Politics: Wafers, G8 moments, and the likely fallout

Canadian politics watchers have been getting lots to talk about this week. First, there was what some people are calling "Wafergate" -- the controversy over whether Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper (a) should have accepted a communion wafer at the state funeral of former Governor-General Roméo Leblanc, and (b) whether, having accepted it, really ate it or just put it in his pocket or otherwise disposed of it.




And this afternoon, there's a growing firestorm around a gaffe at the G-8 summit in Italy. During a news conference, Harper said the following:

"If you don't mind giving me a moment to address the comments of Mr. Ignatieff. The leader of the opposition suggested very recently in the last day or two, I gather, that it's possible -- I’m not sure if he's saying it's desirable or should happen or could happen -- that there will be a group come to the fore, a group of major countries that will exclude Canada. I don't know where he's getting this idea. Nobody but Mr. Ignatieff in the world has suggested excluding Canada from a meeting of major countries. Nobody. It's the first anybody has heard of it. I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian. I don't think you go out and float ideas like this that are so obviously contrary to the country's interests when no one else is advocating them. So I would suggest that he look carefully at his comments and withdraw those. Frankly they would be irresponsible coming from anybody but particularly irresponsible coming from a kean [sic] Canadian Parliamentarian."

Within minutes of this pronouncement, the PM's press secretary Dimitri Soudas, and then the PM, apologized, saying that in fact it was not the Liberal leader but an academic who had made the remarks which prompted Harper's rejoinder.

"During my press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff for some things he had allegedly said about Canada and the G8," Harper said.

"I learned shortly after the press conference this was not a quotation of Mr. Ignatieff. I regret the error and I apologize to Mr. Ignatieff for this error."

Soudas, who also apologized, said the remark attributed to Ignatieff was actually made by an academic.

According to blogger BigCityLib, it was Gordon Smith of the University of Victoria's Centre for Global Studies who actually made the remarks, which you can hear here:

So. Two gaffes, and what do we learn?

The first gaffe I chalked up to silly season and the media desperate for something to work on. This was, to me, not an issue. Not being religious myself, I'm more than willing to accept the possibility that Harper shouldn't have taken the wafer at all. After all, it has a theological meaning that likely doesn't gibe with his beliefs. But it seemed like a tempest in a teapot to me.

But the G8 gaffe is of a different order entirely.

To take time during a global summit to attack your political opponent doesn't seem cricket to me. And to do it based on erroneous information seems to me to be an offence that will pretty much guarantee that Mr. Soudas will be leaving his job, either with a handshake or a kick helping him along.

I've never worked in political communications, although spending time in Ottawa working for universities and colleges has left me with many experiences of watching politicians at work. I can't see how the Harper PMO can get past this second gaffe without sending someone off the plank.

Hat-tip to the indefatigable David Akin.

Ciao,
Bob.

Don't cry for me, Ma-ark Sanford

I've been a flack since the 1990s, a lover of politics for longer, and I have to say that this news conference as captured by Gawker is about the strangest thing I've ever seen.



Apparently, South Carolina's governor disappeared on Thursday, saying he was going to hike the Appalachian Trail. Turns out he went to Argentina to visit his mistress.

Talk about watching someone's political (and personal, probably) life unravel on live TV.

Sure, you have to wonder what he was thinking to have an affair. But could nobody have kept him from doing the news conference this way?

This makes Eliot Spitzer look like a media master:



Ciao,
Bob.

CBC lets Ira Basen down. Again. (UPDATED)

Ira Basen is a long-time CBC journalist who explored the public relations industry in his 2007 documentary series "Spin Cycles".

Now, he's doing a two-part series called "News 2.0" exploring the role of news in the social media era.

Shame that CBC appears to have done no promotion, either old-style or viral, for this worthwhile project.

• Advance copies for social media or journalism bloggers? Nah.
• On-air promos? Pass.
  
• Blogger outreach? Too much trouble.
• News release?! Feh.
  

I heard about it by e-mail and Twitter from Judy Gombita, who is always on the lookout for interesting stuff and blogged about the series on Friday at PR Conversations. The Sunday Edition's electronic newsletter appears on Fridays, so that wasn't much heads-up.

CBC could have looked at the fact that someone like me was interested enough in Basen's last documentary to blog about it, and to interview him for the Inside PR podcast, and then decided to reach out to me.

Or they could have gone out to Joe Thornley, who had an interesting exchange with Basen some time ago.

And I'm sure there's dozens of other ideas. But it appears that they didn't bother to do any of that. Pity.

I wish I could say it was a one-time lapse. But if you look back at "Spin Cycles", they didn't do a great job of promoting that either, according to me and others.

Ciao,
Bob.

UPDATED: Added a link to "Spin Cycles" and links to Judy Gombita's blog post and Twitter feed, all of which shoulda been there in the first place.

How Loblaws ticked me off

My partner and I have done a lot of gardening in the last couple of years, since we landscaped our back yard. We will likely never be cottage owners, so we decided to make the yard our refuge.

Thanks to a great designer, Lynda Milina of Kavamilina, and a great installer, Denis Willaert and Apprize, we have a back yard we can hardly tear ourselves away from on weekends or in the evening.

One side effect: MANY plastic pots that once held plants for the trip from the nursery to the yard, and then sat empty.

So when I saw a brief story in the weekend Ottawa Citizen saying that Loblaws stores would accept pots and flats for recycling -- and give you a $5 coupon if you brought in 25 -- I was sold. We immediately started in counting our flats & pots, and came up with 150 that we were happy to get rid of.

So off we go with six bags full of pots. While Cathy trundles through the garden centre, I line up to return the goods and add to what Loblaws says is 600,000 pounds of plastic it will recycle. When I get there, the woman grunts at me and points to where they should go. Then she asks if I have more than 25.

"150, actually."

"Would you like a coupon?" I'm a little bit surprised. I figured I'd get 6 coupons. "No, you get the coupon if you bring in more than 25."

Then she gives me the coupon -- $5, sure enough. If I spend more than $50, one coupon per purchase. Instant disillusionment.

When I shared this with my partner, we wandered around for a little while, looking at fairly nice pots and fairly sick-looking plants, and left, having decided to spend our money elsewhere.

So whose fault is this? Was I being greedy to expect $30 worth of coupons? Should I have gamed the system by dropping off the pots in batches? If I got 6 coupons, I would have to have bought $300 worth of stuff to use them.

My feeling: There's a bad case of conditionitis here. I went there feeling like I was doing a good thing and getting a reward. But afterward, I would have preferred just to have dropped off the pots and flats and gotten nothing than a "this but not that and only under this condition."

Contrast this with Floral Design Landscaping, a nursery in Kemptville that we found while looking for another one. They have a sign up saying they'll give you credit for plants you bring in. We asked about it. They had a specific set of plants they were looking for - peonies, hostas, and the like -- and the guy told me that while it wouldn't be much money, it would be a store credit we could use.

If we go out with a carload of split plants, it won't matter whether it's $5 or $15. We'll feel like we get something for nothing. Not "if you buy $50" - whatever.

At the risk of sounding like Seth Godin (I WISH!), conditionitis is a bad thing. If you want to give something away, then GIVE IT AWAY and make people feel like YOU JUST GAVE THEM SOMETHING.

Ciao,
Bob.

Gladwell was very cool.

Malcolm Gladwell put on a great show and made lots of people think. Here's the livetweet feed of what he was talking about.

And I got to meet Vicky. Vicky was my guest at the talk, thanks to United Way Ottawa, and when they got to the audience Q&A, her question was the first asked!

Yay her, and yay United Way.

Ciao,
Bob.

We have two winnahhhhs. Gladwell awaits you.

Hi all:

So I didn't realize how hard it would be for me to pick the winner. I was gonna just go random, but then I actually read the posts.

But I'm going to say that Vicky and Karen are my picks. If you folks are on Twitter, please DM me after the speech - I'd love to meet you both.

I wish I had tickets for all of you. And thanks to United Way Ottawa for putting on the event and for helping me put the contest together.

Ciao,
Bob.

Who wants to go see Malcolm Gladwell thanks to me and the United Way?

Okay. This is exciting. I have two tickets to go to a VERY cool United Way event and hear Malcolm Gladwell in conversation with Mark Sutcliffe at the National Arts Centre this Thursday, June 11, at 4:00.

Gladwell, of course, is the author of The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, etc. etc. Mark Sutcliffe will undoubtedly do a great job of interviewing him -- he's a talented broadcaster and entrepreneur.

If you want to see Gladwell more than anything (and you can't afford $75 to do so, even though you would be supporting the United Way you cheap b****d) and think you deserve to, leave me a comment with your best argument why you should get the ticket rather than anybody else.

UPDATED: Remember -- leave me a way to get in touch with you, and leave your comment before midnight my time Wednesday.

My two favorite answers will get a ticket each. I can't pay any travel, etc., so you have to get to Ottawa and the NAC on your own.

Thanks to the great folks at United Way Ottawa for giving me the chance to do this.

Ciao,
Bob.

A Twitter trifecta: in the courtroom, on the job hunt, philosophy

Three great things to read today about Twitter I'd like to point you to. In no particular order, here we go:

Kudos to Lawyers Weekly for this solid article (and super illustration by Jeremy Bruneel) about "Twitter in the courtroom."

While keeping a light touch, author Luigi Benetton investigates the use of Twitter at the trials of Mayor Larry O'Brien here in Ottawa (by Ottawa Citizen reporter Glen McGregor) and of some Bandidos motorcycle gang members in London, Ontario (by London Free Press reporter Kate Dubinski).

To quickly summarize comments by litigator Daryl Cruz , law library guruette, social media know-much and cool gal Connie Crosby, and Internet law guru Michael Geist:

• Daryl Cruz: “Six months ago, we probably wouldn’t have had this conversation because it wouldn’t have crossed anybody’s mind... Using new technologies to provide information about a public event can be helpful, but you can’t forget about the countervailing issues...Evidence in a courtroom takes time to assume a real shape,” he says. “Real-time sound bites are likely to bear no relation to the sum of the evidence of the witness after a lengthy time on the stand...Reporters who sit in the courtroom and do not live blog take notes and listen to the whole sequence of events. They get to understand the sum total of the evidence before they prepare reports."
  
• Geist: no big deal. “Nobody would question the right of the public to attend the trial; nobody would question a reporter taking notes at a meeting. Twitter is nothing more than taking notes, with faster dissemination...If your local newspaper made mistakes every day, it wouldn’t be your local newspaper for long. If somebody Twittering a trial regularly makes errors, people simply will not follow that person...Any steps taken to increase the level of transparency are typically good things. I think we’ll see more Twittering take place in government hearings, events that are nominally open but which few people attend, events that don’t take place behind closed doors but which typically don’t get much attention.”
• Crosby: trained journalists are less likely to OMIK (open mouth, insert keyboard). “[Twitter] doesn’t give a lot of room for clarifying context and giving facts...Journalists will often fact-check with lawyers during breaks ...I’m pro-citizen journalism, but there’s a lot to be said for the training a journalist has.

Second: This morning's Globe and Mail explores the relationship between "Sweet tweets, sweet job leads." for older workers who aren't 'digital natives.' Some interesting case studies. My pick for the 'money quote:'

"I think one of the key attributes that somebody of that age can use to differentiate themselves is to demonstrate a comfort zone for using those tools and actually using them. Any prospective employer nowadays, I think they pretty much are looking for those signals of knowledge and awareness."

-- Michelle Corsano, President of Burst Technology Marketing

And finally, a great blog post from Brian Solis (and there's an equally good one above it) on Twitter. Solis brings together a TON of data on Twitter to come to this conclusion:

Right now, Twitter and its potential for progress is limited only by the information, direction, and education provided by Twitter itself in order to demonstrate and teach existing and new users how to truly use and take advantage of this new and dynamic information ecosystem. While Twitter's API is empowering third-party developers to create Twitterverse of exciting, useful, and entertaining applications that enhance the Twitter experience, it can not outsource nor rely upon the community to teach the world how to use Twitter. Providing recommendations on people to follow doesn't really help at all.

In the meantime, Twitter will continue to flourish as a rapid-fire broadcast network until people learn how to communicate, understand how to participate and what to contribute, and eventually ease into a collaborative, two-way meaningful dialogue that represents Twitter's greatest promise.

I'm not sure I agree with him. But the data alone is worth going through.

Read and enjoy...

Ciao,
Bob.

UPDATED: Would it kill the Fraser Institute to give a guy some credit?

The Fraser Institute is a think tank here in Canada that believes in "a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility."

I would call them a right-wing think tank. But they're pretty darn media savvy. One of their standards each year is the proclamation of "Tax Freedom Day" -- the day on which Canadians theoretically have earned enough money to pay all of their tax burden for the year and begin "working for themselves."

They claim the day fell on June 6 this year. They say the latest one was June 24 in 2000, while in 1961, it was two months earlier, meaning we were less burdened then.

As part of their blitz on Tax Freedom Day this year, they have a Video and MP3 available of a song somebody wrote about taxes.

It's not a bad song. Kinda cute, kinda funny. But I've got two pet peeves.

1. The Fraser Institute should have been smart enough to put embed codes in or to post it publicly to YouTube so I could put it here. They didn't, so I can't. The Share button is fine, but come on, make it easy!
   
2. They never mention who the guy is who sings it (and presumably wrote it.) Would it have killed them to give him some credit?
   

Admittedly, this is no Conference Board of Canada-level scandal. But Fraserites -- could you make it easier for us out here in the blogosphere?

UPDATE: The video is on Youtube. They just don't SAY it is.



Ciao,
Bob.

Drew Olanoff is my kind of guy. Why? Blame his cancer.

First saw this via Joe Boughner, and by now it's taken over the world.

Social media guy Drew Olanoff(right), who's someone I'd never heard of, got diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma on May 20.

And what's he doing? Blaming it. For everything. Lost his keys? Cancer. Twitter down? Damn cancer. I love that. When I got diagnosed, I tried to be something like him. Most of the time I succeeded. But I didn't do it this way, and I admire him for setting up Blame Drew's Cancer and for encouraging people to blame THEIR troubles on his cancer. And for deciding to find companies to sponsor the site by donating per "blame".

I plan on doing it a whole lot. Even Lance is doing it.

My favorite quote from his site: "I have cancer, but cancer doesn’t have me."

Sadly enough, the Bloggers With Cancer club is large and growing every day. There's me, Dooce, Derek, Katie, Drew, Zoom... it goes on and on. And you know what? I blame Drew's cancer.

And if you're some huge corporate dude reading this post -- please work a deal with Drew. It's would be a very cool thing for you to do.

Ciao,
Bob.

