What's the difference between how PR practitioners communicate and "spin?"
First consider this: Ben Stein's Everybody's Business column in the Sunday NY Times (Sept. 8, 07) Sunday Business Section, p. 1.
Stein is writing not as a (paid, professional) public relations practitioner today, but as a journalism with an opinion. That is, his objective is to argue a point -- to make a case. The case: that subprime loans (conventionally regarded as a crisis, a disaster, an awful thing because of "all" the mortgage defaults) has actually proven to be an essentially GOOD thing.
Why?
"It wasn't all bad. The subprime mortgage industry apparently helped some people either get into homes or stay in their homes. Yes, it was far from an unmixed good, as we have seen in vivid hues lately. But because of these mortgages, many thousands of American who would not otherwise have their own homes now have homes."
Of course, that is Stein's opinion. And there's nothing wrong with a journalist voicing such an opinion. Not everyone would agree -- in fact, that's the point: THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IS THE OPPOSITE TAKE.
Is Stein's communcation act ethical? (I think so.) But would it be ethical if he were being paid to defend subprime loans by a subprime lending institution? I hardly think so! Unless he disclosed that he was being paid. Otherwise, he would be hiding contextual reality from his readers. (Oh -- so you're being PAID to say this! Well, there goes your credibility, Mr. Stein!)
But as far as we know, Stein is just opining because he genuinely believes what he's saying- - and that his point of view is INTERESTING because it is the opposite of "conventional wisdom," including all the reports published in the newspapers and blogged and broadcasted (that subprime loans are the Devil.)
Good writing sometimes takes a counter-intuitive point of view and of course defends it with logic and example.
Stein is doing what we professors want students to do -- to engage in CRITICAL THINKING -- thinking against the grain, thinking that questions the conventional wisdom. But to engage in effective critical thinking, it's a requirement to be familiar with RHETORIC (persuasion) and LOGIC, including the use of EVIDENCE to support your position. And of course your writing must be READABLE and essentially free enough of errors to avoid causing your readers to lose patience with you and discard your CREDIBILITY. (Same goes for the RHETORIC OF SPEAKING.)
No, "spin" is the pejorative (negative) term used to tar and feather public relations people, advertisers, columnists, talk-show hosts, politicians, lawyers and other professionals who traffic in PERSUASION for a living.
Plato -- that fervent enemy of rhetoricians (Sophists!) and spin -- would not only have cast out PR people and advertising executives. He would also wisely have barred POETS from holding seats of power in his republic. After all, poets are among the "worst" (best?) offenders: they're great at spin.
So no room in Plato Land for Shakespeare, much less Eminem or Fergie.
But without spin, would the world continue to whirl?
-- Robert E. Brown
Communications Dept.
Salem State College
Salem, MA 01970
rbrown@salemstate.edu
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Writing Tip
Writing Tip for PR Writers:
Good writing is the result of successful choices. Effective writing is strategic.
Tip #1: Choose a strong verb. (See 4 more tips below.)
Example: Famous line from a presidential speech. (True story.)
The lst draft of a line for President Ronald Reagan by Peter Robinson, the speech writer who tackled remarks to be made by then-President Reagan at the Berlin Wall in l989, when the Soviet Union was about to collapse:
"Herr Gorbachev, bring down this wall."
(Nah -- that doesn't quite work. The head speech writer didn't like it. Too weak, somehow. Lacks color.)
2nd draft: " Herr Gorbachev, take down this wall."
(Nah, says the chief speech writer -- that doesn't work, either. "Take?" That's as weak as "bring." Try again.)
OK. SO Speech writer Robinson gives the draft to President Ronald Reagan to find out directly what RR wants to say and how. And RR tells Robinson he had heard something on the radio about "tearing down the wall" -- and, yes, that's the message wanted to say to he crowd when he was to speak to them in Berlin at the Wall.
So the speech writer, Peter Robinson, goes back to Square One and recognizes that the president had a good ear for a strong verb. Robinson tries the line in German and rejects it. Then he realizes that the president himself had already come up with the rhetorical (i.e., persuasive) solution.
And the rest, as they say, is history -- one of the most oft quoted speech lines in recent history:
"Mr. Gorbachev -- tear down this wall."
[This TIP is taken from Christopher Shea's little piece in the Sunday NY Times (9/9/07) Books Section, based on a magazine article by speech writer Peter Robinson in Prologue, the magazine of the US National Archives.]
More TIPS: Aside from the strong verb, look at these other attributes of GOOD WRITING in this situation:
2. Choice of a strategic visual pronoun -- "this." The president was to be standing next to the Berlin Wall, so "this" was a more dramatic and immediate word to use than "the" (known grammatically as a "definite article").
3. Choice of a formal but not overly respectful form of address: The use of "Mr." (Gorbachev), rather than "Herr" -- because (a) the German term shows too much respectfulness and perhaps even impoloring weakness -- whereas "Mr."cuts the Soviet premier down to sizel; (2) "Mr." is not only English -- it's American -- which affirms the in-your-face cultural nationalism that the president sought in his communication.
4. Choice of a dramatic pause. Note the pause after "Mr. Gorbachev --." The strategic use of tempo is crucial for effective persuasive writing, just as it is for musical performance. After all, writing -- like music -- is an art.
The pause is what we call a NONVERBAL element of communication -- but of course it is a crucial part of the strategic composition of the MESSAGE.
5. Choice of syntax (or word order) : Note that the writer BEGINS the sentence with the command, but with the formal address: "Mr. Gorbachev -- tear down this wall." That line is more powerful than if it been syntactically arranged in reverse order: "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev.")
Underlying these tips is the critical concept of rhetoric: the PR writer (whether in a speech or a pitch letter) is trying to persuade an audience. Persuasion is thus a function of understanding the audience's mood, grasping the situation, recognizing where and when the speech will be given -- and using that knowledge to select the words, phrases, images, references and even the rhythms that will do the trick.
PR, Rhetoric, Persuasion, Communication and Writing: Although not all PR writing is equally rhetorical (persuasive) -- news (press) releases emphasize the facts in a more journalistically "objective" way -- public relations, like much of politics and interpersonal relationships, too, is emphatically rhetorical: Very often, the bottom-line purpose of our communication is persuasive, whether overtly or subtly.
Writing is a strategic act -- an act of craftsmanship, of selection, of trial-and-error, of improvisation: all aimed at a specific objective which the writer either realizes initially or comes to understand during the writing process.
-- Robert E. Brown
Professor, Public Relations: Communications Dept.
Salem State College; Salem, MA 01970
rbrown@salemstate.edu
978 542 6436 (Salem State College Com. Dept. office)
Good writing is the result of successful choices. Effective writing is strategic.
Tip #1: Choose a strong verb. (See 4 more tips below.)
Example: Famous line from a presidential speech. (True story.)
The lst draft of a line for President Ronald Reagan by Peter Robinson, the speech writer who tackled remarks to be made by then-President Reagan at the Berlin Wall in l989, when the Soviet Union was about to collapse:
"Herr Gorbachev, bring down this wall."
(Nah -- that doesn't quite work. The head speech writer didn't like it. Too weak, somehow. Lacks color.)
2nd draft: " Herr Gorbachev, take down this wall."
(Nah, says the chief speech writer -- that doesn't work, either. "Take?" That's as weak as "bring." Try again.)
OK. SO Speech writer Robinson gives the draft to President Ronald Reagan to find out directly what RR wants to say and how. And RR tells Robinson he had heard something on the radio about "tearing down the wall" -- and, yes, that's the message wanted to say to he crowd when he was to speak to them in Berlin at the Wall.
So the speech writer, Peter Robinson, goes back to Square One and recognizes that the president had a good ear for a strong verb. Robinson tries the line in German and rejects it. Then he realizes that the president himself had already come up with the rhetorical (i.e., persuasive) solution.
And the rest, as they say, is history -- one of the most oft quoted speech lines in recent history:
"Mr. Gorbachev -- tear down this wall."
[This TIP is taken from Christopher Shea's little piece in the Sunday NY Times (9/9/07) Books Section, based on a magazine article by speech writer Peter Robinson in Prologue, the magazine of the US National Archives.]
More TIPS: Aside from the strong verb, look at these other attributes of GOOD WRITING in this situation:
2. Choice of a strategic visual pronoun -- "this." The president was to be standing next to the Berlin Wall, so "this" was a more dramatic and immediate word to use than "the" (known grammatically as a "definite article").
3. Choice of a formal but not overly respectful form of address: The use of "Mr." (Gorbachev), rather than "Herr" -- because (a) the German term shows too much respectfulness and perhaps even impoloring weakness -- whereas "Mr."cuts the Soviet premier down to sizel; (2) "Mr." is not only English -- it's American -- which affirms the in-your-face cultural nationalism that the president sought in his communication.
4. Choice of a dramatic pause. Note the pause after "Mr. Gorbachev --." The strategic use of tempo is crucial for effective persuasive writing, just as it is for musical performance. After all, writing -- like music -- is an art.
The pause is what we call a NONVERBAL element of communication -- but of course it is a crucial part of the strategic composition of the MESSAGE.
5. Choice of syntax (or word order) : Note that the writer BEGINS the sentence with the command, but with the formal address: "Mr. Gorbachev -- tear down this wall." That line is more powerful than if it been syntactically arranged in reverse order: "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev.")
Underlying these tips is the critical concept of rhetoric: the PR writer (whether in a speech or a pitch letter) is trying to persuade an audience. Persuasion is thus a function of understanding the audience's mood, grasping the situation, recognizing where and when the speech will be given -- and using that knowledge to select the words, phrases, images, references and even the rhythms that will do the trick.
PR, Rhetoric, Persuasion, Communication and Writing: Although not all PR writing is equally rhetorical (persuasive) -- news (press) releases emphasize the facts in a more journalistically "objective" way -- public relations, like much of politics and interpersonal relationships, too, is emphatically rhetorical: Very often, the bottom-line purpose of our communication is persuasive, whether overtly or subtly.
Writing is a strategic act -- an act of craftsmanship, of selection, of trial-and-error, of improvisation: all aimed at a specific objective which the writer either realizes initially or comes to understand during the writing process.
-- Robert E. Brown
Professor, Public Relations: Communications Dept.
Salem State College; Salem, MA 01970
rbrown@salemstate.edu
978 542 6436 (Salem State College Com. Dept. office)
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Leadership and Framing
The Mayors of NYC and Oklahoma City were interviewed for a program last April 19 -- the l2th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that claimed hundreds of lives. Mayor Guiliani, of course, will be observing the 6th anniversary of 9-11 next Tuesday. Last April, as you'll remember, the Virginia Tech campus suffered a horrendous massacre of 32 students at the hands of a student who then took his own life.
Three catastrophes. And in each case, terrorized people needed something fast -- information, yes. But more than that. They needed to know that the sky had not fallen. They needed reassurance. They needed leadership. And that was the job of their leaders -- on the ground -- they mayors of those two stricken cities, and the president of the university.
So what does a leader say in the midst of a disaster like 9-11, Oklahoma City, Virginia Tech?
The mayors put it simply: They had to be honest -- but they also had to be sensitive to the emotional fragility of their audiences.
For example, Mayor Giuliani said that on that terrible day he was getting reports of casualties as high as l2,000. But he couldn't confirm that number -- in fact, it could have been higher or (as it turned out), lower.
So what he said publicly came from his heartfelt honest recognition that because he didn't know the facts, he had to say he didn't. And that instead of giving out a number -- l2,000 -- that could have overstated or understated the actual casualty numbers, it was simply better to say: " We don't know the numbers of casualties -- but whatever they are, they are too much to bear."
By FRAMING his communication in that way, New York's mayor was acting compassionately and ethically. Such communcation requires not only compassion, but wisdom and experience: that is, the qualities of genuine leadership.
Reflecting on the way the mayor approached his communication, few people would accuse Mayor Giuliani of lying or even spinning. The term we use in mass-mediated communication is "framing." And as you can see, unlike the term spinning, framing doesn't suggest that the communicator is deceptive or manipulative. In these crisis situations, what must enter into all contemplation of communication is what the Greeks called caritas (caring or love or kindness). Kindness is, in fact, wisdom -- perhaps the greatest wisdom. And that's what we want from our leaders -- particularly at a time of crisis, when we are fragile, and prey to rumors and terror and confusion.
This in in fact the lesson of what PR calls "crisis communcation":
1. Tell the truth. If you don't know the facts, say you don't -- and that your information could be mistaken, and that you'll correct it as soon as you're able to.
2. The facts are important, of course. But facts are pretty useless if the leader is without compassion and kindness and wisdom and concern for the people. And the facts are pretty useless without a frame -- a perspective in which to view them as a whole. People want more than numbers -- they want meaning. It's a leader's ethical obligation to provide meaning -- and indeed, as Winston Churchill did for Britain in the darkest early days of the Nazi bombing -- a resolute, positive and spiritually uplifting tone to every communication. ("We will never never never never never surrender.")
3. Don't cover up the facts or the truth. People will forgive just about any act, but are very hard on cover-ups. (Watergate. Monicagate, etc.)
4. Gather the facts and tell them as soon as you can. People are waiting desperately for information. Don't dither unnecessarily. Don't fly over the scene when you could be on the ground helping. Perception is critical -- how you are perceived is a vital part of the effectiveness of communication.
5. People don't merely "buy" the message -- they must believe the messenger. And people aren't stupid -- and they loathe being lied to and tend to be rather unforgiving about being lied to.
6. Ethical communicators keep in their hearts and minds compassion as well as competence -- and know they must cling to their credibility and visbility or risk losing their way.
On Tuesday, September 11, I shall be attending a conference at Emerson College, where one of the speakers is an Emerson alumna whose mother was a First Class passenger on Flight 11, which crashed into the WTC. I had almost forgotten that Tuesday happens to be the anniversary of the day when so many perished.
-- Dr B
Three catastrophes. And in each case, terrorized people needed something fast -- information, yes. But more than that. They needed to know that the sky had not fallen. They needed reassurance. They needed leadership. And that was the job of their leaders -- on the ground -- they mayors of those two stricken cities, and the president of the university.
So what does a leader say in the midst of a disaster like 9-11, Oklahoma City, Virginia Tech?
The mayors put it simply: They had to be honest -- but they also had to be sensitive to the emotional fragility of their audiences.
For example, Mayor Giuliani said that on that terrible day he was getting reports of casualties as high as l2,000. But he couldn't confirm that number -- in fact, it could have been higher or (as it turned out), lower.
So what he said publicly came from his heartfelt honest recognition that because he didn't know the facts, he had to say he didn't. And that instead of giving out a number -- l2,000 -- that could have overstated or understated the actual casualty numbers, it was simply better to say: " We don't know the numbers of casualties -- but whatever they are, they are too much to bear."
By FRAMING his communication in that way, New York's mayor was acting compassionately and ethically. Such communcation requires not only compassion, but wisdom and experience: that is, the qualities of genuine leadership.
Reflecting on the way the mayor approached his communication, few people would accuse Mayor Giuliani of lying or even spinning. The term we use in mass-mediated communication is "framing." And as you can see, unlike the term spinning, framing doesn't suggest that the communicator is deceptive or manipulative. In these crisis situations, what must enter into all contemplation of communication is what the Greeks called caritas (caring or love or kindness). Kindness is, in fact, wisdom -- perhaps the greatest wisdom. And that's what we want from our leaders -- particularly at a time of crisis, when we are fragile, and prey to rumors and terror and confusion.
This in in fact the lesson of what PR calls "crisis communcation":
1. Tell the truth. If you don't know the facts, say you don't -- and that your information could be mistaken, and that you'll correct it as soon as you're able to.
2. The facts are important, of course. But facts are pretty useless if the leader is without compassion and kindness and wisdom and concern for the people. And the facts are pretty useless without a frame -- a perspective in which to view them as a whole. People want more than numbers -- they want meaning. It's a leader's ethical obligation to provide meaning -- and indeed, as Winston Churchill did for Britain in the darkest early days of the Nazi bombing -- a resolute, positive and spiritually uplifting tone to every communication. ("We will never never never never never surrender.")
3. Don't cover up the facts or the truth. People will forgive just about any act, but are very hard on cover-ups. (Watergate. Monicagate, etc.)
4. Gather the facts and tell them as soon as you can. People are waiting desperately for information. Don't dither unnecessarily. Don't fly over the scene when you could be on the ground helping. Perception is critical -- how you are perceived is a vital part of the effectiveness of communication.
5. People don't merely "buy" the message -- they must believe the messenger. And people aren't stupid -- and they loathe being lied to and tend to be rather unforgiving about being lied to.
6. Ethical communicators keep in their hearts and minds compassion as well as competence -- and know they must cling to their credibility and visbility or risk losing their way.
On Tuesday, September 11, I shall be attending a conference at Emerson College, where one of the speakers is an Emerson alumna whose mother was a First Class passenger on Flight 11, which crashed into the WTC. I had almost forgotten that Tuesday happens to be the anniversary of the day when so many perished.
-- Dr B
Friday, September 7, 2007
Bad PR for Apple
New York Times: Business Day (section) Friday Sept. 7, 2007 page C -1
IPhone Owners Crying Foul Over Price Cut [Headline]
By Katie Hafner and Brad Stone
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 6 -- In June
they were calling it the Godohone. Yes-
terday, it was the Chump Phone.
People who rushed to buy the Ap-
ple iPhone over the last two months
suddenly and embarrassingly found
that they had overpaid by $200 for
the year's most coveted gadget.
Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., has
made few misstepts over the past decade
but it angered manhy of it most loy-
al customers by dropping the price of its
iPhone to $400 from $600 only two
mnths after it first went on sale. THey
let the company know on blogs, through
e-mail messages and with phone calls.
Yesterday, in a remarkable conces-
sion, Steven P.Jobs acknowledged tht
the company had abused its core cus-
tomers' trust and extended a $100 store
credit to the early iPhone buyers.
"Our early customers trusted us,
and we must live up to that trust with out
actions in moments like these," Mr. Jobs
wrote in a letter posted to Apple's Web
site.
The rebate, at least, was enough to
mollify some early iPhone customers
like Kevin Tofel, a blogger in Telford,
Pa., who writes about mobile phones at
a blog called jkOnTheRun.
***
"I just felt so used as a customer, "he
said.
***
IPhone Owners Crying Foul Over Price Cut [Headline]
By Katie Hafner and Brad Stone
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 6 -- In June
they were calling it the Godohone. Yes-
terday, it was the Chump Phone.
People who rushed to buy the Ap-
ple iPhone over the last two months
suddenly and embarrassingly found
that they had overpaid by $200 for
the year's most coveted gadget.
Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., has
made few misstepts over the past decade
but it angered manhy of it most loy-
al customers by dropping the price of its
iPhone to $400 from $600 only two
mnths after it first went on sale. THey
let the company know on blogs, through
e-mail messages and with phone calls.
Yesterday, in a remarkable conces-
sion, Steven P.Jobs acknowledged tht
the company had abused its core cus-
tomers' trust and extended a $100 store
credit to the early iPhone buyers.
"Our early customers trusted us,
and we must live up to that trust with out
actions in moments like these," Mr. Jobs
wrote in a letter posted to Apple's Web
site.
The rebate, at least, was enough to
mollify some early iPhone customers
like Kevin Tofel, a blogger in Telford,
Pa., who writes about mobile phones at
a blog called jkOnTheRun.
***
"I just felt so used as a customer, "he
said.
***
Sunday, September 2, 2007
PR Principles
Hello PR Principles Classes:
Welcome to PR Doc -- the blog I created to comment about public relations. Of course, the idea of blogs isn't simply for the professor to blog. Or even for students to post responses. The idea is for students themselves to blog -- to share their thoughts about a topic.
Public relations concerns itself with reputation, issues, crises, images. PR practitioners work in all fields and industries. Just last week, the world watched as a formerly obscure U.S. senator -- Larry Craig of Idaho -- became instantly famous (that is, notorious) following the revelation of his humiliating arrest in a public bathroom in the Minneapolis airport. Arrested on June 11, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor (disorderly conduct) by mail, waiving his Miranda rights (to be represented by a lawyer).
Hoping that the arrest record would never come out, he was surprised (shouldn't have been) when a reporter for a little-known Washington DC newspaper, The Call, broke the arrest story on the basis of tracking down an anonymous tip. Very little is private any more in the Internet age.
The Idaho Statesman (google it) had been sitting on stories about Senator Craig (were the rumors about his sexuality true?). But when the Call broke the men's room story, it was Instant Crisis for Larry Craig. And in the Internet era -- and the era of constant crisis -- Craig's three decades of public service seemed to evaporate in a nanosecond. He held a press conference ("I am not gay. I have never been gay.") He denied he had done anything wrong.
And then a tape recording of his arrest was made available to the news media (I heard it on CNN). Pressure from the Republican senate leadership pushed the repuation-damaged senator to resign from the senate prior to the November election. Idaho hasn't elected a Democrat in a generation -- but there was the sense that the only Republican who could lose a race would be one who had been arrested in a men's room and pled guilty to the charge, telling no one, not the senators, apparently. Craig's committee posts in the senate were taken from him by the senate leaders.
