever been if you'll only listen.  How?  By telling you exactly what they want.  By virtue of talking with you, they're already saying: "I think you can probably solve my pain.  Here's what I want.  If you get to work and treat me with some respect, I'll come buy it from you."

Always the case?  Of course not.  Predominantly the case?  Probably.  Certainly this is the trend in marketing communication today.

If you don't engage, you're going to look slow, dull and stupid.  Think Jeff Jarvis and Dell.  If you do engage, you look nimble, smart and sharp.  Think Howard Dean before he went off the deep end.

In a very good presentation, Elizabeth pointed out very astutely again what we've been hearing for a while:  Trust in institutions is weak.  Consumer experience teaches this -- often we're treated poorly by the company itself.  Consumers trust messages from each other more.  That means they're looking to each other as the authority on the product, not the company -- so if you're in the company's shoes, you have to give up some message control, close your mouth on occasion, open your ears, and have an actual back-and-forth.

If you do that, honestly and with authenticity (oh, and you actually have a kick-ass product), the customers will speak with the authority you need for validation.  And sales.  This is the new direction of marketing.  And it's a lot of fun.

Other huge benefit:  Meeting so many great people (and that's just a few of them) interested in contributing to the success of others.  Trading ideas, telling client stories, learning from one another, laughing and enjoying a collaborative atmosphere.

Natural fit

Ted Koppel joins NPR.

Sago and the media

Daily News reporter Derek Rose gives a journalist's side of the story here about the coal mine disaster.

I don't agree with everything, but I'm very glad to get a reporter's perspective.

Clothes apparently make the Governor

Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco's flunkies -- like FEMA Director Mike Brown's -- fussed over her image as she tried to project control over the disaster.  Apparently further to work their image, they also apparently considered how many and what color of people should be let in/out of the state:

WASHINGTON -- In the days after Hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's staff fretted about her public image, with her press secretary worrying that the governor looked more like a "first lady" than a "John Wayne" as she marshaled the response to the nation's worst natural disaster, e-mails released by a House investigative committee today show.

The committee released the electronic communications just two days before Blanco was scheduled to appear before it to offer her first public accounting to Congress of the state's much-criticized preparation for and response to the disaster.

A committee spokesman said the e-mails demonstrated a preoccupation with image and political concerns as the state struggled to evacuate stranded storm victims.

In one e-mail, Blanco's assistant chief of staff, Johnny Anderson, complained to her executive counsel and other staff members on Sept. 2 about the Federal Emergency Management Agency's evacuation of thousands of Louisianans to other states.

"I think that we should make every effort to keep as many of our evacuees in state as possible," Anderson wrote.

"It is not acceptable to allow FEMA to send more people out of state than in state. That will come back to haunt us," he said. "You send that many black folks out of state, we will have a perception problem. Why can't we make every effort to send folk to the northern part of the state. Word is already (sic) that we are only sending blacks out of this state. We are make (sic) a strategic error. FEMA will not have to answer the people, we will."

It gets even more ridiculous here:

Kim Fuller of Witt and Associates, who Blanco hired to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, on Sept. 5 weighed in with, "Gov. Blanco reminds me of the classy Elizabeth Dole," the U.S. senator from North Carolina who is married to the 1996 GOP presidential candidate, Bob Dole.

Fuller continued, "Gov. Blanco might dress down a bit and look like she has rolled up her sleeves. I have some great Liz Claiborne sports clothes that look kind of Eddie Bauer, but with class."

Fuller recommended Blanco wear "rough-looking shoes."

"Have you consider that she doing something 'physical' while she is out with" U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Fuller wrote. "Maybe if she is with the troops she can put a few bags of ice in the hands of the citizens who need it."

Other advice appeared designed to bolster Blanco's public image in the midst of the crisis.

"Please put KBB (Blanco) in casual clothes, a baseball cap, etc. . . she needs to visit a shelter in prime time and talk tough but hug on some folks and be sensitive," wrote Liz Mangham of Southern Strategy Group of Louisiana in a message to a Blanco aide on Sept. 2.

"She looks tired but too comfy in her suit," Mangham wrote. "Just some thoughts to try to help. ... In fact, please put the secretaries in caps and jeans. ... I don't care if they are in the field or not ... they should look like they are."

Even Carl Hebert with the state's emergency preparedness office could not help but give clothing advice. He stated in an Aug. 29 e-mail how well Blanco looked "in a dashing blue business suit" before continuing with his morning report on the number of fatalities and other situations that occurred overnight.

Clearly, much of this "released" information is meant for political purposes.  Still, I guess we could 1) all be surprised, 2) demand a recall vote, and 3) declare ourselves officially outraged.  I'd prefer to know how others in PR view this.  Two options come to mind:

• This kind of thing is shallow and unworthy of public officials.  Who gives a crap how you're dressed as long as you're working 25 hours a day getting people helped and rescued and fed?
• Au, contraire.  We may want to say image management is shallow and vapid, but in fact it's an important part of projecting authority.  You might be working your so hard you can barely stand up, but if you dress like a queen, you'll lack the believeability and authority necessary in that situation, and that in fact can cause further problems and chaos.

Or, probably, there's a reasonable in between.  Dress in between, then forget it and get to work.  Demand facts, get facts, and share facts with the public, as Guiliani did in 2001.  When you don't know, say you don't know but are working to find out.  Work, then work some more. 

Do what Vermont Gov. Snelling did when deciding with his cabinet what to do about transporting nuclear waste through his state -- he said, "First, we have to decide what the right thing to do is; then we'll think about the politics.  Otherwise we'll just confuse ourselves."

My own perception is that Blanco looked confused because her staff was pulling her in different directions.  Maybe she didn't know what to do, didn't have much available to do, and tried to manage too many things, her image included, at once.

I still believe it's close to always true -- you do the work first, and images follow.  Positive ones.  Good work begets good image.

Thoughts?