The Flack

The Times's Andrew Ross Sorkin today draws our attention to the exuberance displayed by those financial titans whose companies were a hair's breath from insolvency.

In the piece, he cites buoyant prognostications by the CEO or CFOs of Wachovia, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, all of whom made the media rounds to extol the virtues of their (failing) enterprises.

"It is a conundrum that C.E.O.’s of troubled companies seem always to face. In an effort to bolster public confidence in their businesses, they give interviews and try to put on a happy face — right before their companies go off a cliff."

If I were an investor watching these corporate chiefs wax poetic on CNBC or elsewhere, I'd probably feel pretty good about their companies' prospects and maybe even toss a few dollars their way. I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in feeling assuaged by Alan D. Schwartz, Bear’s chief executive, who went on television to say just weeks before his company collapsed into the arms of JP Morgan:

“We don’t see any pressure on our liquidity, let alone a liquidity crisis.”

Who can blame him for putting on a happy face? In ruling a company from the top down, why sound contrite or even transparent? The point is to instill investor confidence through the sometimes star-struck media filter. Anyway, isn't it the journalist's job to ferret out the misguided guidance?

But what happens when too few journalists actually understand the arcane financial instruments that brought the economy to its knees? Here's Fortune magazine m.e. Andy Serwer interviewed this week by "On the Media's" Bob Garfield:

"I think we've got people here who do understand derivatives, credit default swaps as well as anyone on Wall Street. Now [LAUGHS], having said that, the best minds on Wall Street got it wrong.

You’re right in saying that this is the ultimate in financial complexity, and it's very hard to report, it's very hard to make it palatable. There were a certain set of circumstances that occurred that were just right that created a perfect storm – the mortgage meltdown, easy credit, derivatives that people didn't understand."

Jay Rosen tweeted a link to a CJR story in which the writer appears to lay the blame on the shortcomings (or worse, the possible irrelevance) of today's business beat reporter:

"Either the business press institutionally provided appropriate arms-length scrutiny of the financial-services industry, including investigative work, opinion, analysis and rigorous beat reporting that provided decision-makers, including readers, with fair warnings of the coming collapse, and it was ignored, or it didn't do the work in the first place. We know that the answer is some combination of the two. But, if we accept the foregoing logic, then best case for the business media is that what it writes doesn't matter, in which case, why bother?"

It matters little that Serwer remembers how his magazine predicted, in 1994, that derivatives would eventually bring down the economy.

Like the cow-towed political beat reporters who lacked the temerity to question the disastrous political maneuverings of this administration, the business beat reporter, especially those on television, somehow took their eye off the ball.

Hopefully, the sorry state of the nation points to the reason why we need a strong and vital fourth estate, not to mention transparent leadership from Wall Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Labels: Andrew Ross Sorkin, Andy Serwer, business media, CJR, CNBC, credit crisis, economy, Jay Rosen, politics, PR

How much influence does post-debate coverage have in determining the evening's ultimate winner and loser?

A considerable amount, if you believe the WashPost's media watcher Howard Kurtz who today turned his sights on the "spin doctors" who were working their "voodoo" at Ole Miss following Friday's stand-off:

"Obama may have won the insta-polls after Friday's debate here at the University of Mississippi, but the McCain team won the spin war, a post-game ritual that quickly seeps into the punditry enveloping such events."

Kurtz observed how each campaign's consiglieres and surrogates cherry-picked their candidate's freshly-minted sound bites to proselytize before a suppliant gaggle of journalists.

"Moments after the debate, the front of the tent resembled a crowded bazaar, festooned with huge yellow signs for McCain surrogates and narrow blue ones for Obama advocates...While Axelrod fielded questions in one corner, McCain spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace was surrounded by a second press pack six feet away."

Spinning the light fantastic is nothing new, and frankly, not relegated solely to the debates. For every breaking news event, we'll find political partisans, message points in hand, satisfying TV bookers' thirst for "insider" commentary. The revitalized Katie Couric, no stranger to this blog, even opened her interview with Obama campaign manager David Axelrod by saying: "Go ahead, David, spin me." (I hate that verb.)

The bigger question I have is which party does a better job in mobilizing when the news gets hot. Judging by Obama spokesperson Linda Douglass's response to an instant TV ad that featured Obama's debate comments acknowledging issues of common ground with McCain:

"I can't believe that anyone is criticizing someone, in this hyperpartisan environment, for being gracious enough to acknowledge where there are areas of agreement," the former ABC correspondent said. "I find it surprising that journalists would be raising questions about a candidate who is capable of acknowledging that his opponent has a point."

