Indiana University angered the folks over at the O’Reilly Factor a couple of weeks ago when they released a study that debunked TV host Bill O’Reilly’s claim that he maintains a “No Spin Zone”.  O’Reilly says that his program is free of skewed views, but the research from IU says otherwise.

Researchers looked at six months of O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” segment, and measured the zings O’Reilly tossed at those he disagreed with using propaganda analysis techniques from World War I.

While O’Reilly claims to be a beacon of free speech and thought, the folks at IU found that he injected fear and name-calling into his broadcasts, placing blame on scapegoats (ranging from the media to liberals…and few others), resorting to spinning his line nine times a minute.  For someone who claims to be an unbiased voice of the people – and one who is considered a journalist by more Americans than those who consider Bob Woodward a journalist – that’s disturbing.

Barbs tossed towards FOX News and O’Reilly are nothing new, but this is a perfect example of the spinner spinning themselves.  O’Reilly has deluded himself to the point where his false truths take on a pristine and just context.  Having watched the show myself, he is oblivious to alternate points of view and is an imposing and opinionated force.  To cross O’Reilly on his show means doom for the ill-advised (or ill-prepared) guest.

The fact that his show is one of the leading programs on televised news, and that is filled with essentially propaganda, is disturbing.  There are legions of loyal viewers who are being spoon-fed the bitter, angry thoughts of a bitter and angry “journalist.”

And that’s no spin.  — Alex Parker

Here’s the $643 million question.  How could the makers of painkiller OxyContin downplay the addictive qualities of the drug, which produces a high similar to heroin, and was responsible for at least 146 deaths in 2002?

Their answer?

“We promoted the medicine only to health-care professionals, not to consumers.”

That seems like a less than sincere apology for a company that was just found liable for a sum of more than half a billion dollars.  The most sinister part of the story is that prosecutors say executives from Purdue Pharma, the makers of the painkiller, had closed door sessions to strategize on how to downplay the drug’s potency.

That was in 1995.

Despite its claims of implementing new oversight tactics to prevent future gaffes like this, companies like Purdue are responsible for consumers that abuse their products.  The fact is that Purdue masked the drug’s qualities and didn’t publicize its dangers.

It’s the same thing Big Tobacco did for decades, and no one can argue that smoking is a dangerous habit.

It’s ethics, people.  Large corporations are deemed faceless and look upon with skepticism because of instances like this where greed trumps the right thing to do.  It’s irresponsible.  It’s unethical and it’s illegal.  The three executives named in the suit are lucky they’re not facing jail time.   

Those three are paying a combined $34 million, and no drug can ease that kind of pain. — Alex Parker

Fading from the news these days is coverage of New Orleans’ struggle to rebuild.  We heard lots of rhetoric following Hurricane Katrina about how the city would once again reclaim its spot as one of America’s great cities.  Yet it was conspicuously absent from President Bush’s State of the Union address in January.  It has been usurped in the news by fluff and bickering.

New Orleans cannot and should not be forgotten.

Gini and I spent the day in the city recently, doing some work for a client and we were shocked at the state of the city.  I only wish we had taken pictures.

Rusted gates line city streets.  Street signs, victims of high speed winds, are twisted around poles, or absent altogether.  The roads are rutted and difficult to navigate.  Homeowners sit on their porches, the X’s of rescue workers splayed on the façades of their homes a year and a half after the hurricane.  Trailers act as dorms or classrooms at the Universityof New Orleans which sits a stone’s throw from the tenuous levies of Lake Pontchartrain.

Shells of crumbling houses line the streets.  Boats lie half buried in front yards.  One storefront’s windows were not boarded up; the windows are broken and there were rusty tables and chairs stacked on top of each other to prevent people from entering.

For sale signs hang in windows of abandoned homes.  The main drag of Canal St. looks like pictures of Baghdad, with pocked buildings sitting empty amid a few remodeled businesses.  Scores of police patrol the city, underscoring its place as the murder capital of the United States.

It is devoid of landmarks or streetlights in outlying areas.  Empty neighborhoods create a ghost town feeling.  It is eerily empty.

That’s not to say there’s not progress.  Businesses are up and running on Canal St.  The trolley runs regularly (which is in stark contrast, some would argue, to our transportation system here in Chicago).  The Saints made the playoffs, providing hope to weary fans.  We even saw new homes, some built on stilts, some looking like million dollar residences.  Crews were hard at work building on the University of New Orleans campus.

