Digitized Thoughts

Which is better? To know the information you are getting is completely unbiased, or to know about the biases the information contains, and how it was obtained, when you receive it.

That’s the discussion I had with Micheal Foley and a few others during Monday’s #journchat. For the purposes of our discussion and this blog post, we’re discussing news reporting.

I’m of the mindset that in Utopialand, all news reporting would be completely objective and unbiased. Realizing that we don’t live there, I still believe being as objective as possible is the best route to go.

Michael is of the opposite opinion. He’d rather know EVERYTHING about that report. How the information was obtained, the history of the reporter and interview subject, not to mention the opinion of the editor or director that originally thought of the story. He argues that only with every single piece of relevant information about the story, its subjects, and its writers, can you truly get the full picture.

I don’t feel that way. I think if you are (trying) to be objective, you’ll end up being transparent. Being objective in a situation that you have an opinion about is maybe the most difficult thing a journalist can do. If they can do it well, and I (perhaps naively) believe there are reporters out there who want to be objective. Being objective means all of the relevant information is presented in an unflinching light. The good, the bad, the ugly are all present in the story.

No matter what the personal opinions of the reporter or subjects of the story, or editors or news directors, if all the information is reported in the story, and no details that could slant the story one way or the other are left out, you’re being truly objective…and transparent at the same time.

So maybe the lesson in all of this is in the end, if you’re being truly objective, you’re being truly transparent.

Let me have it in the comments.

EDIT NOTE: I spelled Micheal’s name incorrectly earlier. I’ve now corrected it. May my mistake live on in infamy.

It appears British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward is on his way out. There are many reasons I think this is a good idea. Here’s a couple:

Looks like you’re going to get your wish Mr. Hayward. And don’t forget this gem:

My friend Jason Mollica has written a post detailing his belief that it doesn’t really matter if Hayward is replaced or not. The crux of his argument is as follows:

What I AM saying is that regardless if Hayward is booted, the next person still has a monumental mess on his hands.  So, ultimately, why even bother removing him? The environmental damage alone will take decades to fix.  Some things may never return to normal.

This is a “save face” move.  BP appears to be moving on from the Hayward reign and place the keys in the hands of a new leader.  Basically, BP’s board is saying, “Hey look! We are doing something about the spill!” No, you removed your CEO who was a small part of the problem.

I disagree that this is completely a “save face” move. Without a doubt, any guy dumb enough to say he’d like his life back and then a couple of weeks later attend a yacht race in France is a liability. Where I disagree with Jason is that I don’t think BP is viewing this as a “Look at us people of the Gulf Coast region affected deeply by our screw up! We’re DOING something!”.

There comes a time when the ship needs a new captain. When that leader inspires zero faith from the crew (in this case crew being the public, its BP’s employees, and its investors and stockholders), a new direction is needed. Americans, and most people worldwide, are predisposed to distrust corporate CEO’s, a point made by another friend of mine, Sam Ogborn in the comments:

Here’s my question though: who is someone that the public trusts? Most CEOs of large corporations I’ve never heard of, so I wouldn’t be a good judge of character. But how can someone instill trust in the public eye if no one knows of them in the first place?

That’s a GREAT question. The answer is the public just needs to know that the top man (or woman) at BP “gets it”. They need to know that the BP CEO understands the trauma inflicted by this spill on wildlife and mankind and perceive that person as someone who CARES about what happens in the Gulf. Hayward didn’t seem like he ever truly cared. See those clips up above if you disagree.

To promote change  you need a person at the top that is willing to instill change. If Tony Hayward isn’t going to do his job, then BP needs to find someone inside its organization that can step up and do the job correctly. It’s less about solving the problem in the Gulf, which is going to take another generation at the minimum to TRULY solve, and more about putting someone in place that will take those first steps.

Lindsay Lohan is in jail. Probably not for very long, but still, she’s sitting in jail as we speak. Her lawyer quit on her the day before she was scheduled to turn herself in to begin her sentence. Obviously, she can’t be a very easy client to deal with. I mean, have you seen the video from the day she was sentenced? No? Well, then. Have a look:

In the public relations world, we sometimes deal with that client who is like Lindsay Lohan. I believe there is a time when it becomes necessary for you as a professional to cut ties with that client. Whatever behavior the client is displaying is secondary to the problem of how much time they steal away from your other clients. When you have to spend days upon weeks working with a client who promptly ignores every thing you’ve discussed and does whatever they please you have instantly wasted copious amounts of precious time that could have been devoted to other clients.

Here’s the thing. Every relationship you have is mutually beneficial, otherwise you don’t seek to sustain it. If you continuously pour resources down the drain with one particular client, the other clients who actually value your services will end up walking away from you. Why? They may perceive that you’d rather spend your time dealing with Lindsay Lohan and her drama than working with them, which isn’t the case. In fact, it’s the mirror opposite of the case.

If you aren’t getting something in return for your hard work with a client, other than payment, I submit that it isn’t really a client worth keeping. Money is such a meaningless thing. I know people with barely enough money to scrape by that are some of the happiest people I know. And as you might guess, I know the exact opposite as well. Dealing with Lindsay Lohan just to collect a retainer fee or paycheck isn’t worth what it costs you in the end in terms of job satisfaction, happiness, and peace of mind.

Just cut the cord.

First of all, apologies. It’s been well over a month since I’ve written a blog post. Even the last #cookchat transcript was over a month ago. I have, in all honesty, been slacking in the blogging department. In my defense, I didn’t understand just how busy summer would be as the Marketing Module Coordinator for the Boys & Girls Clubs of West Central Missouri. Zero time during the day to blog in peace, and I’ve been too exhausted, or too busy, on the weekends to do any blogging.

Onto the biggest PR winner from LeBron’s decision to spend the next few years on South Beach. I would put forth that the only group of people viewing LeBron in a positive light now are Miami Heat fans; and possibly die-hard Bron-Bron fans. After the spectacle of “The Decision”, LeBron came off as nothing more than an ego that’s really good at playing basketball. That’s all well and good, he’ll make his millions and laugh all the way to the bank. However, I think someone else that was hardly mentioned at all last night may have scored some serious PR points. Who’s that? This guy:

Kobe Bryant

Kobe has slowly rebuilt his image after nearly destroying himself in Colorado a few years back. Most people will tell you he’s the best player in the NBA currently, given that he has five rings, and two won “by himself”, though Pau Gasol is a mighty fine second fiddle. More importantly, Kobe’s image has something now that LeBron’s doesn’t. Loyalty. Kobe has done everything in his career in Los Angeles. Granted, LA ain’t Cleveland (no disrespect to Cleveland), but LeBron had the tools at his disposal the past two season to make serious runs at the title; and he came up short both times.

Kobe now has a nearly workman like image now. He’s not viewed as egotistical (generally speaking), he’s viewed as a team player, and he’s viewed as a leader. Would you say any of those things about LeBron James? Maybe you would…I know I wouldn’t. Did it seem like LeBron was concerned with the playoffs this year, or was his mind already drifting to July 1st and the sweepstakes he knew would happen? Was he concerned about beating the Celtics, or was he more concerned about building the “King James” image?

Bottom line is I believe LeBron James seriously hurt his image and reputation on Thursday night. There’s a gracious way of leaving your hometown team, and there’s an ungracious. I believe James chose the ungracious route, and that may hurt him for some time to come in places far from the shores of Lake Erie.