Annals of bad timing, Conference Board edition

Given what's transpired with the Conference Board of Canada in the last couple of weeks, I might have recommended they not send the following e-mail to their list (please note: it was NOT spam - I'm on their mailing list):

Forward this notice to an interested colleague: I thought you would be interested in this information from the Conference Board of Canada. Dear : In the face of tough economic times, you need to spend smarter, not cut your marketing budget. The Conference Board of Canada can help you get more bang for your marketing buck with relevant research and presentations that address your key marketing challenges – marketing ROI, making better marketing decisions, customer segmentation …. We cover all the issues affecting marketers today. Marketing Essentials Kit 1 report,1 e-Presentation and 1 Executive Action Report for $495 a value of $1,210 – a savings of $715). Call 1-866-711-2262 and quote campaign code MARKET to recieve this offer. Here’s what you get in the Marketing Essentials Kit….. Managing and Measuring Return on Marketing Investment ($700) This 28-page report documents the research findings of The Conference Board's Working Group on Managing and Measuring Return on Marketing Investment (MROI). Its detailed statistical analysis supports the argument that an organization must not only create the right environment and have the appropriate skill sets available in order to make good progress with MROI. It also makes a strong case that long-term effort and commitment to these metrics are crucial for success, and that endurance wins out. Two case studies as well as numerous quotes from working group participants complete the report. Using Customer Segmentation to Drive Improved Marketing Performance ($350) Under the right conditions, customer segmentation can enable the more efficient and effective use of marketing and sales resources. Companies, however, rarely implement customer segmentation strategies. Getting segmentation right is challenging and requires superior strategy and planning, senior management buy-in, flawless market research, and focused implementation. This webcast presents rich case studies of best and worst practices from market leaders in a variety of industries. It will also give senior marketers the insights they need to 'operationalize' segmentation. Precision Marketing: Five Ways to Make Better Marketing Investment Decisions ($160) Faced with an onslaught of advertisements through not just traditional media but new media as well, customers have developed mechanisms that enable them to be highly selective of the messages they receive. Companies, accordingly, need to sharpen their efforts and work that much harder to reach their audiences. This 7-page Executive Action report presents five principles that can help companies make better marketing decisions by refocusing their concentration and perception of customer behavior — and in some ways redirecting their delivery investments. Rethink, refresh and retool with Conference Board research at a special price - $495 To order the Marketing Essentials Kit at the special price of $495 (a savings of $715) or individual copies at the prices listed, please call 1-866-711-2262 or email publications@conferenceboard.ca and quote campaign code MARKET. Sincerely, Christina Marshall P.S. Order before May 29 and receive a free copy of Customers and the Web: Web-Based Solutions That Improve Customer Acquisition, Loyalty, and Retention. This 64-page report (value of $875) describes five web-based marketing strategies that enable organizations to reach customers inexpensively using targeted messages. It also presents 10 best practice profiles of companies using them successfully For more information, visit our website at www.conferenceboard.ca.

If you do not wish to receive any further notifications from The Conference Board of Canada, please unsubscribe. The Conference Board of Canada 255 Smyth Rd. K1H 8M7

Ciao.

Top Toronto Tweets - who makes the Ottawa edition?

Globe and Mail editors have listed the Top Toronto Tweets and opened it up for discussions. I'm glad to see among them folks I know like Rayanne Langdon (@rlangdon), Michael O'Connor Clarke (@michaelocc), and Amrita Chandra (@tinkugallery).

But what about here in Ottawa? Who are our twitter leaders?

I'll start with a few people I like, respect, find amusing, or am challenged by, in random order:

• Ian Capstick, ex-NDP dude, now PR consultant @IanCapstick
• Donna Casey, Sun reporter @dmcasey
• Kate Heartfield, Citizen columnist @kateheartfield
• Joe Boughner, association flack, @joeboughner (and his wife @amy_sparkplug)
• Xander Stobbs, cool dude, great singer, @maplelime
• Emily Chen, designer and music lover, @mchenwears
• Ask Around Ottawa, a cool idea, @askaroundottawa
• Kady O'Malley, Maclean's blogger extraordinaire, @kady
• Joe Thornley, social media ubermensch, @thornley
  

Who are your favorites? How do we create the hot list? And then what do we do? :-)

Ciao,
Bob.

More on e-cigarettes

Slate magazine's William Saletan has taken a look at the e-cigarette market with today's article The irrational war on electronic cigarettes.

And the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are on the e-cigarette story too. The Toronto Star wrote -- and conveniently posted a video about it back in March, before it was banned:



Back in March, the American Lung Association made its position clear:

Makers and retailers of these products have been making unproven health claims about their products, claiming that they are safer than normal cigarettes and asserting that they can help people to quit smoking. Absent scientific evidence, these claims are in blatant violation of FDA rules.

In fact, no studies have been done on e-cigarettes to date regarding their health effects or their effectiveness as cessation aids. Like the “light” and “low tar” cigarettes that tobacco companies claimed were healthier for consumers, there is no evidence to back up the claims made by e-cigarette makers. In September of 2008, the World Health Organization stated that they have “no evidence to confirm the product’s safety or efficacy.”