Linda, welcome to the real world. Is it a surprise that the Republicans will say or do anything to change the conversation to advance their political agenda? The Dems better learn to be more nimble (and less gracious) if they expect to prevail in November.

Labels: Barack Obama, debates, Howard Kurtz, John McCain, politics, PR, spin

As Yahoo! threw out its last lifeline to prevent it from falling into the arms of the boys from Redmond, Google was there to save the struggling online enterprise.

Few at the time thought, or rather played up, how much turbulence such a Google-Yahoo ad partnership would generate from the regulatory authorities both here and abroad.

Recently those regulators, and the media that follow them, are making the once-presumed done-deal seem destined for the dust bin. So what PR-driven recourse do these two digital icons have to revive the prospects that their marriage will ultimately be consummated?

One answer: bypass the mainstream media filter altogether by building a Yahoo-Google "Facts Site," as we learned today in a tweet from long-time watcher of all things search, Danny Sullivan:

"Google has launched a new informational site designed to tell its story about why there's no need to fear an ad partnership between it and Yahoo. Within the site, you'll lots of information about the deal except for one key fact: when exactly does it start? The launch of the site suggests any day now."

The site opens with a slide show whose title is:

"Yahoo!’s Advertising Agreement with Google Promoting Competition, Innovation and Consumer Protection in Online Advertising"

On the 17 slides, which includes current and future screen shots with and without search-generated ads, I found slide 11 to be especially effective. It compares the deal to other seemingly monopolistic hook-ups, e.g., "Toyota provides hybrid engine technology to Ford," "Canon provides laser printer engines to HP," and "UPS provides air freight services to U.S. Postal."

Makes sense, though I wonder whether these companies truly represent an apples-to-apples comparison.

Labels: Danny Sullivan, Google, monopoly, PR, regulation, SEM, SEO, website, Yahoo

I wonder if McCain campaign COO Steve Schmidt pulled a Tom Cruise and hired his sister?

Here's campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt's explanation given to reporters who were barred from capturing Sarah Palin's first date with a foreign leader.

"The decision was made for this to be a photo spray with still cameras and video cameras only."

Apparently, the McCain campaign's command-and-controllers thought they could actually pull of a portrayal of Mrs. Palin as a world leader by limiting coverage to images and no questions. According to The AP:

"At least two news organizations, including The Associated Press, objected to the exclusion of reporters and were told that the decision was not subject to discussion."

CNN, the pool camera, threatened to pull its coverage altogether after its producer was told to "talk to the hand" by McCain's Bush/Rove-inspired PR team. The producer was finally allowed in for a 40-second glimpse, just enough for the Palin-Karzai photo-op.

As if America hasn't endured its share of opaqueness and deception these last seven years, be prepared for more of the same in a McCain presidency.

Labels: CNN, command and control, John McCain, Karzai, media pool, PR, public relations, Sarah Palin, U.N.

I enjoyed reading Brian Stelter's piece over the weekend in which he catalogued the one-episode wonders of the modern television age. The shows ranged from Jackie Gleason's "You're in the Picture" to "Secret Talents of the Stars." Their shared recipe for instant failure? No one watched them.

So what are broadcasters to do in an age when diminished viewership makes their business model less tenable? Go for the least common denominator, of course. And we've certainly witnessed our share of inane stupid American programs that produce boffo ratings from stupid Americans. These show range from "America's Biggest Loser" to "Dancing with the Stars."

So how can the news and infotainment programs get in on the ratings action? The answer may be to take a page from their reality TV series counterparts by funding reality news, not unlike the way the magazine industry keeps the paparazzi afloat. At least that's what's being alleged by the man who set up the sting for which O.J. (yes, that O.J.) is now facing trial.

Collectibles dealer Thomas Riccio says that he collected some $210,000 by TMZ, Entertainment Tonight and ABC News...huh, ABC News...for documentation of the O.J. stick-up. Say it ain't so!

"The payments included $150,000 for excerpts of the audio to the celebrity gossip site TMZ.com, and $15,000 from ABC News and $25,000 from the television program “Entertainment Tonight” for interviews with them, Mr. Riccio said. ABC News and Entertainment Tonight publicists denied the claim. and insisted the payment was not for an interview but for other materials. A spokeswoman for TMZ.com declined comment."