But there is much to be done.

Let us never forget the scenes of frantic residents waving from atop their homes or bloated bodies floating in what was once a thriving metropolis.  Today New Orleans is a shell of a city.

I’ll admit, sometimes my posts don’t always focus on spin in PR.  I try not to blow too much hot air about topics like this. Some things, however, are more important than corporate talking points.  And I think it is the responsibility of PR people, as messengers, to keep in mind that we have the ability to shed light on social ills, such as the plight of New Orleans.  Let’s not be self-serving or too pushy with our clients’ messages; let’s reignite the dialogue about this broken city.  Let’s help an integral part of America rebuild.  Let’s push Anna Nicole out of the news and know that Perez Hilton is a blip on the radar of importance.  Let’s hold other messengers accountable for the things they say – and more importantly the things they don’t say.

How often have John Edwards or Barack Obama, who used the city as a political backdrop, spoken about New Orleans since their much-publicized visits there in recent months?  When was the last time President Bush committed to rebuilding the city?  When was the last time we heard about a corporate initiative to help the city?  We can help.  Our clients can go on mission trips, donate funds to Habitat for Humanity, buy schoolbooks, provide food and other things we take for granted.

Do you think New Orleans has been ignored by corporations?  And how do you think messaging about the city has been skewed, if at all?

I don’t claim to be a huge activist, and admittedly have ambitions to do good, but often fail in completing them.  But my time in New Orleans last week, just one day, showed me that I have it pretty good.  These people who remain in that city are struggling.

We can help.  And that’s a good message.  — Alex Parker

This week, some members of my team and I attended a PRSA luncheon about citizen journalism.  It featured Web savvy media folks from CNN, the Chicago Tribune, Backfence.com, and our friend Mark Scheffler from BusinessPOV.  They talked about how news dissemination is no longer the sole domain of mainstream media.

Rather, anybody with a computer and, heck, even a modem can be a news outlet.  They discussed outlets like Korea’s OhMyNews, our friends at the Chi-Town Daily News, the future of news dissemination, from blogs to news via cell phones.  It’s all about convergence, even with citizen journalists.

They touch a little bit on ethics, but unfortunately these guys were limited in their vision of CitJ in PR.  They’re affected by it every day in the news biz, but we were left wondering, “What about us?” 

This was amid the newest entrant into the political fray: YouTube.  Philip de Vellis admitted the other day to be the architect of the pro-Obama ad, a remake of Apple’s seminal “1984” ad.  The 2007 version equated Hilary Clinton with Big Brother.  Many pundits have discussed the two minutes hate against the ad’s implications and the then-anonymous author, especially because it’s become known that the company he worked for, Blue State Digital, is loosely affiliated with the Obama campaign.

He has since resigned (or was fired), but claims the innovative ad was done on his own time, unbeknownst to his former employers.

The ad, employing hi-tech digital techniques (such as superimposing the Obama logo onto the hammer-throwing dissident’s shirt), has opened up a huge can of worms in the world of politics and PR.

How does a campaign control its grassroots efforts?  While Obama praised the artwork, he did not speak out against the message: Obama > Hilary.  Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post says it’s a viral watershed moment; candidates can no longer control the message. 

Calling Clinton Orwellian is a huge step for Obamaniacs, especially since many have called the current administration proponents of INGSOC.  It’s an interesting development and only a mere 20 months before the 2008 election.  You wonder how weary of campaigning and cherry picking Americans will be by the election.  Still, if Obama, who rails against negative campaigning, appears to condone this underground and independent PR effort, what will citizen journalists or citizen advertisers present in the coming year and a half?

One can imagine a spate of user-generated content (like this one showing Mitt Romney’s doublespeak about abortion) becoming a true player in the campaign.

And what are the larger implications for other types of PR?  Web parodies are nothing new, but how can we, as PR professionals, control the messaging about clients in an unchecked environment like the internets?  While ads like de Vellis’ are no doubt creative and entertaining, the implications are scary.  Orwellian, almost. — Alex Parker

Lately, the news has been filled with celebrity “news”, packed with fascinating stories about celebrity partying, shopping and mishaps.  Celebrity run-ins with the law are splashing across news pages with many repeat offenders.  Celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are no exception to this.  They have been making headlines recently with their notorious driving.  As both celebrities have been found guilty for DUI’s, they continue to get behind the wheel of a car, enabling paparazzi to photograph their ignorance for the law.   Although these celebrities do have money and fame, they are not above the law.  It was not until being caught on suspended licenses that these celebrities faced the harsh reality of the law.  Nicole Ritchie was found guilty while driving under the influence of illegal substances (again) and Paris was caught driving with a suspended license; both of these incidents leave these girls with the possibility of jail time.

