« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »
April 20, 2005
Loyalty schmoyalty
Loyalty to a political party is a delicate thing. I say this not as a partisan Democrat, but as one who has observed the "loyalty" issue play out time and again.
In this case, it's about the Bush Administration's choice for United Nations ambassador, John Bolton, a fellow who apparently has had, shall we say, a hard time being warm and fuzzy to underling co-workers at the State Department. Now, many of his victims have repaid Bolton -- with interest.
The Senate has to approve Bolton's appointment. In hearings on the nomination, The Republican-dominated Senate leadership felt as if it had let Democrats have their say. And they had kicked around Bolton with gusto.
But by the beginning of yesterday's meeting, the Republican majority was ready to lower its collective head and bully through Bolton's nomination.
The account of the rancorous debate on NPR was great. Lots of senators talking over each other. Chairman Richard Lugar declaring that "There's been enough give" as he directed the committee clerk to call the role.
Suddenly, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, an independent sort from Nebraska, said he wanted more information on Bolton, accused by Democrats of being a serial abuser of underlings at the State Department. Then another Republican, George Voinovich of Ohio, said he wasn't comfortable voting for Bolton.
Lugar's determination to hold the vote vanished. Wow, a change of heart from the chair! I guess there was more "give" after all.
Whether George Bush or Bill Clinton is in the White House, party loyalty only goes so far, especially in the Senate, where all 100 members think they should have been elected president.
Enough members of the Republican majority had enough concerns about Bolton that perhaps his nomination should have been put in a time-out. Many Republican senators wanted to support their president, but for others, party loyalty only goes so far. That's why the U.S. Senate, often so maddeningly deliberative, can be such a good institution when it rises to the occasion.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 18, 2005
Selective sanctimony
Most of the tools in the public relations business are obvious. In my PR agency, I spend a lot of time with clients helping them simplify their stories -- what's compelling and different about what their companies are doing or offering.
Some public relations tactics, such as the use of video new releases -- VNRs -- have become controversial. A VNR is about what sound like it is -- a video version of the traditional paper news release. Except that it's on video. Sometimes, it can be downloaded from a satellite.
What has some critics up in arms is that it's not always apparent to the end-user -- the viewer of the TV newscast -- who produced the VNR. Some TV news departments credit the source by superimposing it at the bottom of the screen with a message such as "Video supplied by Acme Corporation." Other stations do not.
Some Mainstream Media (MSM) reporters of late have criticized public relations agencies and their corporate clients for trying to mislead viewers through VNRs.
Please.
Every day print reporters in MSM get information from news releases, fact sheets, background papers, chronologies, biographical sketches and so on provided by public relations firms on behalf of their clients. Do newspaper readers know that reporters have been spoon-fed this information from PR firms? In most cases, no. But you don't hear outrage from the MSM about this propaganda source.
Selective sanctimony riddles newsrooms.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
PR: Ready for its close-up?
The public relations industry should not be surprised by increased scrutiny in the mainstream media (MSM). The recent examination of public realtions was triggered by the U.S. Department of Education's contract with the Ketchum PR firm, which hired conservative black commentator Armstrong Williams to say nice things about No Child Left Behind. The Williams case was a debacle made worse by Ketchum's inartful and slow response.
By and large, public relations has been an afterthought in MSM. There are daily columns dedicated to advertising in the Wall Street Journal and the business section of the New York Times. PR news is mentioned as an afterthought, if at all.
But there are those who believe that traditional advertising is a dinosaur. Corporate marketing dollars are being moved from mass media advertising to product placement and public relations.
So, increased scrutiny of the public reltions by MSM is inevitable. It's a sign that public relations is on the ascendency. I believe that advertising will play a major role in our culture for many years to come. But its cost and effectiveness wil be questioned increasingly by the people who control corporate purse strings.