Now we've come to expect a pay-for-play approach to news gathering by the ET and Access Hollywood's of the world - from Bridezilla to Brangelina. But for ABC News to allegedly have gotten into this dirty business is a total no-no. As the L.A. Times reports:

"Most mainstream news companies have ethical standards prohibiting them from paying for information or interviews, but as competition with tabloid outlets has intensified, some have started remunerating subjects by licensing videos or photographs."

Let's now watch how the owners of the home of Charlie Gibson, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos explain away their possible role in this sordid affair.

[ABC News spokeseman] Jeffrey Schneider said the payment was recommended by network attorneys to secure broadcast rights to an audiotape Riccio made of the alleged robbery as well as the photo."Our interest was in the audiotapes, not in an interview, frankly," Schneider said.

Labels: ABC News, Brain Stelter, broadcast media, Entertainment Tonight, O.J. Simpson, TMZ, TV news

Everyone Democrat, Progressive, liberal, and centrist observer of the machinations of the media, let alone a decent share of conservatives, acknowledge the role Fox News has played in advancing this administration's failed policies, let alone its current efforts to advance the fortunes of those who wish to perpetuate this seven-year national nightmare.

When the parent company of Fox News purchased the venerable Wall Street Journal, many media watchers fretted that the caustic views of The Journal's opinion pages would seep onto the news pages. To date they haven't (but we still have six weeks).

All seemed to have overlooked that feisty News Corp-owned tabloid in the heart of New York City. You know, the one that's a favorite of this town's cognoscenti. The New York Post seems to have few qualms, if any in reporting the Republican Party line in its news hole -- if you can call it that.

Here are the headlines from yesterday's daily politics section "Race for the White House." It runs in the front-of-the-book news pages:

"Hackers in Attack on Sarah"

"Hillary big-$$ gal: Now I'm a Mac madame"

"Barack rises as stox fall"

"Bam outdoes John in negative ads"

That's all of them folks. I wonder where reporter Carl Campanile, whose byline graces three of the four, went to journalism school? I suspect he didn't. William Randolph Hearst lives. As for the McCain campaign, why raise money for ads when you have your own page of advertorials in the heart of the media capital of the world?

Labels: Fox News, journalism, media bias, New York Post, News Corp., politics, Republicans

I moderated a panel on social media earlier this week on which sat a savvy young PR woman whose firm handles a considerable amount of work in the pharmaceutical space.

Her presence there perplexed me given the draconian regulations under which that industry operates, especially in the area of social media and online communications. What possible case studies could she cite?

She confirmed my suspicions. The drug industry is sitting on the sidelines as consumer-facing companies embrace new technologies to engage their customers. The primary direct-to-consumer communications we see from the drug industry arrived a decade ago with d-to-c Rx advertising, and even that one-way genre produced its share of scrutiny and discontent.

Today we learn of a new FDA website designed to help consumers wade through the Rx come-ons that permeate mainstream media. The only rub: the site allegedly reads more like an industry primer for creating better ad copy than a consumer guide. Prompted by frequent industry nemesis, the CSPI, ConsumerAffairs.com reports:

"The skimpy site contains examples of correct and incorrect drug ads -- advice seemingly more geared to pharmaceutical copywriters than to consumers."

But this is not the biggest complaint. Apparently, the site was built by a newly formed non-profit entity staffed by employees of a PR firm that represents many drug companies. The site, "Be Smart About Prescription Drug Advertising: A Guide for Consumers," was developed by EthicAd, a non-profit run by Atlanta-based Shaw Science Partners.

"But to develop such a site, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) claims the FDA turned to a nonprofit front group erected by Shaw Science Partners, a public relations firm that specializes in launching new drugs such as Viagra, Celebrex, Zoloft, Cymbalta and the now-withdrawn Rezulin."

To its credit, the site's developers are not paid for their time -- only expenses. Nonetheless, the CSPI believes the FDA should look to "physicians, pharmacists and other groups" - not a PR firm working in the industry. So I guess the CSPI would prefer doctors over industry-knowledgeable communications professionals to create a connection with consumers?

Other than Dr. Phil, somehow I think using doctors to communicate anything is a bad idea. How about pharmacists? Mr. Glower?

Labels: CSPI, Dr. Phil, drug advertising, drug marketing, dtc, FDA, PR, public relations, social media

Public relations is the greatest business. Like AIG, it permeates all facets of our lives -- from the pernicious presidential campaign to the colossal collapses on Wall Street, or a combination thereof.

Isn't it about time that we catch a break from all these anxiety-producing headlines? Sports certainly soothes. Wasn't that Eagles-Cowboys game awesome last night?

For today's post, rather than glom on to the gloom, I thought you would like to hear about another major piece of news - straight out of the news hole, so to speak.

The gentle folks at Georgia Pacific's Innovation Institute in Neenah, Wisconsin have invented a three-ply toilet tissue. Could this be possible? Yes, it's true! Under the Quilted Northern brand, the AP broke the news yesterday:

"The company touts the toilet tissue as ''ultra-soft'' and says it plans to market the product to women 45 and older who view their bathroom as a 'sanctuary for quality time.'"

Who knew?

I remember working on another innovation in toilet paper lore -- the first to be infused with baking soda. I'll let you guess the talking points. I think at the time we convinced the business reporter at ABC's GMA to run some b-roll -- no, not of the tissue in use -- but rather it rolling off the assembly line.

As for the three-ply story, the AP wiped away any possible question that it produced a pure puff piece:

"Industry analyst Bill Schmitz is skeptical. He said extra layers make toilet paper stronger, not softer, although he said Georgia Pacific may have added extra fibers for softness."

Some days I miss do-doing PR for consumer packaged goods...but mostly not.

Labels: aig, ap, mccain, Mcnabb, Obama, sports, toilet tissue

As I followed this weekend's New York Times-Wall Street Journal email news alert war over the fates of Lehman and Merrill, I started wondering which dynamics really played the biggest roles in contributing to these once venerable firms' de-existence early this morning.

Few pundits disagree that both took excessive (reckless) investment risks. And most recognize the salaciously ruinous role the short-sellers played in accelerating the process.

But how did public perception and the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy hasten the end of Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers (Bear Stearns before them)? Could the best public/investor relations advice money can buy -- from Kekst and Lipin to Frank and Abernathy -- have saved these financial institutions? Was it even possible to keep M&L out of the harsh media spotlight?

Let's consider the recent public posture (or rather lack thereof) of firms like Goldman, Morgan Stanley or JP Morgan, none of which admittedly shared anywhere near the same liability as a Merrill or Lehman. They deserve credit for keeping their heads low as this maelstrom, to which they were not entirely immune, enveloped their financial services brethren. Of course, that counter-intuitive NYT piece touting Goldman's fiscal prudence certainly created a protective shield.

But what about that other big bank, which does face many of the same challenges as its cohorts at Lehman and Merrill? For some reason, Citigroup has managed to avert the media's wrath of late, and those prophesies of impending doom. How? Why? What or who fueled L & M's meltdown: the rotten business fundamentals, the short-sellers or the media?

While I'm no financial analyst, I suspect these firms' respective demise transcends just a bad financial ledger.

Labels: aPR, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, media, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley

I love Joan Walsh's comparison of Sarah Palin's comments on Iran to those of Miss South Carolina on why Americans don't know simple U.S. geography. First Miss South Carolina:

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps. And I believe that our education, like, such as in South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere, like such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children."

And then we have Gov. Palin's take on one of the most dangerous despots on the planet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nucular weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. We have got to make sure these weapons of mass destruction, that nucular weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran."

Slate's media pundit Jack Shafer offered his assessment of the interview:

"Palin recited her answers as if reading from a Teleprompter inside her head. The extensive coaching she has received could not save her from embarrassment in this exchange."

Didn't a gaggle of Republican PR operatives descend on Alaska to prep Palin for her first, and I still believe controlled media interview? I say controlled since I didn't hear a single question about her parental failings, which I believe are quite relevant to her potential fitness as our nation's VP.

Every so often, we are charged with "media training" potential spokespersons from scientists to professors to corporate executives. We run through messaging and interview techniques with the goal of advancing their communications agenda. (After all, why do interview if only to advance the reporter's agenda?) We conclude by conducting a series of interview simulations followed by critique to address shortcomings and reinforce good behaviors.