The American Cancer society:

The e-cigarette has no published clinical trials that suggest it might work as a way to help smokers quit. No clinical trials have been submitted to the FDA. As of early 2009, the FDA has not ruled as to whether e-cigarettes are medical devices but it is investigating. There may also be questions about how safe it is to inhale some of the flavorings and other substances in the nicotine mists into the lungs. Even substances that are safe to eat can harm delicate tissues inside the lungs.

Like other forms of nicotine, the e-cigarettes and nicotine cartridges can be toxic to children or pets. They can also pose a choking hazard.

Here in Canada, Health Canada followed suit three days after the FDA banned e-cigarettes with this media advisory, saying:

Health Canada is advising Canadians not to purchase or use electronic smoking products, as these products may pose health risks and have not been fully evaluated for safety, quality and efficacy by Health Canada.

These products come as electronic cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos and pipes, as well as cartridges of nicotine solutions and related products. These products fall within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act, and under the Act, require market authorization before they can be imported, advertised or sold. The sale of these health products is currently not compliant with the Food and Drugs Act since no electronic smoking products have been granted a market authorization in Canada.

So when I originally wrote about this, I focused on it looking dorky. Andy Nulman, who originally pointed this out to me and a bazillion other people, responded that "They are dorky, Bob! But so was the Prius when it first came out ;)"

Now I'm starting to wonder if the industry is just going about the market introduction all wrong. If the product is as innocuous as they suggest it is, why not go through the hoops of getting licenced? I don't doubt it would be costly, but if the business case is there, then why not do it?

Because it appears that they (the cig-makers, that is) have sorta blundered into the markets with the assumption that they would be welcomed. Which kinda surprises me, given that they have anti-smoking activist David Sweanor on the board of their US association. Sweanor made this point in an Ottawa Citizen piece he wrote after "snus" were banned in Canada:

"Canada currently is the victim of a "nicotine maintenance monopoly." More than five million of our fellow citizens are only allowed to satisfy their long-term nicotine demand by use of a product that will kill half of them, reduce the quality of life for most of the rest, pollutes the air for all of us and causes users to be unwilling role models for kids...Rather than attacking Imperial Tobacco for introducing a much less toxic alternative to cigarettes maybe we should welcome the opportunity to discuss a rational, health-based regulatory approach for the full range of nicotine delivery products. If in the end there is a better recognition of the limitations of a "just say no" approach to tobacco and nicotine, so much the better."

So I'm feeling kind of weird. We know cigarettes are dangerous. And we let those be sold. We don't know about these, and for some reason it appears nobody's doing the research, but they can't be sold. If the companies did the research, would it be accepted by the anti-tobacco folks? If the companies won't, who will?

And I still think they're dorky. What are your thoughts about this?

Ciao,
Bob.

Improv Everywhere: you had me at hello

Sure, I'm a hard-hearted, cynical PR guy.

But gosh darn it, when the folks at Improv Everywhere throw a wedding reception for a random couple getting married at New York City Hall, who am I to kvetch.

Look at Raff and Frank, how happy they are. Look at how much fun the Agents are having making them feel special. And for what reason? NONE AT ALL! I LOVE THAT.

This is right up there on the level of Where The Hell is Matt or Free Hugs for feelgooding.

Will Frank and Raff love each other this much forever? Will they grow old together? Who knows. But their happiness, thanks to the tools of social media, is captured now, and will make other people happy for -- well, not forever, but for a long time.



I gotta get the Improve Everywhere book.



Ciao,
Bob.

Warmer, Fuzzier - The Refreshed Logo - NYTimes.com

Interesting analysis of some refreshed logos in the New York Times, with the hat-tip, as I've done so many times before, to Jason Kottke.

The article looks at companies including Walmart, Kraft, Cheer detergent, Stop & Shop, Super Fresh, QuickChek, Australia's Woolworths, food distributor Sysco(whose name always makes me feel funny since my dad spent 44 years working for another Sysco entirely) and the company formerly known as Blackwater and is now called Xe (pronounced Zee), which have all unveiled new logos or wordmarks recently.

Other than generic interest, I found this interesting because we're at the beginnings of a discussion at my day job about whether it's time to change logos, tinker with our brand, or do a full rebranding exercise.

According to the article, we should "Behold the new breed of corporate logo [as] non- threatening, reassuring, playful, even child-like. Not emblems of distant behemoths, but faces of friends."

Fair enough. I can see why companies want to take on those characteristics. But the question for me is whether their actions and activities reflect that.

For me, the question that comes to mind is what are companies doing -- OTHER than the logo -- to shift their image. And the point that comes to mind is that analyzing these logos separately from their brands -- and we all should know that the brand is more than a logo -- is a mug's game.

And one big problem I just discovered -- if you Google "Xe blackwater" you get to ... someone else's site. In fact, there appears not to be a global Xe site, and Xe.com is a foreign-exchange site. Blackwater.com takes you to http://www.yeah.com/

Why have a name/logo change if you're not going to have anything to back it up?

Anyone have great / terrible examples of relogoing that has backfired on the company in question? I call dibs on the Tropicana disaster (old one left; new one right), which must be destined to go down in history as one of the biggest pullbacks EVER.

Ciao,
Bob.

Electric car or Edsel of the smoking world?

Andy Nulman posts about the NJOY electronic cigarette, which he wonders about. Are they The Electric Car of The Smoking World, he asks?

Hate to disagree with a man who gave me a copy of his great book AND a pair of VERY nice Parasuco jeans, but I dunno. I think they're more like the Edsel.

These gizmos deliver nicotine in a cigarette or cigar-shaped package that is battery-operated. I'm not sure how many people are making or selling these, but it appears there are a number of them.

There's even an Electronic Cigarette Association, which is pitching itself much more as a way to get away from tobacco, and has Canadian anti-tobacco activist David Sweanor associated with it. Sweanor talks at some length about the products and the controversy surrounding them in this interview.

According to the NJOY product web site:

NJOY e-cigarettes are a revolutionary new smoking alternative that looks, feels and tastes like a cigarette or cigar, and gives smokers all the pleasure and satisfaction of traditional smoking without all the health, social and economic problems.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Obviously, nicotine COULD pose health problems. It is an alkaloid. But as Paracelsus (I think) said. "the dose makes the poison."

The Boston Herald ran an op-ed piece suggesting that the tobacco industry is working hard to stop the e-cigs from being sold.

So will this work? Is it the Prius? Or an Edsel? I have to say that I think it's the latter. I've NEVER smoked. Not even a puff. Of anything. But I will acknowledge that smoking can make people look really cool. And that's why a lot of young people take it up. Think of Bogey:













Or Angelina, before she became an earth mother:

















Or Marlene Dietrich:















I HATE cigarettes. But I gotta admit that is cool. I mean, look at Bette Davis and Paul Henreid:



Cool.

But when I see video of these e-cigs and cigars:



Dorky.

If I were so inclined, I'd rather smoke the real carcinogenic things than look like some sort of eccentric dipwad. No offense, e-cig users. But that's how I feel.

Ciao,
Bob.

The Daily NRU

According to dogged David Akin, French nuclear reactor maker AREVA wants to help us.

From Akin's story:

"AREVA is ready to provide all the support that you will deem necessary to reduce the health impact of the current isotope shortage,'' AREVA Canada Inc., presidentArmand Laferrere wrote in a letter to Raitt and Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, a copy of which was obtained by Canwest News Service. "We will, as requested by you, facilitate contacts with European isotope producers. We are also ready to assist technically in the NRU repairs.''

Of course, it would be a major embarrassment for Canada's nuclear industry to have the French competition come in to save our isotopic bacon.

But equally of course, it's embarrassing as hell that we had this crisis already in 2007, and it appears we were completely unable to prevent another possibly worse one from happening.

AECL Status updates here. Canada Nuclear Safety Commission updates here. MDS Nordion (the company which markets medical isotopes) updates here.

From MDS's May 19 letter to customers: "As the leading global provider of medical isotopes, we are taking every step possible to support the nuclear medicine community. This supply interruption, beyond our reasonable control, is taken very seriously and we will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available. MDS Nordion regrets any inconvenience this may cause."

Inconvenient as hell for cancer patients, that's for sure.

Ciao,
Bob.

Fossil's pop star arrival born of a new thirst for PR

I'm not a paleontologist, although when I was a kid I wanted to be, more than just about anything. But I'm still a dinosaur geek. Not as much as some people, but still.

So when the discovery of "Ida", or a remarkably complete fossil of a creature dubbed Darwinius masillae, was announced, I was glued to the ol' TV set.

The claims of significance for this 47-million-year-old fossil were pretty huge: “The link until now was missing. Well, it is no longer missing,” said Sir David Attenborough. The researchers themselves were effusive.

But now the hype is being questioned, in articles like this one from the Sydney Morning Herald or this one from the Times of London headlined "Origin of the Specious."

The Times article portrays the man who launched the fossil into the spotlight, palaeontologist Jorn Hurum, as a bit of a rogue with more than a slight sense of bombast.

The Guardian profile of Hurum (which sounds like an Ent clearing its throat) is a bit more charitable than some media.
And the decision to publish the paper in a free-access journal PLOS One rather than Nature or Science has raised eyebrows too. Hurum's argument is that he's paid by the government for his research, so shouldn't publish the fruits of said research in a journal that restricts access.


It's interesting to me that palaeontology should become the hook for a debate around science and hype. Medical and health research is rife with this sort of stuff. Look at the faux debate around a study of "risky" reusable shopping bags fomented last week by the Canadian Plastics Industry Association, for just one example.

The argument here is, apparently, that the release of this research was driven more by the TV and book launches than it was by science, and that the importance of the discovery of Ida (named after Hurum's six-year-old daughter) was torqued to make it more relevant to human evolution than it actually is.

