Blog written by Shawn M. Kahle, APR

In 1986, America fell in love with Hoosiers!  The movie, that is!  Today, May 6, 2008 all eyes are upon my home state as the political hotbed of the national Democrat presidential campaign – and this from a state traditionally known as Republican.  Hip, hip, hooray!

Candidly, it’s tough growing up a Hoosier.  And while there are many changes you can make in life, it is both illegal and ill-advised to try to officially “reposition” your place of birth.  Sure, you can share stories of international travel or acquire a big city address, but the fact is, if you were born in New Castle, Indiana you are indeed a Hoosier – forever!

There are certain characteristics that hold true for 99 percent of the Hoosiers you ever encounter.  Many possess strong work ethics with roll-up-your-sleeves determination.  They are matter-of-fact in character, not known for making life fancier than it needs to be unless they marry very, very well. 

Candidates Clinton and Obama certainly are campaigning with heartland, down-to-earth rhetoric peppering their stumps – with a little bit of favorite son Senator Evan Bayh and the king-of-all-things-cool-and-loving Stevie Wonder mixed in to rattle the otherwise basketball-crazed crowds.

What’s ironic about being a Hoosier is that no one really knows the origin of that wacky moniker. In fact, many tales are spun in the tapestry of Indiana’s official history stretching back as early as 1827. 

With such a storied history, I’m starting to believe my Hoosier ancestors also may be the inventors – or at least the early pioneers – of SPIN!  Consider these potential theories summarized by the Indiana Historical Bureau to the eternal question, “What is a Hoosier?”

·         When a visitor hailed a pioneer cabin in Indiana or knocked upon its door, the settler would respond, "Who's yere?"

·         Indiana river men were so spectacularly successful in trouncing or "hushing" their adversaries in the brawling that was then common that they became known as "hushers," and eventually Hoosiers.

·         There was once a contractor named Hoosier employed on the Louisville and Portland who preferred to hire laborers from Indiana. They were called "Hoosier's men" and eventually all Indianans were called Hoosiers.

·         Poet James Whitcomb Riley claimed early settlers were vicious fighters who gouged, scratched and bit off noses and ears. This was so common that a settler coming into a tavern the morning after a fight and seeing an ear on the floor would touch it with his toe and casually ask, "Whose ear?"

I’m guessing after all of the Hoosier hoopla of the 2008 presidential election, there are a lot of Indianans who wish their ears were on the floor!

Yep, those candidates sure can talk the ears right off your spinning head!

Blog entry written by Cory Sealey

I’m sorry but I really don’t see the big hubbub being made over the recent Annie Leibovitz pictures of tween star Miley Cyrus.  It’s Disney at its finest! 

 Half of America is up in arms claiming the shots are straight up pornography while the other half, myself included, are wondering what the hell is going on.  Disney representative, Patti McTeague, faulted Vanity Fair for the photo. "Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines," she said.  Is it just me or does America and Disney have a really messed up “do as I say and not how I do” attitude when it comes to nudity, especially with underage girls?  Miley, who has a popular show “Hannah Montana” on the Disney channel has yet to comment on this “Scandal”, but let me remind you

 Disney sells bikinis for girls

Oh and panties too, (available exclusively in Asia)

 Disney really should not crap where it eats it meals in my opinion.  They know their overwhelmingly wallet friendly demographic is girls (and their parents) who are closely following this “ordeal”.  How is Disney going to explain itself this summer when it’s time to sell those tasteful bikinis to your 10 year old?

 What if we saw the snaps at face value; the marketing of a teenager, with all of her “naughty bits” well covered, trying to assert her independence from her on screen persona?

People, and I am speaking mostly to the Helen Lovejoy’s of the world need to stop reading so far into these types of things.   The giant stink you are causing only makes more tweens and kids want to find these pictures.   In the age of Google, it won’t be long until your children see the infamous pictures.  Then it is your turn to spin how you don’t like what Disney stars do, but you will still buy them that Princess Jasmine costume, complete with exposed midriff and greasepaint makeup. 

Aren’t’ we giving more of a reason for Disney to spin these pictures as horrible and tasteless to appease its customers?  Does anyone else feel they are just going through a well calculate set of motions to deny, spin, and then make amends to their public?  It’s a very disturbing pattern of “who me” Lolita-ism in which Disney is an expert.  The mouse should at least own up to their actions.  I mean they only gave the world Britney Spears, and look how great that turned out!      

Blog written by Maggie Hassler

According to PR Week, Greenpeace recently visited Lexis PR, JCPR and Ogilvy PR urging the three PR agencies representing Unilever’s Dove brand to help persuade Unilever to stop using unsustainable palm oil. Greenpeace's “Burning Up Borneo” report claims that Unilever is responsible for the destruction of Indonesia's rainforests through chosen suppliers. Greenpeace targeting Unilever’s public relations firms as agents of influence and change brings up an interesting question: Are public relations organizations and individuals responsible for their client's practice?

According to the Public Relations Society of America Member Code of Ethics, a public relations professional committed to ethical practices is to uphold the core value of honesty.  This value requires members to “adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.”

With this in mind, I argue that public relations organizations and individuals are not responsible for client practice or pursuing change of said practice.  Rather, public relations agencies and professionals are responsible for transparency and accuracy when dealing with media and the public.  It is ultimately the consumer’s decision to purchase products and services they are informed about.

Blog written by Elizabeth Holland

Going green has become the new issue of importance with the rise of campaigns for environmental awareness. Subsequently, environmentally focused newspaper columns and Web sites have emerged to educate the consumer on how they can live a “greener” lifestyle – and it’s catching on.

You have seen everything from green designers environmentally safe products green wedding dressesand the list goes on. Yet, I have often been torn at the grocery store deciding between products and the authenticity of their eco-friendly claims.

Seems I am not the only one questioning green marketing initiatives. Advertising Age reports that the Federal Trade Commission is reevaluating their guidelines for eco-friendly messaging. Considering that they were created in 1992 I would say it is about time. Hopefully some clarifications can be reached to limit unsubstantiated environmental claims. Because after all even if a water bottle is 30% less plastic does that make it “eco-friendly”?

Nevertheless, I like to focus on the positive side of things. PR professionals can make a positive impact with marketing genuine products and partnering with environmentally – focused organizations. Also, they can strategically guide companies in creating or evaluating current green initiatives and messaging along authentic principles. Ultimatelythis only promotes environmental awareness.

With the "going green" bandwagon busting at the seams it seems as though everyone is trying to have the greenest grass on the block. 

Blog written by Angela Loiacono

Apparently, plagiarism isn’t really plagiarism any more.  Last week, the Daily Herald reported that the Northern Illinois University (NIU) dean of the College of  Engineering  and Engineering Technology Promod Vohra lifted large portions of his master’s thesis from engineering textbooks and manuals.  These 20 some sections did not include any quotation marks or internal citations.

After four tenured professors filed a complaint, a NIU panel decided that the copying didn’t constitute as plagiarism. The panel backed up its decision by saying the definition of plagiarism was not as simple as, “a paper copied in part from one or more sources, without proper identification and acknowledgement of the sources.” (Despite the fact that the university’s English department supplied this definition.)  They went on to conclude that Vohra did not intend to deceive anyone, so his stolen work couldn’t count against him.

Is this for real? Any student who was found to have taken one section of a textbook and dropped into their paper insinuating that it was their own work would at the very least be given a failing grade, if not asked to leave the class, or in some instances, the university.  But for some reason, Vohra is allowed to do such a thing, because, well...he didn’t mean to deceive anyone. If he didn’t’ mean to deceive anyone, why not use quotes or citations? A professor, let alone a dean, knows better than to try and pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with this ridiculous defense. 

I’m embarrassed for the university and Vohra. I’d love to see him explain his rationale in class.

Blog written Thomas Short

Every year, the same month and day we are supposed to give thanks to our planet. April 22 marks the official “Earth Day” that dates back to 1970 where Senator Gaylord Nelson, a native of Wisconsin, is given credit for the idea of Earth Day. Typically this is a time for environmental groups, organizations, and schools, all over the globe to participate in saving the planet by putting a stop to pollution, global warming, endangered species, and of course, continuing to recycle.

While all these activities are taking place throughout the later part of the month of April, the students at the University of Colorado at Boulder seem to go about their three “R’s” in a different direction. Rather than giving our planet a big hug, 2,500 students have spun Earth Day by combining it with national marijuana day, a.k.a. 4/20. The students gather in a common area and count down the minutes until they can indulge in a left-handed cigarette with their follow classmates.

 

 
I’m no environmentalist, but usually by the end of a massive college gathering, students are not walking around picking up recyclables or in this case, empty Oreo or pizza containers. Instead of students cleaning up their university, or volunteering to clean up the surrounding communities, they polluted their university in more than one way. Several students were interviewed as to why they were attending the Earth Day celebration and replied while laughing and attempting to sustain conscience, “I don’t know.” I can only image if kids get a hold of the video or pictures online. There will be a new meaning to them of what Earth Day is.

However, there was one positive outcome form the event; several students did register to vote.

Blog written by Liz Pope

Technically The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News should function as allies, considering they’re both published by the Denver Newspaper Agency (DNA) and work in the same building. Nevertheless, with drops in readership and funding, these publications find themselves head-to-head in a battle that ultimately decides which paper stays afloat in the long run.

The DNA and the papers’ owners have done their best to differentiate between the Denver dailies to maintain readership and keep the competition at bay. For example, the Rocky is laid out in a tabloid style while The Post prints on a broadsheet. And while both incorporate the Denver news, the Rocky specializes in features stories and The Post specializes in hard news.

Arguably, the effort is just not enough. The DNA’s reported income for the 2007 fiscal year was $12.3 million, down from the $21.8 million from the previous year (as reported in the MediaNews Group annual report). In fact, rumor has it that the Rocky will fold by the end of the year.

As an avid reader of both publications, the decreasing number of stories printed per issue comes in conjunction with the increasing number of newspaper staff layoffs. In the Rocky especially, many of the articles aren’t even written by Rocky reporters, but instead by Boulder Daily Camera and Associated Press reporters.

How this issue impacts the public relations profession:

1. Beat coverage: It has become increasingly difficult to determine which reporter covers which beat with reporters covering multiple beats and many beats disappearing altogether. Even Cision, which is heavily relied on by top pr firms, isn’t always accurate.

2. Pitching: Our story pitches and ideas need to be dead on with absolutely no spin involved. With the increasing number of pr practitioners and the decreasing number of reporters, we’re all going for the same bait. While some pitch angles might have been newsworthy in the Denver community several years ago, this is no longer the case.

3. Online: Although the hard-copy publications are diminishing, their online Web sites and communities are flourishing. The Rocky’s YourHub.com, an online community Web site where readers can post their own stories and pictures, has become a fantastic outlet for public relations practitioners to post stories about clients that are newsworthy, but not always enough to make it to print. Even better, you can track the number of visitors to your story and even have the chance to receive pick up in the YourHub printed edition that comes out once a week and is distributed as a supplement to the Denver dailies. The Post is also pushing their community Web site called “Neighbors,” which is similar in function to YourHub.com. Even Post online news editor Demetria Gallegos, who attended the past Public Relations Society of America media luncheon, portrayed the “Neighbors” site as a perfect place for pr professionals to communicate and build relationships with editors and reporters.

Blog written by Ayanna Green

L.A. Johnson with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote an article about a Web site claiming to measure political integrity.  The website uses a rating tool designed by David Gruder, a psychologist.  On Dr. Gruder’s website is his Integrity Watch blog.  He developed this blog because the political world is full of so much spin that the public needs an education in what “integrity truly involves so they can separate spin from fact.” 

I think this is fantastic.  Dr. Gruder has developed a Political Integrity Rating Tool (PIRT) in which there are 10 key dimensions of politician integrity.  They are authenticity, accountability, life balance, teachability, vision, problem solving, fiscal responsibility, stewardship, synergy and communication. 

I have noticed myself and many others become numb to the amount of destructive spin in the media.  Numb because there is no way to express our outrage, no way to say enough is enough.  I think Dr. Gruder’s tool is a start; a way to systematically deal with the overload of spin.

Our Web site is about fighting destructive spin.  It’s nice to know there are other people out there with similar concerns.

Blog written by Morgan Smith

Governments are engaged in a constant battle between taxing and spending. The battle is waged each year, dating from when taxes were first levied by governments, as a means of paying for services needed by their constituents.

Elected officials are always struggling to come up with new ways to not alienate constituents, keeping everyone moderately happy enough to ensure their re-election. This is especially true when it comes to the subject of taxes. How many times have you witnessed campaign rhetoric announcing “candidate X raised taxes XX times, hurting working families,” or “candidate Y, cut services for (insert large issue group here, i.e. seniors, children, working mothers, etc.)”

The truth is, constituents want the services they depend on without having to pay for them. So what is an elected official to do?

Increasingly, you find a way to heavily tax items, products, or services which are used by a minority of your constituents. 

Enter cigarettes, gambling, and other “unsavory activities”

While I think cigarettes are terrible for you, and I don’t smoke, I think government is getting a little out of control, relying on raising the price of cigarettes $1 per pack to fund critical state programs.

Take, for example, the proposed tax increase on cigarettes in Massachusetts.

Gov. Patrick wants to raise the price of cigarettes $1 per pack to help stabilize the state’s new mandatory health insurance plan.  As stated by the New York Times, “Supporters emphasize that in addition to providing revenue, increases in tobacco taxes are proven to drive down smoking rates, particularly among youths who may find that they cannot afford to start.”

But if the new taxes discourage smoking, where do the taxes come from to pay for the programs when there are no longer enough smokers to foot the bill?

The governments are using spin to justify the reason for levying the new taxes and, frankly, doing a great member of their constituents a disservice by unfairly shifting the tax burden to smoker’s shoulders. Effectively the government is are talking out of both sides of its mouth, saying they don’t like smoking and people shouldn’t do it on one hand, but then making smoking a necessary component of funding government programs. If lawmakers really wanted to stop smoking, they would invest that money in anti-smoking programs. That way, the program would phase itself out as people quit.

Raising taxes on smokers is just a short fix for a problem plaguing governments for centuries. All we need to do to fix the problem is elect legislators who aren’t afraid doing the right thing will get them voted out. After all, aren’t we supposed to hold our elected officials to a higher standard?

Blog written by Molli Megasko

Here's the thing about the Internet, it's simple supply and demand.  You can shut a site down, but if the demand is there, another one is going to pop up.

Take the online music sharing communities for example.  Napster was a hit, it was the first widely-used peer-to-peer sharing service, and it made a major impact on how people used the Internet, the demand was there.  When Napster was forced to shut down more grew in it's place.  Kazza, ShareBear, LimeWire — just to name a few. 

So when I reading about Juicy Campus in PRWeek, (which allows anyone to post anonymous gossip about a person or organization at one of the 60-plus schools currently listed, without any vetting for veracity) I can see why universities want to put an end to the gossip sharing site.  It’s not only hurtful, the idea itself is pathetic.

"The site's User Conduct Terms require posters to agree that they will not post content that is abusive, obscene or invasive of another's privacy," according to a news release from Milgram's office. "JuicyCampus.com tells the public that this offensive content may be removed, but the site apparently lacks tools to report or dispute this material."

Don’t get me wrong I think this site is trash, but suing might be a waste of time.  If the site fizzles out like some say it might, great!  But if the students want it, to them it’s easier than writing it on the bathroom doors, and they’ll figure out a new way.