Most importantly, when we're finished, we let our client know whether his or her prospective spokesperson is ready for prime time. Just as Senator McCain jumped the gun in selecting Gov. Palin as his running mate, his PR consiglieres may have jumped the gun in setting up this national interview. In fact, I wonder if she will has the smarts to ever be ready. As Shafer points out:

"Palin can't blame her muddled responses on Gibson, who treats her fairly and conducts himself professionally. Never mind about her not being ready to be president. She wasn't even ready for this interview."

Maybe, she should have borrowed a trick deployed by another dumb ass politician on his road to the White House?

The Week posted a good round-up of Friday morning quarterbacks.

Labels: Charlie Gibson, interviews, Jack Shafer, media training, PR, President Bush, public relations, Salon, Sarah Palin, Slate

You may not believe it, but most reporters at the leading news organizations take their trade very seriously. So much so that any hint of taint in their journalistic pursuits raises all kinds of red flags within their news organizations.

And these days, with no paucity of pundits, the prospect of getting red flagged for a breach in journalistic ethics is amplified...sometimes by design. It's therefore not surprising that the Republicans have consistently cow-towed the fourth estate. It's a very effective strategy for keeping truth-seeking reporters in check..

I've been thinking about the decision by McCain operatives agreed to let ABC everyman Charlie Gibson sit down with that lousy Mom Sarah Palin. You know, the faux reformer with the preggo teen daughter and drugged-out son who's chosen to abandon her mentally disabled baby in search of celebrity.

Don't expect Campbell Brown stickin' it live to Tucker Bounds here. In fact, if Gibson does go out of bounds, do expct the McCain strategists to cast him as one of those "liberal media elitists."

I wonder what the ground rules were for this "exclusive" celebrity interview? Absolutely none, ABC News brass will insist. Ahhh, but those ratings and a "20/20" boost too. It's simply irresistible! Surely they're aware of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis's edict in which he appeared on state-owned TV declaring there will be no Palin interview "without respect and deference."

Deference, huh? Do you think ABC agreed to defer to Ms. Palin?

Now Charlie's come a long way in honing is hard news cred since his days bantering on GMA. And for sure he doesn't want to be viewed by his journalistic colleagues as a wuss. But having negotiated, yes negotiated, my share of high profile celebrity interviews over the years, I can assure you that some ground rules are in place for this particular interview.

Here's a possible look at Gov. Palin's interview rider (to protect the guilty):

• No suggestion of that dopey rumor that I may be Trig's grandmother
• No mention that my son was/is an out-of-control drug abuser
• No reference to my having kicked my daughter out of the house for getting knocked up
• No intimation that I may have been stepping out on my husband
• No bringing up my future son-in-law's My Space page or that he's just not into my daughter
  
• And no reference to my taking state funds to pay for my family's personal needs
  

Also, since it is taped, I'd like my PR consiglieres on hand in case what I say veers off-script and needs to be re-stated.

(And to think this blogger was poised to write about the thrashing Michael's restaurant took in today's New York Times. Now there's a journalist who's not afraid to sling some hash!)

Photo rendition - Jake Turcotte, Christian Science Monitor

Labels: ABC News, Charlie Gibson, citizen journalism, exclusives, Michael's Restaurant, politics, PR, Sarah Palin, World New Tonight

As if the airlines didn't have enough bad news, today we learn how American Airlines lost a human body, United's stock tanked from a newspaper misprint, and JetBlue resorted to eBay to auction off airline tickets.

Actually, when I heard that last piece of news, I actually gave JetBlue some credit for some out of the box thinking. But then I was reminded of that Trojan Horse propagandist Palin who purportedly sold the Alaskan state-owned jet on eBay as an example of her faux-reformer ways.

Consumerist picks up on a NY Post piece about an Ecuadorian man whose wife died of cancer in New York. He arranged to have her body shipped back to Guayaquil, but AA proceeded to lose the body. When it finally showed up four days later, unrefrigerated and in an unrecognizable state of decomposition, the husband was forced to dispense with the open casket. "A spokeswoman for the airline said the company could not comment on pending litigation." I bet.

United, on the other hand, fell victim to a misprint in the South Florida Sun Sentinel reporting the airlines' bankruptcy. Bloomberg picked up on the report, setting off an Internet frenzy, via the aggregated Google and Yahoo! Newses, that tanked the stock price by 75% and led to a halt in trading. Small detail: the story was six years old. Someone at the Tribune-owned paper put the wrong dateline on it.

