Here we go again!

O.J. Simpson, the man who went from “Trying Harder” for Avis to transfixing a nation as his Ford Bronco raced the California freeways, is at it again.  And just as we’ve come to expect, his recent Las Vegas arrest captivates headlines that reach far beyond the tabloids.  Do we really care?

When Anna Nicole Smith died, the media could not stop themselves.  Recently, her daughter celebrated her first birthday in bigger-than-life-Elvis-style.  And again, from Entertainment Tonight to the Chicago Tribune, the story captured headlines for two weeks.

Britney Spears finally lost custody of her children with K-Fed proving to the courts that he will make for a better parent.  In markets coast-to-coast, this week it was the lead, breaking story even as the President vetoed the S-CHIP health care program that leaves millions of children without access to vaccines, doctors, or hospital care. 

Last week, the Guinness Book of World Records for 2008 touted its annual winners.  What’s the most popular television show in the world?  CSI: Miami.  Ironically, this week’s episode spun the pop culture tale of a young woman made into a celebrity by bloggers, cutthroat reporters, and crazed paparazzi clamoring to track her every move.

Whether watching Emmy-winning Boston Legal, Law and Order, or Brothers and Sisters, there’s a dangerous but often realistic portrayal of how the legitimate media cover courtroom drama and how camera phones stalk the every move of provocative characters.

There’s part of me that just wants to scream, and another part that empathizes.

For decades, public relations professionals have been accused of spinning stories and distorting truth.   And at the same time, journalists – both professional and citizen reporters – proclaim their First Amendment rights to show and tell the full story – even if it is only titillating and provocative, and not news at all.

It’s time to broaden the conversation about the Fight Against Destructive Spin.  Who is spinning the spin?  And why, as a society, are we such willing consumers?  – Shawn Kahle

Tuesday, August 7, 2007, just before 11 p.m. my time, American history was made.  The number 756 marks the new standing title in home run baseball history. 

Yes, I turned off E! and switched the channel over to ESPN as the announcement was made, on the bottom of my screen, that Barry Bonds broke the record.

But wait, as I sat up in bed waiting to see which fan would emerge from the crowd with the white ball tacked in stitches, I thought to myself, “I wonder how many of those home runs were powered by the juice?”

Which, I would assume that was what 95 percent of the rest of the nation was thinking as well; the five percent left out being his family, friends, and agents of course.

I understand that the record was broke no matter which way you look at it.  But I don’t agree with the message out there saying, “It’s OK to cheat and do drugs to get you ahead, as long as you don’t officially get caught.”

If he is proven guilty in court, should his name still hold the record?  — Molli Megasko

When I was in journalism school, I came across a thread of emails on an alumni listerv debating the ethics of doctoring photos in PhotoShop prior to publication.  Most considered it as unethical as doctoring quotes.  Unless, of course, we are talking about trashy celeb magazines; then the rules appeared to be a little more bendable.

Another parallel is emerging with social media. While blogs give everyone a chance to tell stories and voice opinions, cell phones and digital cameras have incited citizen photojournalism, as well.  In fact, Yahoo and Reuters have begun to post pics submitted by amateur photographers.

This trend might strike fear into the hearts of struggling photojournalists everywhere. But if the pros are debating the ethics of doctoring photos, and the bloggers and camera-phoners are simply calling them as they see them, so-to-speak, who has the better handle on the ethics of freedom of speech? — Joanie Hammes

Burger boys Jack In the Box have apparently recovered from their fit with E-coli to throw zingers at their competitors, such as Hardee’s.  In a pair of advertisements, the (creepy looking) Jack character leads a carousing office meeting, implying, perhaps, that the Angus meat in competitors’ burgers come from…well, the least appetizing part of a cow.

Hardee’s parent company CKE is understandably perturbed at being the *ahem* butt of the joke.

The commercials, however, are pretty funny and rival most ads included in this year’s Super Bowl broadcast.

Advertising is different than PR, and it is the venue where the most direct attacks on competitors take place (Bud vs. Miller; Pepsi vs. Coke).  But still, there must be some sort of ethical threshold, right?  Isn’t there a space for relying on the quality of your product instead of bottoming out (oops) at the lowest common denominator?

CKE has asked Jack In the Box to refrain from airing the ads, but AP writes that a CKE executive “said that the company asked Jack In the Box to drop the ads, but that the chain refused and pointed to a Carl’s Jr. TV spot suggesting Carl’s Jr. milk shakes were superior to those served by competitors.”

Clearly they’re comparing asses to utters. — Alex Parker

Is anyone personally accountable for his or her words and actions anymore?

