In a slight shift from my posts where I have been talking about starting my career in PR, I wanted in light of recent events to talk a bit about Public Relations as an industry. Specifically, headlines such as Sunday’s Toronto Star; “Spinning in the First Week of Michael Bryant’s New Life” and today’s Globe and Mail article; “Michael Bryant’s political strategy: PR 2.0”.

Both articles discuss PR in relation to Michael Bryant’s case, and from my reading of it and as someone working in PR I was a bit put off.  To pull a few quotes from the Star article; “It helps to have friends in PR”, “Look, the headline of this story should be: ‘Navigator, changing your perceptions without you even knowing it” and “He refers, of course, to Navigator Limited, the smooth public relations firm hired by Bryant (when exactly is unclear) to massage the message”. The article then continues to a full page analysis of the inner working of the messaging surrounding this tragic incident. The Globe article takes a look at Navigator’s use of social media (Twitter, Blog and Facebook) in relation to their client.

Personally, I resent the fact that PR is often tied to “spin”, deception and manipulation. I do not feel that reflects the work that I do, or the many other professionals who are passionate about communication and social media. However I did find it very interesting that the article pulls into the spotlight a PR firm, whereas usually the agency stays in the background.

I want to make it very clear that I am not choosing sides and making statements about Michael Bryant’s guilt or innocence.  I feel this is a very tragic situation for both sides. Lives have been changed forever. But facing these serious charges and the media onslaught, I can sympathize with Michael Bryant for enlisting the services of Navigator just as I respect the work they are doing on behalf of someone who will be forever affected by this moment in time. PR does not change “the facts”.  A strong team of media savvy professionals helping in the face of any crisis can provide advice, support and direction.

What do you think of the role PR plays in image management issues when a crime or tragedy has occurred?

Just a few quick words to get this off my chest…a lot has been made in the States (particularly among Republicans) that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. I have to say that in the name department, the guy got the short end of the stick from start to finish. Even his wife, when she first heard of him, said “Barack Obama? Who names their child Barack Obama?!” I also should add that lesser men would cower away with a name like that and stay out of the limelight and considering the man’s brilliance, we’d be worse off for it. So I give him kudos for embracing the name and going with it. Lately Sarah Palin (who shouldn’t throw stones about questionable religious practices) has been using his name in rallies, leading to supports yelling disgusting and stomach-turning chants I won’t repeat on this website. There are republicans blogs out there who simply refer to him as “B. Hussein” to further demonize him and feed the fear mongering.

The man isn’t Muslim – his grandfather was. He saw his father all but a handful of times in his whole life and never met his paternal grandfather. He was raised by a white woman from Kansas and her white, Christian parents in Hawaii. It is believed that religion is passed through the mother anyways, so it’s really a moot point. But the fact that I have to explain that or rationalize it is what REALLY gets me. Because…who CARES if he’s Muslim? There are radicals in every religion; radicals are dangerous, no matter their beliefs. To think that every Muslim is someone who wants to bomb the US and terrorize freedom-loving citizens is so blatantly stupid and ignorant, I don’t even have the words to describe my disdain. To say that because someone is Muslim makes them a terrorist is like saying that all Germans want another Holocaust. It’s cultural naivete at it’s best. And it makes me angry and frustrated, but above all that, it makes me sad.

And that, right there, is the reason that so many people outside the US (even when they’re Americans) look at them with shock and disgust.

That is all. For now…

I don’t really have time to be writing this today, but it’s a post I’ve been thinking through over the past few days. So, this election business down south. I wrote back in January, just before Super Tuesday, about my indecision between Clinton and Obama. I voted for Clinton. I decided at the last possible minute, standing in the voting booth, stamper in hand. I feel I made the right choice and even though I will vote for Obama come November, I think Clinton would have been a better candidate. But that’s not what I want to talk about today.

I’ve never been terribly politically inclined. I don’t know a lot about the political process and couldn’t tell you how a law gets passed (I believe the Senate is involved?). But I don’t think you need to be a political pundit to a) realize that this might be the important election in America’s history and b) notice that it’s a damn interesting race. So I started paying attention. I read Time articles about both candidates. I watched as much of the Democratic convention as I could and I’m now trying to stomach watching the GOPs take to the podium.

I have a lot of opinions about this election. I’m going to try to keep this concise and relevant but I caution you that I’ve got a lot floating around in my head and I’m not sure it will manifest itself into a nice little post, all cleverly thought out, with,  you know, flow and structure. You’ve been warned.

First of all, I don’t have a tremendous issue, per se, with McCain. I think he’s too old to be President and I disagree with just about everything his party stands for and I worry that he would continue to lead America on the dangerous path they’re currently following. As a person, however, I can see his appeal. Sure he’s a bumbling old man, but Americans like to think they could “go for a beer with their president” (personally, I want my President to be smarter than me and have better things to do than sit at a bar…) and McCain has that grandfather-esque thing going for him. I’m sick as hell of hearing about his military past. I hate that every time any one mentions him, they must refer to his accomplishments fighting for America, lest they be painted as un-patriotic (the worst insult you can sling at an American) and disrespectful. We get it. He fought in the war. He was a POW. Can we move on and talk about what he’s done for America SINCE then? OTHER than that? Please? Joe Lieberman stating that he is will be a president that will be “feared” represents, to me, everything that is wrong with America today. I don’t want a leader that scares, I want a leader who is respected. I guess when Bush figured he would never get the respect, he’d go for the fear. Well played…it worked.

Now, let’s talk about his running mate. Sarah Palin. We all know the facts: Mother of five, hockey mom, 4 month old with Down’s Syndrome, 17 year old daughter with a bun in the oven. She’s pro-life, pro-guns and anti-gay. She wants to bring creationism back into schools. She has ZERO experience, her husband supported Alaska becoming independent…yada yada yada. You know all of this. Now, here’s where I start to get mad and emotional, so I’ll try to hold back on the swearing. I think it’s fantastic that the GOP went for a woman VP. I wish they had done it for better reasons than to undermine Obama for not picking Clinton to join his ticket. I REALLY wish Palin wouldn’t try to reach out to Clinton supporters by using Hillary’s reference of the glass ceiling. That really pissed me off. Lady, you’re NOT Hillary Clinton. Aside from being female and a mother, you share nothing. Not values or positions on social issues or how America can best face the challenges ahead. Women and men who voted for Hillary will not be swayed towards the Republicans just because you’re a woman. We’re smarter than that and in actuall fact, it just makes us more determined to win.

I have no problems whatsoever with a working mother. I imagine I will be one, some day. I think in today’s world families need both salaries to keep their head’s above water. I think that even if you don’t need the money, if a mother enjoys her job and is good at it and wants to work, great. Go for it. Everyone has to do what’s best for them. I do, however, think that being the VP of the U.S.A when you have an infant with high needs, plus four other children, is a bit much. One will have to suffer and neither should. Her children deserve all the time and attention in the world. So does America. Which will win? Let’s talk just for a second about the pregnant daughter. I can’t STAND the position that teens are getting pregnant across America so what’s the big deal if Bristol Palin is. Instead of justifying it, let’s try to see WHY this is. If teens want to have sex, why aren’t they learning about birth control and STD protection? What’s going on at home? This isn’t any home – this could be the home of the future Vice President. It needs to keep up appearances, as annoying as that may be for the Palin brood. 

This woman has lost control of her family – how will she control a country? And let’s face it- McCain ain’t no spring chicken. She could very well be President.

Now, here’s where I really get mad. Since Friday, Palin has graced the covers of US Weekly, and People , among others, children in tow. But according to the McCain camp, the media is too hard on poor Sarah. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You can’t USE the media to get your story out and then rail against the media for telling a story too. You can’t get pissed about an interview in which a reputable reporter asks a fair question and then pull future appearances on the network. You can’t put your kids on the cover of the celeb rags and then say they’re off-limits. That’s politics, people! Welcome to it.

I hate the insinuation that we’re attacking her because she’s a woman. She had to know, and they had to know that whoever they picked, male or female, would be scrutinized. When Obama chose Biden, there were hundreds of articles in the media discussing his record, the plagiarizing, analyzing the selection. They also had to know choosing the first female candidate would get attention. In fact, I’m sure they counted on it. So they had to know that everything that could be, would be discussed. Well, if they couldn’t handle that, they should have chosen someone with less TO discuss. No one knows this woman- of course we have questions. They want the media attention, but only if they control it. To that, I say stick to Fox News. They’ll be happy to tell a one sided story and will even slag Obama while doing it.

To be continued, I am sure…

My morning started with a bang. Literally. A squirrel decided to eat some electrical wires coming out of the transformer across the street from my house. Needless to say, at 6:20 a.m., I was not impressed.

Today, I am going to do a roundup of stuff — stuff that I find interesting and that is somewhat germaine to what it is the PR Girlz do.

• In today’s Toronto Star, Bruce Campion-Smith reports how the Harper government controls its communication policies. It is the first report in the Secret Capital series from the newspaper. Harper’s communications policies are anything but open and stand in stark contrast to the federal rules for open access to information.
• Festival de Cannes ends today. Norm Wilner from NOW has been blogging the event from the French sea-side town. Check out the reviews now — you might be able to save yourself from wasting time at TIFF. [For the life of me, I don't know what Lindsay Lohan was doing there, though. Beyond Mean Girls (brilliant writing) and Altman's swan song (she was cast well), has she done anything deserving of Cannes recognition?]
• I want to play a bit with a Google lab release called Google Friend Connect. The server keeps crashing on me.
• Grant Robertson at the Globe and Mail reports on Wikipedia’s business plan and its desire to remain not-for-profit.
• Tim O’Reilly had a funny post on the weekend about Microsoft’s obsession with search.

I was at the gym last night in my own little world, thoughts percolating and I was suddenly shocked to realize “hey, this could be a blog post!” Obviously, we Girlz aren’t having so many of those moments lately…

Now to be honest, this isn’t really a PR topic…though maybe you could make the argument that it is in some ways. (Gee Jos, you’re finally writing a post, get to the point, will ya?) So in case you didn’t know, I’m American. Not dual, just American. Now I’ve lived here since I was three and am a permanent resident (so yes, I can work here legally) but my passport is American. And I can vote on Super Tuesday next week in the California primaries. As it happens, I’ll be there then for a family thing so it works out quite well. Here’s where you come in: I can’t decide who to vote for. At first I thought it might seem unethical to ask internet strangers who I should vote for, but upon further reflection I realized that this year’s candidates are waging their battles more and more in the online space. Youtube, Myspace, they’re there. Many of them have blogs on their main site. So why shouldn’t I use this blog as a testing ground?

Here’s what you need to know to help. I’m a card carrying Democrat. Ok fine, I don’t carry a card (do they have a card?) but you get the point. It’s either Hillary or Barack. And I can’t decide.

I think Hillary has more experience. I like her. She’s intelligent, well-spoken and would make a fine leader of a country in need of such a thing. Bill’s indiscretions? Give me a break. He made a mistake, an error in judgment. Did that cost the Americans anything? No- it was personal but because he was the President and he chose an attention-wh**e, it became front page news. Bush’s “errors in judgment” have cost THOUSANDS of Americans and Iraqis their lives and has seriously damaged the US economy. Don’t get me started. Bill, in some ways, is a huge asset for Hillary. In other ways, I see him as a liability. He will have to stay out of the limelight while she’s in office so as not to take the focus off of her. I think he can do a lot as “First Laddie” but it will have to be under the radar and I don’t know if that’s possible. So that concerns me.