The same can't be said for that once high-flying stock, Lehman Brothers...

Labels: Alaska, American Airlines, Jet Blue, Sarah Palin, United Airlines

No. I won't make an issue out of it. After all, how many variations have we seen on this blog's namesake -- Flackette, FlackLife, Canuck Flack, Jack Flack, etc.

Maybe political strategist Howard Wolfson (pictured) is getting me back for taking him to task for the mismanagement of the Clinton campaign. Yes, I know he blamed Mark Penn.

Chances are he's not even aware of my lowly blogspot blog, or that he's even pilfered its name. I doubt I have any legal recourse for his blatant brand theft, even though my blog has been up and running for three-and-a-half years (versus his three-and-a-half weeks).

Still, do you blame me for being a bit miffed by the hubris of Mr. Wolfson. Could it have been the same hubris that sank Hillary's campaign?

Why couldn't The New Republic call it Wolfson's Revenge or Howard's End? Certainly sounds better than The Flack.

Labels: Bad Pitch Blog, brand, Howard Wolfson, PR, The Flack, The New Republic

I suppose it was the news of Apple passing Google in market cap that prompted Newsweek to take a less-than flattering look at the perennially cool Cupertino company:

"In fact, Apple has started looking like what Microsoft was 10 years ago—a company that so controls certain market segments that smaller competitors can survive only by living on its scraps or staying out of its way. (Apple declined to comment for this story.)"

I had to do a double take on the byline, since Newsweek's Steven Levy has been somewhat sympatico to Apple over the years. (What journo hasn't?) It was Techtronic columnist Daniel Lyons who reasoned that Apple was ripe for a little comeuppance for its "monopolistic" ways.

The Newsweek piece may not have the virality of say a TechCrunch or Mashable, but it edgily makes its point. In a not unrelated piece of news, over the weekend the world had its first look at Microsoft's new consumer advertising from its new agency, the creative creatures at Crispin.

The first execution, a 90-second TV spot, features Bill Gates buying shoes in the mall when suddenly Jerry Seinfeld pops in to assist with the purchase. Other than the star turn of the Microsoft founder, I'm not so sure what the spot has to do with Vista, IE8, MS Office, Zune, or the new Photosynth applications. Long-time Adweek ad critic Barbara Lippert had the same lukewarm imporession.

Those still-running Apple vs. PC ads precipitated Microsoft's $300 million investment in the irreverent advertising genre. Those Apple ads clearly irked Bill Gates. The first spot in the new campaign may be a head scratcher, but you still gotta love the ID pic Bill Gates flashes in the shoe store. I think it's his mug shot when he was arrested as a youth for a driving infraction.

I'm still thinking that Microsoft should have borrowed a page from Apple to stick it to the naysayers head-on...with a sense of humor of course. Must be my frustration with the Dems who have cowered from Steve Schmidt and the negativity emanating from the McCain camp. CNET also sees visions of Karl Rove:

"The agency [Crispin] is well known, and it is unclear whether Karl Rove pointed them in this direction, for taking the apparent weakness of a brand and turning it into its strength. So you take the supposedly cold, heartless bloke in the glasses from the Apple spots and you make him a bottom-wiggling Hardy to Jerry Seinfeld's Laurel."

Labels: advertising, Apple, Bill Gates, Crispin Porter, Jerry Seinfeld, Microsoft, Shoe Circus

Satire

The discovery today of a decomposing human body in Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's garage has tongues-a-waggin' in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska.

The National Enquirer broke the news on its website after one of its reporters tripped over the skeletal remains while rummaging through the governor's gun and taxidermy collections.

The AP reluctantly ran with the story after the evidence was too odorous to ignore. Almost immediately, McCain strategist Steve Schmidt chastised The AP for its biased and sexist reporting. Yet, in a strange twist of fate, Governor Palin's legions of rabid fans suddenly grew in size and enthusiasm. "This puts Britney's shaved head, temper tantrums, and child abuse antics to shame!" one proudly exclaimed.

Republican proselytizers took to the airwaves to frame the matter:

"Sarah Palin is a real American, not some former editor of the Harvard Law Review who's probably never even shot a gun," proclaimed Karl Rove on Fox News Channel.

"Even if she killed someone, why should she be punished for it?" said Fred Thompson who compared the Governator to any number of the colorful characters in "Law and Order."

