In a case of media sensationalism and an, accused of, lying district attorney, the charges against the Duke Lacrosse players finally have been dropped.

The attorney general in North Carolina dropped all charges Wednesday against the three former Duke lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper at a party, saying the athletes were innocent victims of a “tragic rush to accuse” by an overreaching district attorney.

Newsweek, put the boy’s photos on their cover and wrote a six page story about the case (that story is what convinced me they were innocent).  But every time they interviewed the young lady, her face was covered and her voice was altered.

The Duke players didn’t get to play lacrosse; in fact, the school canceled the 2006 season.  One of the accused had a job offer out of school that was withdrawn.  The two accused that were still in school were suspended.  And the lacrosse team coach was fired.  This case was wrought with ethics violations and it destroyed the lives of many people.  It also stirred furious debate over race, class, and the privileged status of college athletes.

Duke did everything right.  It’s unfortunate for the young men and for the lacrosse coach.  But in crisis communications, that’s precisely what you do.

The “rogue” district attorney, Mike Nifong, is up against charges of lying and withholding information.

And the media…wow, did they look for a story!  This is sensationalism at its best.  They crucified the young men before DNA was taken and eliminated.  Most were convinced they were guilty long before charges were dropped because the story was all over every media.  What happened to innocent until proven guilty? And they continue to use bad journalism.  How about the blog posting by Terry Moran of ABC News?  He doesn’t think we should feel sorry for these young men because…

…there are many, many cases of prosecutorial misconduct across our country every year. The media covers few, if any, of these cases. Most of the victims in these cases are poor or minority Americans–or both. I would hate to say the color of their skin is one reason journalists do not focus on these victims of injustices perpetrated by police and prosecutors, but I am afraid if we ask ourselves the question honestly, we would likely find that it is.

Seriously?  Prosecutorial misconduct happens across the country all the time and it’s not covered by the media because most of the victims are poor or minorities?  Is he implying that, because these kids went to Duke, the media paid attention?  I guess we should only feel sorry for those wrongly accused if they’re poor or minorities.  Not those who are smart enough to go to a really good university and whose lives are ruined when they are accused of a crime they did not commit.  Are we certain he doesn’t report for FOX News?  And what a shame!  He’s from Chicago.  I’m embarrassed for us.  Good to see I’m not the only one who feels this way. 

I know rape crisis counselors are going to fret about this case for many years, but I’m thankful David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Colin Finnerty can begin rebuilding their lives.  Now the media can go back to reporting on something such as the Iraqi green zone being invaded.

So your friend George borrows your favorite CD, tape, or vinyl record depending on your age and does not tell you when George loses it.  George does not tell you right away because he does not want to upset you.  Then George tells you that the CD is missing, but it was actually your dog named Walter who took it. Finally, George says it was him and he is terribly sorry.  Oops.  This is a small situation.  It involves you, your friend, and a small cover up. 

Now let us change the players.  This time it involves Pat Tillman, his family, and the United States Army.  And it is not a CD, it is a life.  And the cover up is huge.  Pat Tillman was a professional football player who joined the Army and was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan.  At first, Tillman’s family was not told about the death.  When they finally were told, it was a fabrication.  The Army lied about how Tillman was killed.  They publicized it as a “heroic” death.  After investigating, reports came out that Tillman was killed by friendly fire.

The Army just conducted an investigation, of an investigation, about an investigation, dealing with the investigation, of Pat Tillman’s death.  It was the fifth probe all together, and now the Tillman family is searching for a Congressional hearing.  The investigation being led by the military is now saying that Tillman’s commanding officers knew he was shot by friendly fire almost instantly.  So how did the “killed by enemy fire” story unfold? 

Mary Tillman, Pat’s mother, is outraged and went on ESPN’s Dan Patrick radio show to express her feelings.  She said the Army used their public relations machine to promote the war and help with recruitment efforts.  She also comments on the claim that Tillman was purposely shot.  Mary Tillman her family has been told so many stories that she’ll probably never know the real truth.

“It became very obvious early on that they (the Defense Department) were lying to us. It was quite clear they were only telling one side of the story and they weren’t addressing the other side.”  -Radio Ink

That’s not what public relations does.  Aren’t we supposed to provide the truth?  I don’t think the commanding officers should be the only ones in trouble.

Mary Tillman hits the point home with this comment:  “These cases will further establish a pattern—now well-known by the American public—of spin and deception by the Pentagon and the administration it serves,” –World Socialist Web Site

This is PR spin at its lowest form.  First, they lie to the family.  The Army did not want to send the Tillmans the wrong message.  Then the Army lied to us.  They wanted to use the “heroic” story to reach out to more recruits.  Now there is so much cover up and conspiracy theory that the truth has been lost.  I think it is unjust for the Army to take a horrible story and lie about it to make it seem like Tillman died FOR his country.  He died BECAUSE of his country.

I hope within time the Army tells the real story.  Until then, Tillman’s death is a travesty.  How can a PR professional morally make a decision to fabricate a story and publicize it to the world?  I’d like to meet that person.  Maybe use their cold heart to fix this global warming problem.  (Note to Bush: look into that.) – Andrew Smith

The importance of the relationship between television and politics has continually grown during the past few decades.  Television is an important outlet for politicians to use to share their views; thus, the nature of television has consequently evolved into a means in which the people behind television also are able to express their opinions. 

As the race for the 2008 election begins, television shows are beginning to weigh in.  The popular mature cartoon, “South Park” is no exception.  Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of “South Park“ are continuing their run of addressing issues in their own way, which is usually provocative.  In the latest episode, “The Snuke”, they incorporated their own lampoon of Presidential hopeful, Senator Hilary Clinton.  

“South Park” is notorious for their sometimes vulgar, yet thought-provoking episode. The spoof on Senator Hilary Clinton resonates with many of the young voters. Politicians constantly impose their issues on the American people, yet sometimes it’s a nice reality check to realize that this is occurring.  The wisdom of Cartman may not be said in the most moving way, he still conveys the frustration of many.  Whether you support or oppose Hilary Clinton, people can appreciate the value of the attempt of “South Park” to confront the constant interjection of the candidates’ standpoint.  Their conveyance of their beliefs may be crude and jaded, but that’s why people watch and take the things that characters, like ”Chef”, say with a grain of salt. — Betsy Glynn

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

The media is taking a good cause, and spinning it for their own agenda.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “going green” and how the media can turn a civic duty into creating a miracle.

The final Harry Potter book has gone green, woowoo!  That might be the best thing about the book due to the fact that it is junk printed on recycled junk.  (Not a Potter fan)  Not only is Harry Potter going green, but it seems everyone in the United States is too, including schools, hospitals, the Academy Awards, and yes, the San Francisco Giants!  (Bonds swears to only use natural enhancers from now on.  Ha.)

Now I am not bashing the “green wave.”  I’m glad that we are finally coming to the conclusion that the earth is in trouble and we need to make changes for the future.  (And it took Al Gore to open our eyes.)  What gets to me is the way that going “green” is more of a buzz word than a sincere attempt to help the environment. 

Think about it.  The news about the final Potter book is not the fact that it is the final book that draws the series to a conclusion; it is the damn paper that is being used.  Once again, I am happy about the environmental thought.  I, however, do not care for Scholastic Inc., the publisher of the book, trying to boost sales by making a “deluxe” edition that uses 100 percent recycled paper.  Of course people are going to buy the book, Scholastic Inc. just won the popularity contest.

Businesses in the United States are now jumping on the new trend.  So I decided to look up what people are saying on going green.  It disturbs me.  What I am seeing are articles and blogs saying to “go green to save money.”  What I do not see are articles saying to “go green, save Earth.”  The media for the business industry might not spin going “green” as a way to please consumers, but they are still missing the point.

Doing things for the environment should be a requirement, not something to be praised about or used to make a dollar.  I think as PR people, we should find other ways of creating stories.  It is a great thing for people to care about the environment.  I just do not see it as a story. 

This blog was written on 100 percent electronic paper.  I’m telling the world! — Andrew Smith

Editor’s Note: I AM a Harry Potter fan, but in an effort to remain transparent, none of Andy’s opinions have been modified.  Plus his last line is hysterical.

The American Idol phenomenon swept the nation when it first began.  Americans seemed to be consumed with it, jumping at the chance to vote and be a major part of the decision of who would be the next American Idol.  As the years have gone on, people’s interest in the show are shifting.  Talent was the focal point of the show, as judges such as Simon Cowell critiqued the Idols. The show was designed to choose an Idol that has a great voice and presence and that represents “American-ness”.   During the latest season of American Idol, the show has been going in a very different direction, which is changing the essence of what an American Idol is.  

Sanjaya Malakar has been winning many votes this year, beating out a lot of his competitors.  He has been stirring up a lot of controversy with his success and it’s not because of talent.  Malakar is being endorsed by Howard Stern’s Sirius Radio Show.  Although the competition is based on votes, this campaign is making the competition unfair and at the same time altering the nature of an Idol.  The show originally was intended for idols to win based on merit and votes, but now it is because Howard Stern has major influence. 

Although many disapprove of the quality of criticism that the judges give, at the end of the day, the vote is still up to Americans.  With this new outside influence, the playing field for American Idol is changed, and therefore, ruining the chances of Malakar‘s opponents.  This makes me wonder about the society and culture in which we live.  This show is sending the message that it is okay not to vote based on one’s own thoughts, but to do so by listening to Howard Stern or a character of American culture.

 Furthermore, as a nation that prides itself on the foundation of democracy, this situation worries me about the message we are sending about how we perceive democracy and want others to perceive it.

  If we base our American Idol votes on Howard Stern’s influence, what’s next?  Determining the 2008 Presidential election on what Kendra from “The Girls Next Door” says?  

Fake news.  It’s a source of entertainment for millions.  Outlets like the Onion, Weekend Update on SNL, The Daily Show and the Colbert Report satisfy a satirical jones for folks looking for funny.  Fake news, as the Columbia Journalism Review points out, has been around forever, from muckrakers like William Randolph Hearst, tall tales and even mythology.  Tabloid headlines, from celebrity troubles to Bat Boy, are a great escape while waiting in line at the supermarket.

But when does fake news cross the line?  My take is when it is packaged as real news.  This is a debate that picked up a couple of years ago when it came out that the government manufactured VNRs to promote a health care agenda.  And when it became known that columnists Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams were on a government payroll.  Same thing with a handful of El Nuevo Herald reporters who broadcast for U.S. government radio stations.  And when the Pentagon paid Iraqi newspapers to include good news in their pages.

Even members of Congress are on the spin train.  Take Minnesota’s Michelle Bachmann (who has 23 foster children, by the way!).  Her campaign is giving talking points to her supporters, encouraging them to generate editorials and letters to the editor at regional media outlets.  There’s something smarmy about this.  Grassroots support is one thing, but this is Astroturf.

While it’s easy to take shots at the government, it might be difficult to step back and take a look at the PR industry.  I find it appalling, though not totally surprising, that people in our industry think it’s perfectly fine to lie if it’s going to enhance the appeal of their client. 

A recent U.K. forum hosted by PRWeek concluded that some PR practitioners don’t believe honesty is an essential part of public relations.  British PR guru Max Clifford, whose Web site boasts his ability to promote and protect clients, and academic Simon Goldsworthy told the crowd “that truthfulness is not necessarily the best PR policy.”  Clifford also told the crowd he has been “telling lies on behalf of my clients for 40 years”.  (It should be noted that executives from Vodafone and PR house Luther Pendragon — which also sounds like an ass-kicking poet/dragon slayer — pledged their commitment to the truth.)

Furthermore, says Martin Moore, out of 260 attendees “138 voted against the motion [that PR people should tell the truth] in last night’s PR Week sponsored debate that ‘PR has a duty to tell the truth‘, vs 124 for.”

I find this unbelievable.  We are in this business to make our clients look good, but when such an ethical line is breached, it is unconscionable.  No wonder PR is often frowned upon as an industry.

At first I thought our friends across the pond ate some bad fish and chips, but ethics codes are well documented by at least one British PR organization, CIPR.  The code of conduct instructs PR people to strive for integrity and honesty.

So what’s going on here?  Is this problem of being (un)truthful an issue in the U.S.?  At my company, we strive to ethical in everything we do and would have a major problem conducting PR based on lies. 