I'm not sure of the science. But I believe that while responsibility is important, it's equally important to communicate with complete, understandable, effective and enthusiastic messages when you're talking about scientific topics.

So does Hurum's team get an A or an F? I guess I give him a B for boffo box office and a C for contorting the truth just a leeeeetle.

Ciao,
Bob.

Cube grenades -- Hugh MacLeod is a f**ing genius

If you haven't heard of Hugh MacLeod or Gaping Void, you need to. If you need proof that the guy is iconoclastic, hilarious, outrageous, insightful, and smart like hell, here it is:





Find him. Read him. He knows what he's talking about.

Ciao,
Bob.

PHD Comics: explaining the Science News Cycle

I've recently discovered Jorge Cham's "PhD comics." Cham is not only a pretty great cartoonist, he's a genuine PhD, who did his doctorate at Stanford, studying robotics. His two most recent panels that are VERY apropos for anyone doing PR or media relations in a science-based area

#1, from May 18:


And #2, just out today:



Love these. They're keepers for the office wall for sure.

Ciao,
Bob.

Canada's space folks are missing out.

Ottawa Citizen science writer Tom Spears is a good journalist. But having worked with him, I think it's fair to say he doesn't suffer fools gladly. He hasn't been shy about criticizing media relations on his beat in the past -- and it's been bruising sometimes.

And now on his blog (where I wish he'd get some linkey goodness going) he has two recent posts about the Canadian Space Agency's media relations processes and performance.

His May 11 post, "Space news, the final frontier" used the results of an Access to Information request to parse the CSA's media relations policies. He quotes from them at some length, and they seem unsurprisingly bureaucratic.

"Media Relations will then speak with the reporter and determine the nature of the request, the best person to fulfill the request, and the reporter's deadline....Media Relations will complete the interview request form and forward it to the director overseeing the issue in question. The director will then recommend a spokesperson or send the form directly to the spokesperson designated by him or her...Media Relations will oversee strategic development (to be submitted to the Director of Communications for approval), logistical support, delivery of media relations services, and on-site assistance for all media events involving a CSA spokesperson...Media Relations prepares news release drafts with the support of the program team. The program team is responsible for providing the basic information needed to prepare a first draft... The news release is always approved by the Director of Communications and Public Affairs, the Program Director, the President, the Minister's Office and other departments (as needed)."

You'll be shocked to discover he doesn't think much of this process.

Then he wrote one a few days later called "Space agency hits and misses" which explored a specific case study -- that of the announcement of Canada's two new astronauts, fighter pilot Jeremy Hansen (l) and Dr. David Saint-Jacques (r).

He notes that Saint-Jacques refused to answer what he refers to as "personal" questions, which he acknowledges was within his rights, but constituted a "missed opportunity." What seems more serious to Spears is this:

"Applicants for the two new astronaut jobs were put through high-stress survival tests. Dunked upside down in cold water in a helicopter-crash simulator, made to fight fires and floods, and so on. Then, as part of this series of stress tests, the space agency made them do a media scrum, with fake reporters getting all aggressive at them. In other words, the agency set up the crucial job of telling their story as a high-pressure, adversarial prospect."

I don't know the truths behind this. But I doubt Spears is making stuff up. It's a shame that astronaut David Saint-Jacques, who seems to me to be like most astronauts -- incredibly accomplished people with awe-inspiring arrays of talents and charisma -- couldn't use his position to create a personal connection with media and through them the public.

So here's my angle on this. Let's assume that Spears is right, and that the agency sees media as the enemy. So why not focus on getting to people DIRECTLY, on their web site. To be frank, the CSA web site sucks. It's a cookie-cutter Canadian government web site, with terrible ability to find pictures or video. They don't have a YouTube channel. There are no photo galleries of their new astronauts, or anything else.



The only video on the media page is an incredibly dry press conference from March when they announced the 16 finalists for the astronaut position -- a 52 meg Windows Media file lasting 25 minutes. There are podcasts for the Mars Phoenix mission, but that ended in November of last year.

By comparison, the NASA web is FULL of incredibly engaging stuff. They have a YouTube channel all set up.
And NASA has a full list of their media relations folks online with names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, while the Canadian Space Agency publishes a general phone number -- no names, no e-mail. I called it shortly after five and got a generic message for a "media relations team" voice mail.

Again, it's ironic that while Canadians are proportionately much more social-media friendly than our US neighbours, our government entities are lagging way behind -- even ones like CSA, which have incredible stories they could tell directly to geeks like you and me, even if they don't trust shifty-eyed cynical journalists like Spears. Talk about missed opportunities.

Ciao,
Bob.

Medical Isotope production shut down...again.

Wow. It appears that the NRU reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, is going to be shut down for a MONTH.
Canwest reporter David Akin collects reaction on his blog.

I wrote quite a lot about this the LAST time the NRU reactor shut down starting in December 2007 -- about seven or eight posts.