By contrast, PR costs less, but has had more of a problem than advertising quantifying its effectiveness. A company not only has to be able to measure the impact of an improved public image. It has to believe that a better public image will allow it to sell more goods or services.
The public relations industry has moaned for years that it hasn't gotten the notice that advertising gets. Now that's beginning to change, and the question is, "Is the public relations industry ready for its close-up?"
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 13, 2005
Indicted for Idiocy
I'll tell you who should be on trial. The parents who allowed their kids to have sleepovers with Michael Jackson.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 12:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 11, 2005
DeLay going down
Tom DeLay is toast.
I've seen this drama play out so many times over the years. Nobody ends up looking very good. And the House majority leader will end up looking pathetic if he doesn't go ahead and exit stage right.
This isn't a commentary on whether DeLay is guilty of holding up corporations for illegal campaign donations. Heck, they probably donated to him gladly. Or whether his wife and daughter were unjustly enriched by working for his political action committees. It's not about whether he took overseas junkets paid for by those corporations who were seeking his imprimatur on legislation that would give them some advantage.
No. It's more about the cumulative weight of all the negative stories about DeLay, now coming almost daily, in the Washington Post and other MSM.
Once the coverage reaches a crticial mass, now fast approaching in DeLay coverage, his colleagues will drop DeLay like a bad habit. He will have become an electoral liability.
Remember Trent Lott? John Tower? New Gingrish? Bob Packwood? Bob Livingston decided to to resign as Speaker-designate before he could be eviscerated because of his extramarital romps.
DeLay seems to think he can change the subject. He led the congressional misadventure to save Terry Schiavo, which was widely unpopular with voters. He led the congressional delegation to Pope John Paul II's funeral.
In the end, that will only give the MSM more time to beat up on him. Delay is going down. It's not a question of if. It's only a matter of when.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 07, 2005
"Talent vs. team" -- unfair...and maybe racist
Maybe it's late to be commenting on the NCAA men's basketball championship. But I'm a proud University of North Carolina alumnus, and I think the Tar Heels were tremendously disrespected by MSM (mainsteam media) in their drive to the national championship.
The main theme leading up to Monday night's game with Illinois was "Team vs. Talent," with Illinois representing Team.
This was a ridiculous comparison. In the Monday night game, Illinois took 40 three-point shots, many of them in the first half rushed and ill-advised. In contrast, throughout the season, UNC led the nation in assists-per-game.
It is true that Carolina had one player -- Rashad McCants -- with a reputation for immense talent and an underdeveloped sense of teamwork. He makes his shots -- some of them spectacular -- nearly half the time. And sometimes he takes shots that look silly and selfish. Yet McCants didn't take and make as many shots as he did a year ago.
When I have read MSM accounts of teams that "have great talent" or "show athleticism," I observe that the writers are really trying to say that those teams are dominated by undisciplined African-American players.
In most cases, this characterization is racist. I'm not sure in UNC's case, because Illinois had four African-American players in its starting five. McCants does have a smirk, and during games he urges the UNC section to make noise. So what. He's 20 years old. And he does not characterize the entire UNC basketball team.
MSM were wrong about UNC. The Tar Hees proved Monday night they had talent...and team.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 05:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 04, 2005
JPII
This is one southern Protestant who's always admired John Paul II.
I don't agree with him on everything, mind you. But I don't agree with my wife 100% of the time, either.
John Paul II stood up for the poor and the dispossessed. He liked President Bush but was unequivocal in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
And although I once was told that the only kind of politics more brutal than partisan politics was church politics, I believe that John Paul put Jesus at the center of everything he tried to do as Pope.
I hope the Catholic Church will see this mourning period as a time to be sensitive to what the Holy Spirit might be saying about women and gays in the church and married people in the priesthood. I don't know what the answers are, but I somehow sense that they aren't today what they've been in the past 25 years during John Paul's pontificate.
Tradition is good, but discerning what God is saying to us today is better.
Posted by Ken Eudy at 11:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack