Our Morning Roundup
*Yikes. "Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Director Linda Argo dismissed 18 of the city's 34 residential inspectors, who are responsible for ensuring that rental properties are clean, safe and well-maintained," according to the Washington Post.
*Just as President George Bush begins packing up his things, "W," Director Oliver Stone's Bush biopic, is hitting theaters. Will any of it be accurate? Politico attempts to answer that question. What they really should be inquiring about is whether anyone will actually see it.
*If you could make it past the New Yorker's cover, you might have discovered this Ryan Lizza piece on Obama's past life in Chicago. The Washington Post published a similar story about that very topic earlier this week.
*The epidemic of anonymous sourcing must be stopped! Jack Shafer to the rescue!!! Shafer and Slate intern Kara Hadge instructed Google to e-mail them links to all news stories containing either "anonymous" or "anonymity" in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times." Then, they judged the material. The resulting spreadsheet is extraordinary.
*Jews of the world rejoice! You can get a full body tattoo, and still rest in peace wherever you damn well please. The New York Times reports.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
9:34 am
I am totally getting inked. Would it be playing to stereotype too much if had "Mother" tatooed across my chest?
10:45 am
No, but if you got it across your @$$, you might fulfill someone's soap bar fantasy.
3:46 pm
THE MEDIA, CONTROL AND BALANCE
By Ronn Torossian, President & CEO, 5W Public Relations
Working in public relations and, in particular, crisis management, there is a tremendous balancing act between projecting clients’ images and agendas and, at the same time, protecting them – essentially keeping the press at bay. Often, as it is, the purpose of PR and wrangling with the media is to encourage positive coverage for whomever or whatever you represent. If the story is not going to be positive, then it is best just not to do it. The job of a good PR person is to protect his clients and make them look their best in the media and in public.
It is for this reason that I found myself agreeing with the recent Obama campaign's decision to ban a reporter deemed to be from a publication believed to be less than objective for Obama from his press plane on this week’s International “foreign policy” trip. Let’s face it, there’s no shortage of reporters wanting to travel with the presidential candidate – as the campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane, of which they were able to grant only 40 – so why grant space to a publication who has previously hurt the campaign, and who may skew coverage in place of someone less inclined to do so? It is hard to imagine the New York Yankees allowing a Boston-minded sports reporter unfettered locker room access.
Candidates and clients as well, offer access to media with the hope, and perhaps even the expectation that media will present a positive narrative. Yet, anyone worth his salt in public relations knows all to well that media access by its very nature presents the possibility of either a good or a bad story. So, if there is choice, why ante-up with media deemed to be biased against your position when there are so many other journalists one can gamble on to better the odds?
Equally as reporters at the top tier publications want exclusive information, unique off the record comments and the like, so too must there be a very fair and real expectation for them that if they present a negative or seemingly prejudicial story then the possibility of being excluded is very real – especially when there is a major issue at stake, like a presidential election, and especially where the candidate has the luxury of choosing any media he prefers. Indeed, he cannot avoid bad coverage from someone inclined to do so, but he does not need to offer a seat on his plane.
The banned reporter in question, Ryan Lizza of New Yorker Magazine learned that Obama had earned a reputation of "'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.'"[i][i] This is not an issue of Freedom of the Press; Lizza can write what he wants, but Obama is not obligated to open his arms in welcome. Outrage by media over such policies is also hypocritical, as stated in The Huffington Post, “Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate.” No, it is not chilling – it is valid. As journalists are arbiters of fate, they should expect that those on the receiving end of their opinions or ideals be cautious.
I find myself agreeing with this statement from Anita Dunn, an Obama advisor, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job it if weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give,” Ms. Dunn said. “We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.”[ii][ii]
I understand those of us in the public relations business who feels that media must not be allowed to simply run rampant over clients - especially those who garner tremendous media attention. It does not mean that we should not cooperate with media – We do, but while we would love totally positive coverage, we generally seek what we can expect to be fair and objective.
[i][i] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/obamas-revenge-emnew-york_n_113969.html
[ii][ii] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin