I am so glad that somebody is finally going to start looking into drug commercials.  These advertisements play with my mind.

Are you tired?  Yes.  Do you find it hard to concentrate a full nine hours at work?  Sometimes.  Do you drink more than one cup of coffee a month?  Yes.  Do you want to be happy and carefree like this person in our commercial?  YES.

Then I start thinking, maybe I do have restless leg syndrome.  It must be a miracle drug, look how happy they are!

OK, maybe I am not that naïve, but apparently some people are.  According to Associated Press, the FDA is conducting research to see if “drug ads are distracting consumers from carefully considering and encoding risk information”.  They are in fear of people relating the happy and relaxed images on screen to themselves, and not paying attention to the risks and side effects of the actual drug.

Television drug commercials are “supposed to” help inform people about diseases and treatments, according to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.  And pharmaceutical drug companies are “supposed to” show the good and bad of each drug.

So has advertising gone too far?  Are they trying to sell their product no matter what it takes?  Should there be stricter guidelines and more restrictions? — Molli Megasko

When I was a child, I had many dolls, many in which I still own (I hear I can get a lot of money for them on eBay).  Barbie dolls, Ken dolls, and Rainbow Brite dolls.  Oh, the good ol’ days.  However, what astonishes me is that not once did I ever have to worry about them leaving me brain damaged.  Is this a new feature?  In my day dolls came with accessories, dream houses and pull strings.  I am only 22 years old.  How the times have changed. 

According to a recent article, toy companies have issued recalls for millions of toys made in China that are either tainted with lead or otherwise hazardous to children. Seventy to eighty percent of the world’s toys are made in China, according to Toy Industry Association.  The toy manufacturer, Mattel, leads the way, recalling nearly 19 million toys worldwide and has issued a statement saying that they are working on a “responsible approach” to disposing the “toys” but could not provide details on how to do so. 

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, lead-painted toys fall under the category of products that would need to be destroyed or properly disposed.  This reminds me a bit of the 1976 classic Saturday Night Live skit where Irwin Mainway (Dan Akroyd) made outlandish attempts to show how more commonplace toys were as harmful as Mainway’s.

Let’s think about this for a second, working on a “responsible approach” for disposal but mum’s the word?  Chief executive Bob Eckert wouldn’t even answer a few questions asked by Chris Cuomo regarding the company.  Cuomo grilled Eckert about Mattel’s oversight of manufacturing in China, and asked him how much money the company saves by making toys in China.

“The question of safety is not about the money. It’s about doing the right thing for consumers. Again, we make toys in markets other than China,” Eckert said.

Of course it is a question of safety and money! And doing the right thing for the consumers? Parents are waiting on further details about proper disposal all the while trying to explain to their children why he/she can’t keep their favorite toy anymore because they have to pitch it into the community’s landfill where the lead toxins will only seep into the ground and serve as a lethal additive to our water.  Perfect. Mattel and I have a different definition of responsible and it certainly doesn’t mean keeping the public in the dark.

Communication is the light at the end of the tunnel in times of crisis.  Mattel is leaving toy owners in doubt and quite frankly, not doing themselves any favors releasing information in a not-so expedient manner.  When there is a problem, fix it or tell us how to fix it.  There is no use in saying there is a way to fix it.  The fog will clear soon.  I hope. Or I may have to throw away my dolls. — Jen Hernandez

Hats Off to Chertoff

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

From the “That’s Really Gross” department comes news that a transatlantic Continental Airlines flight was disrupted by, get this, an exploding toilet that leaked sewage into the cabin.  Travelers had to endure this for nearly seven hours, and even after a pit-stop in Ireland to repair the problem, were forced to share the first class head. 

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

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

We found out recently that the Chinese government is going to start having strict controls over all the blogging going on.  They are requiring everyone to register with their real names and identification cards!

People are very upset saying that it violates freedom to expression, and enforces penalties including prison.

According to Wired, China has the world’s second-biggest population of Internet users after the United States, with 137 million people online. It also has some 20 million blogs, according to government figures.

We think it’s good to make certain everything we see is not harmful in anyway, but if this took place in the states, some of my favorite blogs would be no longer.  I like harsh opinions, and I like when people take a stand, but if everyone had to report their name to the government before saying what they say online, these opinions would keep to themselves.

On the other hand, some are saying this will control spin.  With more truth and less opinion there is not a lot of room for play.

What do you think?  Is this positive in any way?  Or does it just confirm that China loves their communist ways?

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

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

Even though Second Life has been around since late 2003, it now tastes its first life of stardom with the emergence of companies buying locations and building virtual replicas of their buildings.  Sky News, a British news channel, is building a replica of the Sky News Centre making them the first television news channel to make residency in the Internet world.  Members of Second Life will be able to go to the building and write their own news reports, load videos on to the server and broadcast their “news,” and even “bump into and chat with Sky News presenters and reporters”.

To me, this is the first step in many, in which a cornucopia of businesses and news stations will set up locations and are given free reign.  Information will be dispersed, much like blogs, with little to no regulation.  I see this going one of two ways: Companies will get their information out to the masses and people will understand it is just a “virtual reality”, or people will think that what they see is actually “news”.

Now the first option would be great.  Businesses can get their information out on Second Life and people understand it’s just another medium to disperse news.  But what about those people who get sucked into these kinds of “realities”?  I’ve heard stories of people getting carried away with SimCity and Dungeons and Dragons.  They get too involved with these other realities to decipher the difference. 

As PR people, what should be our role in Second Life?  How do we use this medium to our advantage without pushing boundaries?  How can we create the difference between real and fake news?