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

Do you remember smoking your first cigarette while you drank your first ice-cold frosty brew when you were only nine?  I really don’t remember it, but if I recall, I used to smoke a pack a day and drink a 12-er daily solely because that is exactly what tobacco and alcohol marketing executives wanted.  Ok.  So maybe that didn’t happen (I swear mom!).  But ever since I got into communications, I have been drenched in the “advertising causes children to smoke and drink” storm.  And once again, I read an article from the New York Times saying that limiting advertising and promotions is a way to curb underage consumption.

here have been so many restrictions given to alcohol and smoking advertising during the past 20 years and underage kids still smoke and drink.  It would be nice if the results from your studies were true.  It just doesn’t fit the reality of today’s youth.  Teenagers don’t need a cigarette or beer commercial to become interested.  Kids like to emulate their parents, older friends, and other older people they consider cool.  All it takes to get Little Jimmy to want to smoke is to watch his older brother Bigger Timmy inhale a smooth Marlboro Light. 

What public relations should do is not push the whole “advertising is the devil” when it comes to smoking and drinking.  I think the best thing to do would be to get parents involved in programs to better inform their children in a way that kids actually listen.  Take on a more positive role and get spokespersons, media, and health care clients to push sober activities.  So what do you think PR people should do to help this cause?  — Andrew E. Smith

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

Spin is often seen as a dirty word in PR but it’s now making appearances in all different types of media. As a college journalism student, I’ve learned that spin isn’t just for PR professionals; spin is supposed to be a reporter’s best friend.  Yes, a lot of my classes are designed to teach writing styles and strengthen your abilities as a reporter but it’s really all about learning how to manipulate the details to appeal to readers. Newspapers are less popular than they were in the past and have fewer readers. It’s the reporter’s job to bring in new subscribers and make people want to read newspapers. I may learn a lot about writing from my professors but what I’m really getting is a lesson in spin. My professors give us information and tell us to write short articles but during class discussions our articles our judged on how well we manipulated the story to attract attention from readers. How does your article appeal to people? What details did you use? How well did you spin the information? Are people going to want to read your article or just walk right past it? How can you change it to compel people to pick up the newspaper?

Spin is becoming more popular among the media and is now a common tool in offices and newsrooms. College classes are creating a generation of spin journalists. In fact, as journalists become more focused on popularity the dependency on spin only increases. News loses its value and people stop getting the truth. Societies become bubbles for people to live in and reality is a term from the past. College classrooms need to become more about writing well than about spinning the information well. — Taylor Krugman

Being the avid sports spectator that I am, I turn my focus to the NBA playoffs, especially the series involving the Cleveland Cavaliers.  I started to notice something that TNT does during its broadcast.  And so far it has not failed.  The situation goes as follows: The ref makes a horrible call, and instead of showing a replay of the incident, TNT has their commentators move on.  Cleveland was visiting the New Jersey Nets and as unbiased as I possibly could be, the refs were trying to give the game to the home team by making “delayed calls”, “phantom calls”, or even “no calls whatsoever.” 

Now, to make this a non-sports blog, I started to think of the NBA as entertainment.  And I noticed a trend.  The commissioner of the NBA has this sort of “edited” version of all the broadcasts.  ESPN, and TNT, and any other sports station for that matter, do not shine a light on situations that look bad for the sport.  Why can’t a commentator say, “That was a horrible call and that referee is favoring one team or another”? 

I think letting bad calls go like that, without a commentator mentioning it, is a form of spin.  What do you think?  Is letting something go unnoticed, that could swing a game one way or another, a way that NBA maintains a good image?  Even if it is a blatantly horrible call, some commentators go as far as to say that it was a good call.  Once again, is this spin?  Or just an angry viewer?

Maybe I am looking too deeply into this, but I was aggravated listening to commentators not say anything about the officiating.  This goes for all the games I have watched for the playoffs.  — Andrew Smith
 

Here at F.A.D.S. we love MySpace.  For opening doors, building networks, and for all the drama it brings us.  Companies have been known to fire employees due to graphic photos on the social networking site, people have been denied jobs for poor information posted, and now students are actually losing their degrees?

Stacy Snyder of Millersville University in Pennsylvania was denied her teaching degree just one night upon her graduation, because a photo of her was posted on MySpace drinking out of a NON see-through cup, with a caption reading “Drunken Pirate”.  The Dean of her college, Jane S. Bray, says she won’t tolerate promoting underage drinking. 

Snyder is currently 27 years old and the incriminating photograph was taken in 2005.  You do the math.

This young lady worked her butt off for four years to earn her education degree and her teaching certificate, while holding a job as a student teacher and now currently as a nanny.  So maybe she let lose one night and had a beer.  Heaven forbid she wanted to get drunk in college and, okay, shame on her for posting that picture on the Internet.  But does this punishment fit the crime?

We are taught at a young age that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  Tell me please, Ms. Bray, is this punishment you enforced equal to the crime?  We understand all teachers should have a level of professionalism, but isn’t losing her job as a student teacher in that school district enough?

Today, Snyder is suing for her degree, teaching certificate, and $75,000 in damages, and we hope she wins!  

We all have poor judgment sometimes, whether it’s wearing stone washed jeans, or letting somebody take a photograph of you drinking.  Beware, some people are out to set an example, and those with power can turn your life upside down.  — Molli Megasko