wallydownundy

Used to be the most dangerous weapon a soldier carried was his firearm. Today it appears to be his SmartPhone.

Global news is focused on the video that purportedly shows US Marines urinating on the corpses of Taliban soldiers (for one summary article and a link to the video look here). The soldiers recognise a video is being taken. This clip was later uploaded to a video sharing sight - and from there spread globally.

This isn’t the first case of a damaging video going global. Few can forget UCLA Girl and her rant about Asian students in the library. Alexandra Wallace withdrew from the school, the Dean issued a blanket apology, and the former student received death threats.

Here in Hong Kong a pilot and stewardess from Cathay Pacific were fired when video footage appeared on-line of them sharing an intimate moment. Thankfully the airline determined the incident happened in an off-duty airplane - on the ground!

Clearly these incidents are all examples of violations of acceptable behaviour. The horrors of war, the stresses of study and the pressures of work all affected these individuals differently. What has turned these actions into global news stories is the presence of a SmartPhone. Instead of requiring a stand-alone video camera with uplink facilities, most people now point and shoot their phones. Whether in the field in the Middle East or in the cockpit in Hong Kong, mobile phone coverage means your next indiscretion is only an upload away.

While Hillary Clinton used the strongest language possible to decry these actions, I am sure she is thankful that in the 1990’s an intern in the White House didn’t have a Smart Phone in her purse.

On Canton Road in Tsim Sha Tsui it’s not unusual to see shoppers lined up, waiting to be granted permission to enter luxury retail outlets. It freaked Australian friends out when they visited. Ange was indignant - “I won’t queue for Chanel!”

Luckily when I snapped this photo I’d chosen the right retail outlet. Why?

Last week a Hong Kong couple tried to take photographs in front of the Dolce & Gabbana store in Harbour City mall on Canton Road in Tsim Sha Tsui. Details are sketchy, but a security guard and a sales person stopped them from photographing. It was stated that Mainland tourists can take photos but not Hong Kong locals. The man posted this on Facebook and his comments were flagged by local newspaper Apple Daily (circulation 280,000 - thanks Sunny!).

The next day, this tabloid newspaper sent a photographer - who was also sent away. Again it was explained that local Hong Kongers couldn’t take photographs, while Mainland tourists could. This was too good a story for Apple Daily to pass up. According to Wikipedia, this mix of fashion and controversy is tailor made:

“Apple Daily’s popularity as Hong Kong’s second best selling newspaper, according to AC Nielsen, is derived from its concentration on celebrity coverage, brash news style, sensationalist news reportage and its anti-government political positions.” (Source: Wikipedia)

From the coverage in Apple Daily, the issue escalated through social media. It appears the discrimination by a luxury retailer became a political issue, as some fear preferential treatment of Mainlanders means local rights are being overlooked. Others protest the power of large scale brands.

On Sunday a protest was held where over a thousand attended. Throngs blocked the entrance to the store. All carried cameras.

In response Dolce & Gabbana issued a statement denying their staff made the comments. No apology was offered. Yesterday, inflammatory remarks attributed to a D&G salesperson were widely circulated on-line. then reprinted in today’s mainstream newspapers. The South China Morning Post reprinted her accusations:

Woman claiming to be Dolce & Gabbana employee calls protesters ignorant

She used other terms - apparently labelling the protesters “mentally retarded” (see article above).

This is a classic example of a crisis that is spiralling out of control. In the absence of clarity from Dolce & Gabbana the on-line and mainstream media are making the news. In response the company needs to come out publicly and address these issues before the press. A large-scale media conference could prove unruly. But a series of in-person interviews offer a better opportunity to get the message across.

And first and foremost, this needs to start with an apology - whether it’s over the misunderstanding, the way the issues has escalated unreasonably, or the initial comments themselves. If not, D&G risks long-term brand damage.

What should have been a “one day wonder” is turning into another week of front page headlines.

UPDATE: Today ‘Campaign Asia’ ran a feature story on this issue, and quoted me. Read it here: http://tiny.cc/8szt7

Australia has a rich history in current affairs programming. The expose style format started here with “This Day Tonight” which started in 1967 aired its last show in 1978. Since then a bevy of similar format programs have seen success. As a public relations professional, its standard format to train clients for appearances on these programs so they come across lucid and professional when filmed. (Easier said than done as I learned when appearing on a live business news show in Hong Kong - my left knee wouldn’t stop shaking!)