The wrong message is being sent out by these celebrities who do not take responsibility for their actions.   Their attitude and response to wrong-doings sends out a poor message to kids who look up to them.  In some ways, this behavior warrants similar behavior from kids, which is unacceptable.  Teens are more susceptible to the influence of others; they watch these celebrities continue their behavior because they are not punished to the full extent for their offenses. 

At the same time, these celebrities are being given what seems to be only a slap on the wrist.  The reprimand for these types of transgressions should be standard no matter how famous you are. 

Although no one wants to see these girls strutting around a jail in orange jumpsuits, it might be the right thing for kids to see that their behavior is not acceptable and that no crime goes unpunished.  Who knows, maybe they could even make their experience into a show:  “The Not So Simple Life: Jail”. 

/images/34674-32324/nicole.bmp” width=237>

A lot of the spin we talk about here at F.A.D.S. deals with corporate deceit and unethical practices by fellow PR folks.  Whether it’s misleading blogs or manipulating Wikis, destructive spin is there.  Sometimes we applaud folks for being straightforward and not falling into the spin zone.

And sometimes we recognize spin that is so egregious, you wonder how anyone got away with it.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff and he of salacious novel fame, was found guilty Tuesday of four charges stemming from the outing of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.  Libby conspired with the Vice President’s office to discredit a damning report by Plame’s husband Joe Wilson, who investigated and disputed claims that Niger was the source of yellowcake uranium.  They offered that Saddam Hussein planned to use this material to build weapons of mass destruction.

While we’re not quite sure what all the hoopla was about – especially since Libby wasn’t on trial for leaking, he was on trial for lying about his role in the leak – we do know this: The spin that was spun leading up to the war in Iraq was the worst kind.  It was contrived, it was ridden with bitter vitriol, it was opportunistic and it was, above all things, false.

I think there will be debates for years to come about what was known and other known unknowns, but if this mess has taught us anything, it’s that the consumer – those who buy the product, be it goods or information – must be wary of what is said.  That makes our job harder.  But it makes us strive to do that much better, to be more ethical and transparent, lest our destructive habits spin out of control.

I think messengers of information have a responsibility to be as honest as possible.  In some cases, that’s just not going to happen.  Many people might argue that a person’s worldview shapes his or her position and vision of honesty.  I wonder how big a factor worldview played in Scooter’s story and the yarn cooked up by the White House.

Venting aside, do you think we have a responsibility to be truthful at all costs?  Who does?  Corporate and agency practitioners?  Public affairs folks?  Political mouthpieces?  Does it matter?  What are the costs of truth?  What are the costs of lying?

Wait, we already know that.

As health awareness continues to infiltrate culture today, many wonder whether the right message is being sent or whether people are taking the health craze too far.  This obsession has even made its way into the world of Girl Scout Cookies.  
            Celebrating its 90^th Anniversary, Girl Scouts have initiated change to their famous cookie recipe by taking out all the trans fat, still emphasizing the great taste.  Most people would think this means that buying a few boxes of the new cookies would be an improvement from the one box that they used to buy because it doesn’t have trans fat.  But what about all the other ingredients in cookies such as sugar? Or carbs?  
            This type of campaigning is misleading because people think they are buying something healthful when, in reality, they are still buying cookies.  Unless these bakers are magicians and have figured out a way to remove all the calories or cholesterol-casing ingredients from these cookies, they are still not good for you.  
         This type of promotion would also lead to some people believing they could buy double or more of the amount they used too because they believe they are being health-conscious. Although it is very important to be mindful of one’s health it’s hard to do so when cookies are on the table.  Will the concern for the actual dietary value be lost forever?         

Red state, blue state.  Conservative and liberal.  It’s a back and forth that has played out in sometimes ugly fashion since the 2000 election.  Both sides have acted bitter and vindictive towards each other.  We prefer a more libertarian view that simply makes fun of everyone.