To me and my young colleagues, this is a shocking indictment of what’s wrong in PR.  Lying is not the reason I got into this business.  No, I did it to become a clear and creative communicator.  Lies have no place in my office.

At least we can rest easy knowing that, perhaps for once, Clifford told the truth.  Even if it is bullshit.

Cheers to Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway.  I feel as if these past couple months, your lives were like a 1990s sitcom filled with the mistakes you made.  A few sad songs while you deal with the consequences, the turning point, “Oh my gosh, I learned an important life lesson,” and of course the uplifting piano ensemble as you hug it out with a “gay”.

Washington began his negative publicity late last year by getting into a fight with fellow co-star of Grey’s Anatomy Patrick Dempsey.  The cause of this fracas: Washington called another cast member, T.R. Knight, a “f—–“(homosexual) and Dempsey went gay rights on his ass.  (Cheers to Patrick Dempsey – hottie)  Washington later denied it in a news conference for the Golden Globe Awards, which prompted a Katherine Heigl attack saying Washington should never speak in public, ever.

Where does that leave Isaiah Washington?  Only to reflect inward, say he has a problem, find the nearest homosexual public relations professional, and seek help.  On a side note, good use of a gay PR agent because we all know a straight PR agent would NEVER come up with the idea of apologizing and seeking help.  None-the-less, Washington made the right choice in seeking help, both professionally as well as personally.  I somehow feel he got off the hook, but should he have?  Is he really getting help?

Tim Hardaway, former NBA basketball player, publicly announced that he “hates gay people” on Dan Le Batard’s sports radio show.  Cue the hard times.  The NBA would not associate itself with Hardaway and he was shunned from the NBA All-Star Break.  Hardaway apologized to his family, the NBA, and the gay community.  In an interview in ESPN’s Page 2, Hardaway speaks with his long-time friend about the effect this has had on him and his family.  He is hoping for both acceptance from the public, and to change his hateful ways.  Should we accept?

Now for shame!  Shame on you Ann Coulter and your playground lingo.  Here’s a hint.  When you make a mistake, don’t try to explain yourself by regressing to a time when you still had recess after lunch.  If I recall, on my playground, we also dared each other to eat bugs.  Not too smart. 

We all know what Ann Coulter said at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘f—–’.”  While this created turmoil in the media, Coulter brushed the use of the word away by saying, “it has nothing to do with gays. It’s a school-yard taunt.”

Perhaps a book deal is in the works, Ms. Coulter.  Let’s call it, All the Words I Used On the Playground That Are Demeaning To Someone, But It’s All Right Now.  With the society going PC, why is it the celebrities are fouling up?  Don’t we look up to these people?  And should we let them off the hook?

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>

“The Lost Tomb of Christ,” airing on The Discovery Channel this week, claimed bones found in 1980 may have been those of Jesus and his family. One of the caskets even bears an inscription, “Judah, son of Jesus,” further suggesting that Jesus may have had a son, a theory that contradicts Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Of course, there are many naysayers, including religious leaders and archeologists. One of which, points a very accusing finger at The Discovery Channel.

As reported by MSNBC, “Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.”

News stories, Web sites, and even books are being produced at a record pace on the subject. The Discovery Channel did due diligence in promoting the topic as well, complete with a news conference one week prior to the show announcing the findings. Money is being made off of the claims surrounding the tomb at a record pace.

James Cameron, an award-winning director with blockbusters such as “Titanic” under his belt, was hired by The Discovery Channel to document one of the “greatest discoveries of our time.” Cameron, too, has recently been under fire for being involved with such a blasphemes production.

People around the world are certainly talking about the tomb, who truly inhabited it for thousands of years, and what this means for the future of religion as we know it.  But did The Discovery Channel jump to conclusions regarding the correct identification of those buried in the tomb? When is it reporting the facts and when does it become sensationalism in the name of boosting ratings and making money?

While we’re not prepared to take sides regarding whether or not the tomb is truly what it is claimed to be by The Discovery Channel, we do know that reporting facts and avoiding sensationalism makes for a much more credible resource for news and information.  Will the claims surrounding the tomb severely damage the reputation of The Discovery Channel?  Probably not. But, the story does bring to light a lot of behind the scenes spinning that typical Americans aren’t aware of, creating a more skeptical viewer.