Barack is charismatic and I like him too. Goes without saying that he’s also intelligent and when I see him in interviews, he comes off very well. I like his wife. I think she could do a lot more as First Lady than Bill could in the role and you really are voting for them as a team. Having a great President is all well and good but if they don’t have strong support at home and a partner who’s willing to get out there and improve America, then the “great” President isn’t so effective. I don’t like Oprah’s endorsement of him. Not because she should have supported the female candidate, but because I think she made it more about race than it had been prior to her getting involved. Here’s my main concern with Barack and it does not make me proud of my country: they’re not ready for a black president. It’s not his time. Yes, most Americans would embrace the idea and don’t care what colour he is. But the ones that do? Look out; they’re the dangerous ones. If I were Michelle Obama, I would be afraid for the life of my husband and the father of my young children every time he ventured out. That’s the sad reality of it. Like I said, it pains me to think this, but there it is.

John Edwards? No thanks and here’s why: his wife is dying of breast cancer. Not right now and maybe not even in the next four years. And while I think it’s admirable of them to continue with their lives as though everything was fine, I think it’s dumb. Because at some point, she’s going to be very sick. And his focus would and SHOULD be on her and their very young children. But it wouldn’t be on America and that’s a problem to me.

So there you have it. Barack or Hillary. I go back and forth. Who gets your vote?

As most Canadians have probably heard, Conservative MP Garth Turner was ousted from caucus yesterday for maintaining his own blog and revealing what Stephen Harper deems to be private matters. I’m not really sure where I stand on this, or if I really have a strong opinion one way or another, but here are my thoughts.

First of all, I heard Turner’s press conference yesterday afternoon, as well as a snippet of his interview with Peter Shurman on CFRB. This is a man who has embraced social media. He basically told Peter that the “internetization” of politics is the future. And he may well be right. There will be many who find his openness refreshing and his honesty a welcome change to Harper’s notorious secrecy. I’m not a huge Harper fan. I don’t agree with many of his policies or side with him on most issues, but I do think that as a Prime Minister, he’s doing alright. And he has a right to keep his MPs quiet, even if it’s annoying and borderline weird. We pay you, we deserve to know what’s going on behind closed doors. But only to a certain extent.

I never read Turner’s blog before today. I didn’t read the posts that got him in trouble, but from what I’ve heard, he maybe went a little too far. There are risks to revealing too much about government. It could hurt future plans or in extreme situations, even put Canadian lives at risk. Look at the trouble the miliary got into for posting images from Afghanistan- it could show the Taliban where the soldiers are hiding and reveal too much about their plans. So mayby Turner went too far. Maybe this social media stuff doesn’t really belong in government. Of course it’s great to have access to your MP (and he does allow comments on his blog, which I commend), but maybe using a phone or letters, or just an email address is enough for some positions.

The Star reports that it was Turner’s opposition to some Conservative policies that got him turfed. If that’s the case, I see both sides on that. If Turner was so opposed to so many of the policies, maybe he should have left voluntarily already. Harper is someone who values privacy above all else, so it would stand to guess that he probably doesn’t like dissent in the ranks (and really, what boss does). It’s important that the caucus appear unified to be strong and powerful, so having someone express his opposition certainly wouldn’t help the cause.

So in summary (since I wasn’t all that cohesive in thought), I applaud Turner for his honesty and I respect his stance on social media and politics. But I think I actually side with Harper on this one. He was totally within his right to protect his MPs and the Conservative caucus, even if his privacy policy is a tad ridiculous at times.

Does social media belong in politics? Or does it have it’s boundaries? What are your thoughts on the matter? I would be interested to know where you stand on this issue. But if expressing your view may get you fired, please think twice before sharing….

Our very own Mary Ellen is “chuffed”. Research from her 2004 dissertation has been used by British author Nicholas Jones in his new book Trading Information: Leaks, Lies and Tip-Offs. The book examines the role politicians and ministerial aides play in leaking government information to the news media in the hopes of gaining positive coverage.

While studying for her M.A. in International Public Relations at Cardiff University, Mary Ellen published her dissertation which studied the tactic of leaking information and its relationship to government news management.  Mary Ellen contended that selective leaking and briefings had become “common place” inside the British government (specifically within the Labour government), an arrangement that had become advantageous for both government and specific on-side journalists. She distinguished between rare genuine leaks (delivered via plain brown envelope) and the more common authorized leak (selective media briefings).