But conservatives are fighting back.  Just days after the Fox News Channel debuted its (unfunny and awkward) answer to the Daily Show, “The ½ Hour News Hour,” a new wiki site has emerged.  Conservapedia.com hopes to put the libs and Brits in their places.

It describes itself: “Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses.” 

It decries the bias rife on Wikipedia, yet laughably is based on its own bias.  This begs the question: WTF, man?

To its credit, it’s transparent: “Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of ‘political correctness.’”

Being free of political correctness is one thing, but being free of fact is another thing.  One gripe a lot of people have with sites like Wikipedia is its lack of authority because anybody can edit an entry; there was a huge flap in 2005 when former statesman John Seigenthaler, Sr. was named as a Kennedy assassination conspirator on Wikipedia. 

Conservapedia also has this problem, and one wonders how much truth the editors will include on the site.  Global warming, for instance, is described in part as this: “Liberals would like to see the economy of America destroyed by forcing us to drive solar cars to work, and use geothermal energy to heat our homes. Global warming is merely a thinly-veiled liberal attempt to destroy capitalism.”

Ouch.  But that’s countered by this drivel: “Conservatives would like to see God’s creation destroyed by forcing us to drive SUVs to work, and use fossil fuels to heat our un-insulated, drafty homes. Global warming is a widely accepted phenomenon.”

So…is it or is it not widely accepted?  It’ll destroy capitalism?  I’m so confused.  So this means that soon we’ll become communists driving solar S.U.V.s to our jobs on the commune?

The site holds back no punches when going after the opposition: Lefites.

“Democrat: According to leading conservative thinkers, no good Christian would ever be a Democrat. For example, Ann Coulter says ‘The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats’ behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.’”^[1]

Clearly Ann Coulter is an authority.  Quite frankly, that’s an insulting insinuation to anyone to has dissenting views.

As for liberals?  “A liberal in the early 1800s in Europe was one who favored more powerful elected assemblies. The term was common in France shortly after the French Revolution. Modern liberals are treasonous ^[1] and generally hate America .^[2]” Double ouch.  Conservatives are given a little more leeway.

OK, how about religion?

/images/34674-32324/Fictional.PNG” width=521>

God has a blog?

Coincidentally, the jolly fellow in the beret is also present on President Bush’s listing.

Another hot-button issue is given a liberal slant: “Homosexuality is a naturally-occurring sexual orientation found in human beings as well as many other vertebrate species. In general, homosexuality is described as a sexual attraction towards a member of one’s own sex/gender.”

Okay, so what are we trying to say here?  Wikis are not an authority.  They can be hacked into and they can spin content. 

“But, F.A.D.S.,” you say, “You’re quoting wikis here!”  Yep.  The fact is they’re an accessible way to find information.  More often than not, the information on wikis is reliable, but we always consult another source to make sure the information is legit. 

Wikis can be dangerous.  Unless they are maintained by an editor who is committed to sticking to the facts, and not allowing any bozo with an Internet connection the ability to add ridiculous content, such as some of things found on Conservapedia.  And it’s not just conservatives who are guilty.  They’re having a laugh at Wonkette, admittedly one of our favorite sites, and one that skews left.

Wikipedia has put standards in place that hopefully reign in such maverick editors.  We hope that Conservapedia evolves past its infant stages to embrace truth more than truthiness.

Still, we totally want to link to God’s blog.

Traveling is a hassle, there’s no doubt about it.  From the need to arrive hours ahead of departure, to taking off your shoes at security, folks face a stream of inconveniences at the airport.  It’s usually a relief to finally get on the plane.

Not so for JetBlue patrons, who were stuck on planes for upwards of 10 hours last week.  It’s understandable to prohibit passengers from disembarking if planes are waiting for clearance to take off.  But 10 hours!?  It’s absurd.  What’s more, the  service at JetBlue has been interrupted for days following the Valentine’s Day ice storm which grounded its planes, causing mass delays and cancellations, adding insult to injury for beleaguered passengers.

Here at F.A.D.S. we were silently hoping for a corporate response that would be fraught with spin and the usual company b.s.  (Un)fortunately, we were surprised to see the straightforward manner with which JetBlue CEO David Neeleman addressed this calamity.

Neeleman was “humiliated and embarrassed” by the situation.  “We had so many people in the company who wanted to help who weren’t trained to help,” he told the New York Times. “We had an emergency control center full of people who didn’t know what to do. I had flight attendants sitting in hotel rooms for three days who couldn’t get a hold of us. I had pilots e-mailing me saying, ‘I’m available, what do I do?’”

That’s certainly a frightening scenario.  Just imagine if you were a JetBlue passenger.

Kudos for Neeleman for addressing the problems facing JetBlue.  He announced changes for JetBlue, “This is going to be a different company because of this…It’s going to be expensive (to implement).  But what’s more important is to win back people’s confidence.”

Part of this resolution is the drafting of a passenger bill of rights, which demands passengers are made aware of problems are not confined to the cabin for more than three hours while delayed, among other highlights.  Congress is considering similar legislation.

Curious in all of this, as pointed out by blogger Stowe Boyd, Neeleman’s blog hasn’t been updated since Feb. 1.  Wouldn’t it be prudent to address these issues on his own terms, his home turf? 

Boyd decries the “Flight Log” (would that be a flog?) as being a marketing tool and nothing more, and an ill-regarded one at that: “The blog setup is so phony they don’t even consider it as a meaningful way to talk to the community of Jetblue (sic) users.”  Shel Holtz (and Todd Defren) notes the blog doesn’t take comments.

While JetBlue certainly missed an opportunity to communicate its message, we commend Neeleman for his human response and encourage him to continue this sentiment by blogging for himself.  The blog, as it stands now, is clearly the work of a flack (not that there’s anything wrong with flacks!).

Neeleman is certainly forward-thinking, as evidenced by this clip from the WSJ.  He notes that companies can better themselves by facing adversity.  Let’s hope JetBlue becomes a better company from this flap.

It’s refreshing to hear some straight talk from suits and not the usual statements that come out of incidents like this.  Neeleman gets a thumbs up for his response (but not his blog).  Still, F.A.D.S. will probably not be flying JetBlue any time soon.

UPDATE: Neeleman’s blog is updated, at long last.  Hi David!  We didn’t know you read F.A.D.S.!  Also, the Chicago Tribune’s take on the flap.

Photo courtesy of NYTimes.com

In the 2007 Nextel Cup Series, veteran NASCAR driver Michael Waltrip was accused of cheating, apologized, and then vindicated himself by driving his way into the Daytona 500. After creating one of the biggest cheating scandals in more than 50 years of NASCAR history by tampering with fuel before qualifying, it was hardly the start Waltrip’s team wanted for new sponsor Toyota who was making its debut in the NASCAR elite series.

Waltrip was docked 100 series points for the fuel tamper, his crew chief was fined $100,000 and kicked out of Daytona International Speedway, and his team director was expelled. We’re not experts on NASCAR rules, but we are surprised that Waltrip was allowed to participate in the Great American Race. In our opinion, the team got off easy under the watchful eye of NASCAR.

At a press conference, Waltrip apologized for his team’s role in the cheating scandal, saying he was so embarrassed he almost pulled out of Daytona 500 preparations. The two-time Daytona 500 winner said he “had to be talked into racing by his wife, and Toyota officials who are seething that Waltrip tainted their Nextel Cup debut.” Waltrip blamed an unidentified individual within his team, adding that no one had been fired … yet. The story continues to unfold and we don’t expect race fans to forgive too quickly.

While the news of a race team cheating sent shock waves through the NASCAR community, the team handled the scandal by the books: Admitting wrongdoing and discussing the steps to be taken to fix the situation. In any crisis, large or small, we advise our clients to be forthcoming with information about why the crisis is happening and how the company plans to address the issue. An attempt to avoid dealing with a crisis always spells trouble through increased media attention on the negative, potential decrease in consumer loyalty, or worse.

The team did the right thing by admitting fault, and despite its soft hand, NASCAR did the right thing by disciplining the cheating team. However, the silence observed by the team’s major sponsor, Toyota, is surprising.  Already entering an arena where domestic automakers are king and pride in American brands is a way of life, Toyota is faced with difficult hurdles during its inaugural sponsor season and this scandal pushes acceptance by race fans further back. 

By taking a stance of virtual silence during the scandal, does Toyota create added distrust of its brand among NASCAR loyals?

Do you think the Toyota sponsorship of NASCAR is tarnished as a result of this scandal or did Waltrip Racing squash the crisis before it had time to spread?