Following the press conference, the news media -- especially cable (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Larry King, Nancy Grace, Keith Olbermann) -- aired the tape and the humiliating story constantly, with panels of lawyers, psychologists and politicians. Senator John McCain opined on the Letterman Show that Craig should resign.
Finally, on Saturday, September 1, just two days after the arrest story had broken, the senator held a press conference to do what the news media had already announced he would do: resign from the senate. His resignation, he said, would be effective September 30. He continued to deny that he had done anything wrong, asserting he was "entrapped" by the police officer, a 29-year-old cop engaged in a sting, following complaints about sexual cruising in that particular bathroom (it's listed as a cruising place on web sites).
What are the lessons learned so far from this incident? How would a public relations expert analyze what happened? What would a public relations expert advise Senator Craig to do now? Or to do immediately following his arrest and guilt plea? What does this case suggest about the power of "public opinion?" ABout the effect of the Internet on public opinion? ABout the relationship between the law and public opinion? About "crisis communication" in the age of the Internet? ABout American culture and politics? ABout the significance of reputation? About the fragility of reputation? About waiving one's Miranda Rights?
These and other questions make this a fascinating case with political and mass-communication consequences -- and a relevant and timely case for class discussion.
REB Sept. 2, 07
Welcome to PR Doc -- the blog I created to comment about public relations. Of course, the idea of blogs isn't simply for the professor to blog. Or even for students to post responses. The idea is for students themselves to blog -- to share their thoughts about a topic.
Public relations concerns itself with reputation, issues, crises, images. PR practitioners work in all fields and industries. Just last week, the world watched as a formerly obscure U.S. senator -- Larry Craig of Idaho -- became instantly famous (that is, notorious) following the revelation of his humiliating arrest in a public bathroom in the Minneapolis airport. Arrested on June 11, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor (disorderly conduct) by mail, waiving his Miranda rights (to be represented by a lawyer).
Hoping that the arrest record would never come out, he was surprised (shouldn't have been) when a reporter for a little-known Washington DC newspaper, The Call, broke the arrest story on the basis of tracking down an anonymous tip. Very little is private any more in the Internet age.
The Idaho Statesman (google it) had been sitting on stories about Senator Craig (were the rumors about his sexuality true?). But when the Call broke the men's room story, it was Instant Crisis for Larry Craig. And in the Internet era -- and the era of constant crisis -- Craig's three decades of public service seemed to evaporate in a nanosecond. He held a press conference ("I am not gay. I have never been gay.") He denied he had done anything wrong.
And then a tape recording of his arrest was made available to the news media (I heard it on CNN). Pressure from the Republican senate leadership pushed the repuation-damaged senator to resign from the senate prior to the November election. Idaho hasn't elected a Democrat in a generation -- but there was the sense that the only Republican who could lose a race would be one who had been arrested in a men's room and pled guilty to the charge, telling no one, not the senators, apparently. Craig's committee posts in the senate were taken from him by the senate leaders.
Following the press conference, the news media -- especially cable (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Larry King, Nancy Grace, Keith Olbermann) -- aired the tape and the humiliating story constantly, with panels of lawyers, psychologists and politicians. Senator John McCain opined on the Letterman Show that Craig should resign.
Finally, on Saturday, September 1, just two days after the arrest story had broken, the senator held a press conference to do what the news media had already announced he would do: resign from the senate. His resignation, he said, would be effective September 30. He continued to deny that he had done anything wrong, asserting he was "entrapped" by the police officer, a 29-year-old cop engaged in a sting, following complaints about sexual cruising in that particular bathroom (it's listed as a cruising place on web sites).
What are the lessons learned so far from this incident? How would a public relations expert analyze what happened? What would a public relations expert advise Senator Craig to do now? Or to do immediately following his arrest and guilt plea? What does this case suggest about the power of "public opinion?" ABout the effect of the Internet on public opinion? ABout the relationship between the law and public opinion? About "crisis communication" in the age of the Internet? ABout American culture and politics? ABout the significance of reputation? About the fragility of reputation? About waiving one's Miranda Rights?
These and other questions make this a fascinating case with political and mass-communication consequences -- and a relevant and timely case for class discussion.
REB Sept. 2, 07
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)