ABC Television is home to the current affairs program “Four Corners” that aired a segment on inhumane treatment of Australian cattle at Indonesian abattoirs.  Not that a visit to a slaughterhouse is ever for the feint of heart, however this program shows particularly gruesome scenes. (View the 30 May 2011 episode on-line at ABC’s iView site.)

In the two weeks since the program aired, the national newspapers have been filled with stories on the issue. This has bubbled all the way to Parliament with a decision by government to ban live cattle export to Indonesia. This complete ban followed an interim step of black-listing the 12 abattoirs shown in the program. Backlash led to a full ban and calls for an end to live exports.

The export of live cattle is a multi-million dollar business in Australia. The purpose-built ship Becrux is such a formidable piece of machinery that “Mighty Ships” on The Discovery Channel profiled the carrier. (Oddly enough the episode is available on torrent file sharing sites but is no longer listed on the list of episodes for the series.) The ship can accommodate 1,400+ live cattle and travels regularly between Darwin in far North Australia to ports in South East Asia, including Indonesia. Live cattle is the export of choice for Indonesia as infrastructure is not in place to refrigerate meat.

The live cattle issue is now a topic of national conversation. Prime Minister Julia Gillard explained the ban on exports to Indonesia as temporary, allowing inspectors and exporters time to put in place monitoring to ensure humane treatment of cattle.  The industry body, Meat & Livestock Australia, decry the inhumane treatment and are working towards a solution. Meanwhile a range of opponents are calling for the ban of live exports, including a campaign featuring cows named Dudley and Arthur by the influential RSPCA.

When and how the ban is lifted will be a balancing act between media coverage, national attention and politics.  At the next ALP (Australian Labor Party) conference the party’s policies towards live export are under review.

All said the issue showcases how investigative journalism can lead the national debate. The original program by “Four Corners” sparked a furor that has yet to die down.  It shows that current affair programs have a leading role in Australian culture and politics, and will continue to play that vital role for some time to come.

Whitegood retail giant Bing Lee decided this week to offer $10,000 to the flood appeal. All in all it is a selfless and noble gesture. It’s been reported on Twitter that Australians are donating $3,000 per minute to the flood appeal. This seemed a good way to make a donation.

Then on-line commentary began - and it was rapid and intense and vitriolic.

On one side was a camp decrying the link between donations and “like” status on Facebook. Seems Bing Lee would donate $1 for every person who clicked “like” on their Facebook page. Prior the page was a way to access discounts.

These commentators said the company should donate regardless. The worst of the negative outcry was Tuesday - the day 9 deaths due to flood were announced, and the day a further 20+ deaths occurred.  This side felt the link between a “like” and a flood donation was a way to increase visibility off the back of a natural disaster. (Author’s Note: My comment on their Facebook page reflects this view.)

On the other side were people in firm support of the program. Their view is that any profile raising was good - and that a dollar donated was a dollar donated. They disagreed that the company was marketing off the back of the flood.

What was astonishing was the passion and the language used by both sides. It wasn’t an on-line debate - it was a digital shouting match. People attacked each other due to their views. It got bitter and personal and mean really, really fast.

And for Bing Lee the last place any company wants to be is in the middle of a shouting match, let alone the instigator. If advising the company I’d recommend a donation and a comment saying the ideal was to raise awareness and get money to flood victims - the intent was never to inflame people’s passions.

It’s good to see debate on-line. It’s bad to see such hatred.

Hashim Thaci is a man under pressure. As Prime Minister of Kosovo he already has enough on his plate. Now he’s been accused of trafficking human organs (see The Australian 22 December 2010).

In his defence, Thaci denied involvement in the crime ring accused of the organ trafficking. He also denied involvement in the heroin trade and said he’d never killed anyone or ordered anyone killed.

Now that we have that cleared up…

Using the “I never” or “I didn’t” defence isn’t a strong suit for the media, especially when that’s followed by a scandalous accusation. Former US President Richard Nixon holds the moral trademark on why this doesn’t work. His famous riposte “I am not a crook” is all but etched on his tombstone. It’s what he’s well remembered for.

Julian Assange isn’t attacking the accusers in his sex crimes imbroglio. He’s going after the network he purports is behind these two. It’s called deflection. Julian is bridging from the issue to a larger matter not directly related.

So what should Thaci do now? The repeated denials of not being a criminal are only reinforcing the word criminal. Immediately we forget the “not.” It would be interesting to learn more about the accusers, their claims and their motivations. That may muddy the water enough for Thaci to retrieve cover.

I’m tough on myself. There’s a lot I don’t like. I’m too broad around the midsection and my forehead has some permanent wrinkles already. (And no, it’s not due to constant surprises!) Then I look back and think there’s more I’d like to change. Perhaps a different alma mater? Higher GPA in high school?

Too bad I never met US Senate-hopeful Richard Blumenthal.

This wanna-be elected official in Connecticut seems to have fabricated portions of his career. Here’s a great video taken in 2008 – look for the catchphrase, “…from the days I served in Vietnam…”

Seems reasonable, no? Problem is all of his experience was States-side following a record five deferments.

So. One lie. Is that all?

As investigators pour over Dick’s record (why is it always a politician named Dick?), more anomalies appear. He says he was captain of the Harvard Swim Team. Now that might have been plausible if Blumenthal actually was on the team. Seems Dick wasn’t on the team he purported to captain. Oops.

In the face of mounting evidence and criticism, Richard Blumenthal has wedged himself into the corner of denial, stonewalling and obfuscation (”Here’s a video link where I accurately cite my Vietnam experience”).

So now I think. If I could re-make myself a la Blumenthal, what might I change? Maybe I won the Bermuda’s Cup in 1982. Perhaps I was founder of a major national charity that helps homeless youth. Or could I have been considered as the first non-scientific crew member of the Atlantis Space Shuttle.

No matter what I’ll have lost four inches off my waist and restored my smooth forehead. That’s my mimunum entry point for re-fabricating myself a la Blumenthal.

Dick. Is that you?

Today I received your bank statement. It was addressed to me, and it had my private, family company name on the top. After that, it had all your personal information.

I know you receive benefits from Centrelink, and that you shop on iTunes. Your medical coverage is with Medibank - there’s even your account number. You’re self-employed because I see the deposits of the client invoices, and the project descriptions. I know you live near Leichhardt because that’s where you buy petrol. When you were on holiday in Perth I know where you stayed and that you even got a traffic fine, which you paid on 23 February. I know where you grocery shop (Woolworths Leichhardt).

What do you know about me?

Last month St George Bank mailed the wrong personal banking information to the wrong customers. I got your statement. You have mine. See story here: http://tinyurl.com/ya54maf

But the bank cares. In their letter they said they’re investigating and will be certain this doesn’t happen again. They have a 24-7 dedicated telephone line. I called on Sunday at 12:00 noon - and was put on hold for 10 minutes (”Because your call is important”). When I asked who received my statement, the female operator started lecturing me that no one could tell who I was by my banking information.

Yet I know your wife is named Leanne - because when you made an Internet Withdrawal you wrote the memo that it was for Leanne’s hair products.

So tell me St George. I know this other person. I have their detailed financial history. You’ve made no effort to reclaim these statements and your bossy operator told me I needn’t worry. You’re taking this seriously. You’re conducting an investigation. Yet the front page of your web site gives none of that away - there’s no mention.

Great job St George. At least I know this statement isn’t for Westpac-St George CEO Gail Kelly. I don’t believe she received Centrelink payments. Nor would she like her personal information in another person’s hands. Just like me.

Poor Jothy Hughes. This “publicist” couldn’t get his client on national television. The firm bought gold, so Jothy arranged for actresses to pose as divorcees. At a staged event they would sell their wedding jewels and act excited by the value. Hooray for divorce!

But Jothy’s emails trying to tempt gold-diggersgold sellers were published. Now Jothy’s dodging camera crews in car parks and his employer refuses to acknowledge his existence. The story received national airplay in AUstralia on “Today Tonight” and “A Current Affair”.

A PR man’s worst nightmare? Maybe not.

One conspiracy theorist notes the responses and car park interviews are too polished. Was this guy caught out or stage managed? The crisis has forced gold buying parties into prominence never-before seen.

Now I know I’m supposed to be creative in my job. But it never occurred to me to fake a crisis in order to propel further media.

Is that what those Exxon Valdez guys were thinking?

Guest Author, Jarrod Baker here at Fleishman-Hillard Sydney - as published on Winter Games Connect

 Arguably Australia’s most prominent television channel and primary broadcaster of the Vancouver Winter Olympic games, Channel 9 has been hit with a blizzard of complaints over homophobic comments made by former CEO and Winter Olympic host Eddie McGuire. McGuire’s comments were made along with fellow host, Australian comedian Mick Malloy, following U.S. athlete Johnny Weir’s routine in men’s figure skating. McGuire and Malloy commented on Weir’s clothing, and used terms including ‘flamboyant’ and ‘in the closet’. 

Just moments after the exchange on live television, a wave of outrage flooded Twitter from thousands of angry viewers. Here are a few examples.

• @Shhhannon Just saw Eddie McGuire step in it with an inappropriate comment about a male ice-skater. Watch this space for controversy!
• @nilesedgeUgggh who let Eddie mcguire near the winter olympics??
• @chicachowCan’t decide what he finds more offensive: channel nine’s vaguely homophobic figure skating commentating or Eddie mcguire’s face.
• @ozreedgal: eddie mcguire has made a number of little digs about competitors’ s-xuality since I’ve been watching 2night. He’s obsessed #olympics.

The outrage continuesin the aftermath of McGuire’s comments, above and beyond the competition and Olympic stars. Currently a Facebook group, ‘Eddie Mcguire is ruining the 2010 Winter Olympics coverage,’ has some 11,000 members – a figure that grew from just 195 people after McGuire’s comments on Weir.

So what’s the latest? Eddie McGuire is currently being investigated by an Australian anti-discrimination board following an outpouring of emotion and official complaints.  As television coverage rolls on and McGuire presides over what’s been a fascinating spectacle, the spotlight’s not just on the games themselves, but also on Eddie. In this case although the media’s covering the Vancouver games, social media is covering the media!

by Jarrod Baker

As part of the kick to the economy last year when the Global Financial Crisis was at its most deadly, the Australian government introduced a series of spending programs. One was to offer free insulation to every Australian household, up to the value of $1,200. Overnight a cottage industry was born. Tradesmen raced to have their businesses certified so they could install insulation for free to households - then charge the Federal Government $1,200 per household.

Once again, the devil is in the details.

With the rush to get insulation and construction industry funds flowing, the program was introduced rapidly. There appears to have been insufficient training and little oversight. One tradesman suggested I factor the government’s $1,200 into the cost of our remodelled kitchen. He would get the grant for the full amount of the insulation even if we only were going to use one batt. No harm no foul? We didn’t go ahead with that tradesman!

Other than overcharging, the lack of training led to faulty installation. Pink batts were laid over halogen light fixtures - putting that house at risk of fire. Some houses got inferior quality insulation so the benefit is lost. Others had foil insulation stapled into place with metal staples. And as the young installers were not trained, some pierced electrical wires. Four people were killed. More were severely burned. An unknown number of houses have “live” attics or worse, especially if that “live” foil insulation comes into contact with water pipes. In that case the bathtub spigot could be an electrocution hazard.

Now that all these issues have come to light, there are calls in Parliament for the sacking of the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett.

Today Garrett is featured in a front page photo in The Australian. Is he in the crawl space of a home accompanying an inspector? Is he bedside with a burned installer? Is he in a cramped conference room working with industry leaders to solve the problems? Nope. Minister Garrett is alongside a stream looking at a small snake, as yesterday he launched an effort to monitor reptiles, snakes and maybe even bugs.

Yes, I am familiar with the excuse that it was a pre-booked event. And yes, somehow I understand that snakes are critical to the environment. And of course “business as usual” does need to proceed. But I am not the public.

What the public see is a Minister out in the bush - and out of touch. People have died and homes may be unsafe. And in comparison to that, the snakes don’t matter. Sorry. The Minister needs to demonstrate control of this “burning” issue or else we’ll demand government put someone in charge who will.

PS: The comments of the author are in no way meant to disrespect reptiles or snakes or any other “creepy crawlies,” as the Minister’s office described them.