The article starts out with this…

Sleazy. Disingenuous. These are words used in U.K. newspaper coverage of the public relations industry. PR, oddly enough, doesn’t have great PR. People tend to think that PR involves being manipulative and saying whatever is in the employer’s best interests.

Gee. Allow me to keep reading.

(The authors) call PR an amoral industry, a tool for good or evil purposes. There was, alas, Hitler, Goebbels, and the Nazi propaganda machine.

More? Why make my face more red that it is right now? Stop reading!  I can’t…it’s like a traffic accident. Must…keep…reading.

I’ve not read this book, but the reviewer goes on to say that in the book the authors debate whether or not it is the role of a PR professional to tell the truth.

I am here to tell you that every journalist (both traditional and new) I’ve ever worked with would tell me where to stick it if I ever lied to them.  If a client asked us to lie (and it has happened), we immediately resign the business.

I’m also here to tell you that PR professionals live by a Code of Ethics and I’ve seen people kicked out of industry organizations for displaying anything but professionalism. So there are good and bad in every profession. Until you walk a day (or five) in our shoes, let’s leave the negativeness and bashing alone.

This was a not all that uncommon occurence (birds in the engine) but with a dramatic, unique, and ultimately happy outcome (plane in river with no deaths or life-threatening injuries).  So, what should the US Airways folks do now?

On one hand, the crew and company did everything right, right?  So, wouldn’t they be justified to use this to their own advantage?  On the other hand, to do so will seem cheap and opportunistic for a corporation to take such advantage of an unfortunate accident.  However; the pilot and crew seemed to do everything right, if you read the reports.  So, are they allowed to use that in their marketing and branding as a way to say, “Fly with us, we’re safe, experienced and have proof.” Or, will that be a turn-off to potential customers?  To do nothing in this situation could be missing a huge opportunity, some will argue.

So, what do you think? As a consumer, what would you find acceptable in future promotions? What would  you think if nothing about this incident was referred to in future promotions?

For those of you in the field, is there some subtle middle ground where the US Airways marketing, branding and communications experts can indirectly and inconspicuously use this event in a tactful yet effective way to promote their brand?

To read more:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.san&s=98567&Nid=51444&p=988816

As you can probably guess, the tests did show that indeed, some products are gluten-free, as the labels claim; some contain small, acceptable amounts of gluten (although it is debatable if any amount of gluten in a gluten-free product is acceptable); and some contain alarmingly high amounts of gluten.  

One of the lines determined to have high gluten levels, despite a “gluten-free” label is an assortment of breaded meat products targeted for children’s consumption, manufactured by New Jersey’s Wellshire Kids and sold at Whole Foods stores. After some initial stalling, Whole Foods did pull the products but only after enough customers complained and they decided it was the right thing to do and take responsibility, no longer placing the blame on the manufacturer.  At the manufacturer level, Wellshire Kids now says they discovered last June that the products were not gluten-free as labeled due to one of the batter ingredients so they found a substitute ingredient manufacturer for the products in question. However; they chose to continue to sell the products made with the old ingredient (that did contain gluten) that was already in inventory.

So, is just enough really good enough?  Yes, both parties acknowledged the problem truthfully and factually (no SPIN!!!) then made the necessary changes to correct the problem and went public with those announcements and changes.  But in today’s world, wouldn’t it be refreshing to have someone take that extra step, be ahead of the bad publicity, do the testing more diligently and ensure all the claims are 100% accurate before being caught in this situation?        

Take, for instance, the example they use about a shower curtain. The headline of the news release was “Toxic Ties to ‘New Shower Curtain Smell’ Evident, According to Latest Laboratory Testing.” Most of the major media ran this story before the Consumer Product Safety Commission could determine the truth behind the stories. Turns out, the story isn’t true, but the PR people (and, quite possibly, the client) probably feel like they did their jobs because the story ran. Who cares that it just isn’t true?

While I agree certain headlines attract attention while others do not, it just isn’t ethical to use sensationalism or spin, or to stretch the truth to secure a story on behalf of our clients.

I’m certain there are some PR people who are very successful in using striking words to gain the attention of a reporter, but they are not representative of most communicators. We live to the highest ethical standards of our industry and use our skills to help a company communicate effectively, internally and externally, and with all stakeholders, honestly and ethically.

Let’s elevate our thinking, people!

The images take our breath away.  The agony on the faces of survivors generates a saddening empathy we can only pray we never feel.  What do you say when such an unforeseen crisis hits?

Usually, nothing, or very little at all as a true crisis is no place for spin, just sorrow.  Hoards of advisors often huddle in war rooms to figure out who will say what or nothing at all.  When public relations first found its way to major airline companies, the role of the PR guy was to spray black paint over the logo so it wouldn’t show up in crash site photos.  Today, the airlines are much more sophisticated, though often distant in their empathy.  Other companies remain lost and non-responsive.  Even though millions of lead contaminated tops and trucks fill toy boxes, an anonymous message on a 1-800 line says it all for some manufacturers. 

Perhaps that’s why the mainstream media cannot pull their focus away from Bob Murray, a fourth generation miner who also is chairman of Murray Energy Corporation, the nation’s 12^th-largest coal company.  Instead of showing the restraint that lawyers and advisors encourage, Bob Murray shows his passion and speaks his mind.  He’s just not a “cooperating with the investigation” kind of guy.

Six of his men are trapped.  Saying nothing for Bob Murray would be as out of character as doing nothing.  He’s been criticized by Congress and has argued with seismologists.  It’s been nearly three weeks and Bob Murray still has the courage to be the face of responsibility, the front-and-center spokesperson. 

When he said after the rescuers died that they could not try again, families took him to task.  They remember Bob’s promise not to give up until the six men are recovered.  Bob Murray recanted and is pursuing another approach. 