"This kind of thing happens every day in every community across America," added Tucker Bounds. "Why single out Sarah Palin? Because she's a woman? Shame on the media, that effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as 'intellectuals.'"

The FBI was called in to investigate, and will release its findings on Wednesday, November 5.

Labels: corpse, National Enquirer, Sarah Palin, Spiro Agnew, The AP

Having served as outside PR rep for The Associated Press on two separate occasions -- the organization's 150th anniversary and the book and exhibition of World War II photos -- I intrinsically understood that too much "spin" would make many in this vaunted news organization bristle.

In fact, of all the mainstream journalistic enterprises, it is The AP that likely holds our industry in the lowest regard.

We therefore took extra pains at the time to ensure that whatever we did on The AP's behalf could never be construed as compromising the organization's integrity or standards. We recognized that for many AP staffers we were still considered the enemy.

I took interest in Politico's Michael Calderone's Labor Day post from a FishBowl DC item about the efforts of AP communications chief Ellen Hale to manage the firestorm stemming from political reporter Ron Fournier's supposed diss of the Obama acceptance speech.

(Could it be, some wondered, that Fournier allowed his political leanings to seep into his report? Remember, he was offered a communications post with the Republicans two years earlier.)

I was surprised by the anachronistic "command & control" manner in which The AP sought to deal with this negative attention, e.g., talking points, internal memos, one-way space on its political news real estate. Moreover, didn't The AP realize that any memo issued internally has a reasonable chance of entering the public domain?

Still, let's give Ms. Hale a break. With merely four years in the field of public relations following reporting stints at Gannett-owned USA Today and The Journal News, what can you expect? But I thought all journalists were PR naturals?

Labels: Barack Obama, Ellen Hale, FishBowl DC, politico, talking points, The Associated Press, Ton Fournier

I put myself in the dog house this past weekend -- Sunday morning to be exact. It happened when I came across Daily Kos's well-reasoned assertion that Gov. Palin's fifth child may actually be her grandson, not her own son as she claims.

How else can one explain the photo of her intact figure at "seven months," or the photo of her daughter's distinctive bump at three months. There's more, of course, much more.

In publicly proclaiming over breakfast this joyous Republican revelation, I immediately incurred the wrath of my wife and her family. They questioned the veracity of the source whose musings, they (correctly) noted, were inherently biased. "When it's in The Times, we'll believe it."

I feebly countered that it was the National Enquirer, for goodness sake, that broke the John Edwards fiasco, and that Daily Kos is one of the most highly read and most politically influential blogs being written today. Nonetheless, my own family quickly doused my morning glee with a dose of cold coffee (and shoulder).

The incident got me a thinking. While 68% of Americans read blogs or visit social networks, do any blogs, even the most authoritative, have the capacity to unilaterally create true public discourse? Or do they remain relegated to the role of kindling wood in terms of their influence on the opinions of average Americans?

We already know that media fragmentation, the 24/7 news cycle, and the rise of citizen journalism have combined to accelerate the dilution of many a mainstream news organization's influence. If the Pentagon Papers revelations broke today, wouldn't they constitute a one day story?

Still, the revelations over the weekend and the Republicans' efforts to quash the more damaging story with a less-damaging one, should serve as a worthwhile lesson for digital and traditional PR'ists everywhere. Even as the practice of PR evolves, one core competency holds steady: the ability to understand the dynamics that drive or curtail a story's potential to catch fire - whether that story is born in a blog or in a mainstream media outlet.

BTW, The New York Times weighed in today:

"Some claimed that Ms. Palin had not actually given birth to Trig, but that Bristol had, and that the family had covered it up. Various Web sites posted photographs of Ms. Palin in the months leading up to his birth this year, and debated whether her physique might have been too trim for her stage of pregnancy. The McCain campaign said Ms. Palin announced Bristol’s pregnancy to stop the swirl of rumors.

Ms. Palin’s own pregnancy took Alaska by surprise this year. Even those who worked for her in the governor’s office said they were surprised. Her announcement, in March, was reported in The Anchorage Daily News, which noted at the time that Ms. Palin “simply doesn’t look pregnant.”

I haven't shared this with my family, primarily because I'm sure that they, like most of today's fickle media consumers, have moved on.

Labels: Daily Kos, John McCain, media, PR, RNC, Sarah Palin, Trig