When enough is enough

Some 20 years ago an animal rights activist dressed like a pig walked up to a young woman who wore the crown of Iowa Pork Queen that year and shoved a whipped cream pie in her face. The intent was to protest the killing of millions of hogs to "feed America's meat addiction."

The young woman was not hurt. The pork producers called the protest staged by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) "a childish act."

Until the pie-in-the-face incident, PETA's message had been gaining some traction among Iowa audiences. Their demonstrations had been outrageous but amusing: barbecuing a 'human' made out of tofu, "naked" women holding PETA messages parading on downtown streets. Crowds gathered, took pictures, talked, absorbed some of the activist message.

But then they shoved a pie in a girl's face. Public outrage was immediate and loud. Even people who supported PETA's message, could not countenance an attack on an innocent 19-year-old. PETA stepped over the line. They were forced to step back and back down.

We're seeing the modern day equivalent of that attack with Rush Limbaugh calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute."  Over and over again. For three straight days.

Only when advertisers began to jump ship did he issue a half-hearted apology, saying he "did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke" and his words were an "attempt to be humorous."

Not personal? Really? Humorous? Really? Limbaugh makes a very good living making over the top statements about people. But this time he stepped over the line. Possibly into legal defamation.

As a public relations professional most of my life, I'm all in favor of an apology, when you've truly messed up - which Limbaugh did - and when the apology is truly meant. But the truth is that Limbaugh is not sorry - except that he's losing advertisers. And putting pretty words on it won't fix this problem.

Limbaugh stepped over the line. And the public and advertisers are saying, enough is enough. Finally.

Learning from others' crises

When I was in college, I took a self defense class during which I learned to ward off an attacker, break a fall, and use common objects to defend myself. Over and over again, the instructor threw me to the ground, attacked me from the front, back, side. We practiced until my reactions were second nature. The point was to be prepared, to learn the moves before an attack occurred. What I did in that class is no different than a company preparing for a crisis.

When a crisis happens to someone else, businesses have many reactions. The first is generally relief - Thank god that didn't happen to us! Some also express naive denial - Thank god that could never happen to us! What they would be wise to think is - What if something like that did happen to us?

Whenever a crisis happens, I find myself thinking, "What would I have done? How would I have advised that client had I been their public relations counselor?" The media are full of opportunities to exercise this thinking. The mental equivalent of my self defense class.

I guest blogged this week on ReasonedPR.com - discussing what went wrong from a public relations standpoint in the Susan G. Komen For the Cure - Planned Parenthood blow up.

The rules of crisis communication include: Telling it all. Telling it fast. Keep on telling it. A fourth is to Tell your own story. You can't always control whether a crisis happens to you, but you can always control how you communicate about it.

It's easier, I admit, to be on the sidelines for one of these exercises than in the frying pan. On the outside, I don't have the pressure of media breathing down my neck, the public banging on the social media door, or the CEO and board demanding, what do we do? Being on the outside also means I don't have all the insider info.

But there are guidelines to successfully navigating a crisis. It's best if you don't have to figure out what those moves are after a crisis hits.

What I approve

"What I approve is a reflection of me."  

My boss had those words written on flip chart paper and tacked to his wall the entire 10 years I worked for him. Every time I was in his office, I read that sentence. Those words were a reminder to himself and to all of us that there was no distinction between what he put his name on and who he was as a professional.

I was reminded of my boss's saying when I read a recent article in Forbes magazine. The article included this sentence:

"Contrary to the assumptions of East Coast magazines such as The Atlantic which paint a picture of a devastated and dumb rural America, places like Iowa are doing very well indeed and are likely to continue doing so."

The Forbes writer referenced the article written by Stephen Bloom. But Bloom is forgotten here. The writer invokes the well known magazine name - The Atlantic.

Readers have expectations when they pick up a magazine or newspaper. They expect the editors will ensure a level of writing quality and content accuracy consistent with the editorial mission - whether the stories are produced by employees of the publication or provided by a free lancer, whether the articles are in the print or online editions of the magazine. In the public relations world, we called this editorial oversight 'third-party endorsement.' That endorsement was why clients valued public relations placements so highly.

Readers of The Atlantic have an expectation that the magazine's editors reviewed and approved of the Bloom article, a piece of writing riddled with errors, laden with out dated stereotypes, and illogically, purposely vindictive. Did regular readers of The Atlantic feel short changed by Bloom's article? Did readers question why a nationally respected magazine they read and admire would publish such a piece?

Do the editors of The Atlantic now question using Bloom's article? They might want to consider that. After all, what they approve is a reflection of them.

Another lie, another black eye

This week "Stars & Stripes" ran a story about media ratings prepared by public relations firm The Rendon Group and used by the military to vet reporters embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. "Files prove Pentagon is profiling reporters"

My initial reaction to hearing about the story was 'what's the big deal'? You'd be hard pressed to find a public relations firm that hasn't profiled media for a client. And then recommended strategies for working with each reporter based on those profiles. It makes sense to understand as much as you can about a reporter before you meet, just as you would do your research before meeting with a prospective client or a job applicant or a new boss.

But the devil is in the details. Reading the story, I found two larger issues. One is the unfortunately perennial problem of people lying, apparently believing no one will ever find out. In this case, both the Pentagon and Rendon claimed such a profiling system did not exist when they knew it did. Here's one quote: “They are not doing that [rating reporters], that’s not been a practice for some time — actually since the creation of U.S. Forces–Afghanistan” in October 2008, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday. And then, of course, numerous sources stepped up to prove the contrary.

The second, and potentially larger, problem is what the Pentagon is doing with the profiling system. They were reported to be choosing - based on the profile - whether to approve reporters for embedded assignments with the troops. This is bothersome because the implication is that only reporters who will report positively on U.S. military actions would be approved. Appalling. We all need - and should be able to get - the most accurate information possible.

In a story datelined tomorrow morning, we learn that The Rendon Group has lost the Pentagon contract. On the one hand, I applaud the Pentagon for acting quickly and decisively. On the other hand, I believe they could have avoided the entire situation if they'd acted appropriately and told the truth in the first place.

I hate it when the public relations industry gets an undeserved black eye. I hate it more that the black eye comes because people who should know better think they can get away with acting inappropriately and then compound the problem by lying. I love it that we live in a country where media can and do keep digging for the truth.

Just right

Along with many millions of other residents of Planet Earth, I was glued to my TV yesterday watching the inauguration of President Barack Obama.  As a public relations counselor for more than 30 years, I listened to his inauguration speech with one ear tuned to my own reaction and the other ear gauging how the speech would be received by the media and the public.

As President Obama spoke, I listened to the structure, the cadence, the content, the meaning, the message.  I listened for the memorable sound bite.  President Obama is certainly capable of soaring rhetoric, he could stand toe to toe with Martin Luther King, Jr., but in this speech, he did not deliver the one phrase that stands above all else nor did he whip the crowd to a frenzied peak. Was this a mistake?  I believe not.

Our new President spoke to the world on the topics and in a manner that were most appropriate to the occasion.

• He spoke to who he is: "I stand here today, humbled by the task ... grateful for the trust ... mindful of the sacrifices" 
  
• He spoke to a new outlook: "we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord"
  
• He spoke to our pride: "there are some who question the scale of our ambitions ... but their memories are short. For they have forgotten ... what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage'
  
• He spoke to the world of a new America: 'we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals'
  
• He spoke to our strength: "I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. ... But know this, America - they will be met.'
  

As I watched the faces in the crowd, I saw that people were drawing from the speech, the day, the experience, just what they needed. Each person would hear the phrase that spoke to him or her. President Obama didn't deliver one phrase for everyone, he delivered one phrase to each listener's heart.

He was presidential. He was a statesman. He was true to who he is - an intelligent, thoughtful, wise man. A leader.