When will hope run empty?  Because this is a tragedy that is unfolding still, scholars have yet to determine if Bob Murray’s approach of speaking his unedited-mind during a crisis is wise.  No doubt, Bob Murray will be second-guessed for his candor during an awful crisis.

What I admire about Bob Murray is his tenacity and his anti-spin-approach to putting it all out there.  He might be wrong in his theory as to why the collapse occurred.  Time may show that he said more than was legally prudent.  But there is a lesson of accountability to be learned.  Rather than being a figurehead suit standing behind a podium emoting compassion, Bob Murray has coal in his lungs.  He speaks from his broken heart and puts action behind his words.   While engaged in the fight of his life, through example, he too is fighting against destructive spin.  — Shawn M. Kahle

Rather than claim your company or product is best, why not define the particular stand-out aspect.  I did something unprecedented in a meeting the other day: I asked a client if their product was actually the best and why.  In doing so, I was able to delve into the details of the product and learn why it was special.  Lucky for me – and the client – there is substance to back up the superlatives.

I must be on the alert for this type of thing, because today’s coverage of Apple’s new products caught my eye. As a PC person, I usually roll my eyes and click past.  But I may have to change my tune, due to this headline. Can you imagine what would happen if Apple actually wrote a release with that headline? It would turn heads in newsrooms for sure.

I think I see the next big thing in PR…we’re pretty ordinary, but we look good doin’ it.  —  Brigitte Lyons

Mackey posted messages under the Rahodeb username on Yahoo chat forums for years before being revealed in a sealed court document that was filed last month by the Federal Trade Commission and became public Wednesday evening, as reported by the New York Times.  The problem with this you ask?  Some of Mackey’s posts included talking up his own company while shedding a dark cloud on the future of competitor Wild Oats.

While law experts share banter about whether Mackey’s postings and comments are illegal, I think someone should share a dictionary with him.  We could go ahead and highlight words like transparent, ethical, etc.  Falsely portraying yourself and making comments about your company and competitors are grounds for serious ethical issues.

Mackey included a note on the company’s Web site Wednesday night saying that his postings were just for fun and that they don’t represent the “beliefs, policies or intentions by either Whole Foods Market or by me,” according to the New York Times. But does that make it all better? Falsely portraying yourself and making comments about your company and competitor are grounds for serious ethical issues.

So, what do you think? Should Mackey be asked to step down based on his questionable actions?

And as a bit of a random side note, does anyone else find it ironic that President Bush cut the ribbon on the multimillion dollar new press room in the White House Wednesday, but declined to take questions? — Angela Loiacono

Oh Michael Chertoff, you astound me.  Why would you put out a message to scare the American people?  And from all sources, you choose your “gut feeling?”  Really?  You are Homeland Security Secretary, and you tell us that we are going to be attacked within the summer months?!  Based on what evidence? 

In his ramblings to the Chicago Tribune editorial board, the only “evidence” Chertoff uses is the situations going on in other countries, “bombings in North Africa from Al Qaeda, conflict in Somalia with radical Islamist groups contending for control over Somalia, training activity taking place in South Asia, the Taliban continuing to try to regain control of parts of Afghanistan.”

Not to downplay the atrocities going on in the Middle East, but there are big differences between here and there.  For one thing, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not prevalent in the U.S.  Terrorist cells have a tough time gaining followers.  The threat we have here cannot be compared to the threat in Afghanistan or the Middle East.  Therefore, Chertoff’s “evidence” has little support.

When it comes to politics, someone, especially so high up in a government department, does not blurt out a statement without having an agenda.  So I pose this question: Chertoff, was this just a stunt?  Were you trying to get cities around the nation to bulk up on law enforcement?  Did you want to scare citizens into needing more security?  To be honest, the only person I trust with a gut feeling like that is Jack Bauer.  And he’s fictional (and a dog).

I am pleased with the response to Chertoff’s statements.  In a release from the Associated Press, Pat Milton writes that Chertoff’s “increased terrorist risk” did not have an effect on law enforcement.  People saw through Chertoff’s B.S. and realized we already have year-round security and that his “gut feeling” is just a way to remind us that we still have to be on guard.

I guess when it comes down to it, statements to the media should not be made from gut feelings, especially if it is dealing with a situation that is still scary to think about.  Should Michael Chertoff have said something without having any facts?  Probably not.  But it is still a good thing to have it in the back of our minds.  What are your thoughts? — Andrew Smith

Passengers were told to limit their food and drink intake and to be judicious in their visits to first class toilet, which was also not in 100 percent working condition.

Continental’s penance?  Five hundred dollar vouchers.

With passenger anger towards airlines at a boiling point, one would think that Continental would try to head off this problem by assuring other passengers that they would do everything possible to ensure a safe and comfortable flight.  To date, there hasn’t been an official statement.

I’m not sure $500 would do it for me. — Alex Parker

The answer is “no” if you look to high profile, public leaders like departing World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz.

Why in the world is the head of the World Bank dating a bank employee in the first place, let alone securing a hearty compensation package for her?

When the truth came out, after far too many days in the headlines, Wolfowitz finally announced his resignation as of June 30^th.

Whatever happened to words of contrition?

Instead of owning up to a major lapse in judgment and humbly sharing “how tough it is for the head of the World Bank to meet people because he works so much,” Wolfowitz steadfastly emphasizes that he is “pleased the Bank’s board has said he acted ethically.”

Just in case the sage judgment of the World Bank board is not enough of an endorsement, this week in an interview with the BBC, Wolfowitz denied that other employees had lost faith in his leadership.  Rather, he said  “an overheated atmosphere at the Bank and the media” caused his resignation.”

Sounds like the ozone layer also may be to blame.  — Shawn Kahle