I'm particularly struck by the essay Dr. William Leiss wrote for this blog, and want to quote from it:

"Whom should we hold responsible for getting us into this mess—and, hopefully, for getting us out of it again? My candidates are the ministers of natural resources and health in the Government of Canada, and the officials who report to them. For who else should have noticed, sometime in the past two years at least, while AECL and CNSC were battling, that potentially tens of thousands of patients around the world were at serious risk of a disruption in the supply of nuclear isotopes?

Where was the contingency plan, devised in advance? Where was the directive given to AECL in 2006 to respond immediately and completely to the CNSC’s requirements regarding its operating license? And, knowing how important Canada’s role is in supplying nuclear isotopes for medical purposes to the world, why has the Government of Canada been sitting on its hands for so long while AECL was embarrassing itself with its Maple reactors fiasco?"

I would also recommend this archival article from the Ottawa Citizen for background.

The timeline from the last time? Here's what another Canada.com story lays out:

• 1991: EPS is one of seven safety updates that AECL and CNSC agree on to keep NRU reactor operational past original closure date of Dec. 2005.
• July 2006: Chalk River reactor licence renewed.
• Nov. 13, 2007: Problem of AECL plans and actual plant state of backup systems identified, CNSC says. Some reports say that happened Nov. 18. AECL_says CNSC knew earlier.
• Nov. 18: AECL shuts down NRU reactor for regular maintenance.
• Nov. 21: CNSC informs AECL that it is operating outside of licensing agreement. NRU stays shutdown.
• Dec. 3: Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn says this was when he foundout about NRU shutdown's impact on isotopes supply.
• Dec. 11: AECL and CNSC executives called to a special Committee of the Whole of the House of Commons to explain the NRU situation.
• Dec. 12: Bill C-38 adopted in Parliament allowing for NRU to start up again.
• Dec. 14: AECL chairman Michael Burns resigns, effective Dec. 31.
• Dec. 16: NRU restarted.
• Dec. 18: Shipments of M0-99 isotope resume.
• Dec. 19: Outstanding orders of isotopes filled.
• Dec. 23: Relay switch failure, reactor shut off.
• Dec. 24: Reactor started up again.
• Jan. 7, 2008: Root cause analysis of discrepancy submitted to CNSC
• Jan. 15: Linda Keen, the president of CNSC, is fired at 10 p.m.
• Feb. 1: Upgrade work on backup systems finished.
• Feb. 21: Brian McGee, AECL's vice-president and chief nuclear officer, resigns. He was a key figure in the controversy.

What's happened since then? As far as I can tell, not a lot.

As a communicator, I despair that the ball got dropped on this. As a person who has had cancer, and has been around a lot of other people with cancer, I'm ticked off that nobody has taken on the responsibility of making the world's isotope supply less precarious.

Ciao,
Bob.

Best webinar title ever.

This made me spew bagel crumbs on my table.

“Don’t Pee in the Pool” Webinar
Friday, May 22, 2009 from 10:00am - 11:00am (MST)

How social media is being polluted by ignorance, lazy people, and bad behavior!

In this free-wheeling, podcast-style webinar, Tricycle co-founders Justin Foster and John Hardesty have an unfiltered discussion on the various ways that the mass adoption of social media is "polluting the community pool".

If the webinar is as good as the title, it will be well worth the time.

Ciao,
Bob.

Is the real estate business missing out on more than mobile?

Last month, I blogged about the difficulties I had with real estate sites on mobile devices. I closed off that post by writing:

"It would seem to me that real estate agents, the companies they work for, and their professional associations need to ensure they're serving their potential customers using the devices they choose, not 9-year-old web browsers built for dialup. They're missing out.

I've e-mailed the Canadian Real Estate Association and the Ottawa Real Estate Board to see if they can explain this a little bit to me. If they respond, I'll update the post."

Well, I finally have some news for you. Here's what I asked the CREA:

I was wondering if you could provide some information to me about the
usability of the MLS residential real estate site on mobile devices
such as Blackberries and iPhones.

I recently tried to use MLS.ca on my Blackberry, and found I couldn't.
Friends with iPhones were unable to use it either. It seems to me that
you would want people ot have immediate access to property information
on their mobile devices, and was a bit surprised to run into so much
trouble.

I was wondering:

* if the CREA or real estate agents recognize the growing importance
of mobile devices and the mobile Web.
* If so, are there plans at CREA to revise the web to make it usable
on mobile devices?
* If so, when would those revisions be completed?

After two e-mails to the Canadian Real Estate Association, I got this reply today:

"We are in the process of finalizing a mobile version of REALTOR.ca and we expect to launch during June 2009."

That's the whole reply, except for the signature block.


Here's what I asked the Ottawa Real Estate Board:

I was wondering if you could provide some information to me about the usability of Ottawarealestate.org on mobile devices such as Blackberries and iPhones.

I recently tried to use MLS.ca on my Blackberry, and found I couldn't. Friends with iPhones were unable to use it either. It seems to me that you would want people to have immediate access to property information on their mobile devices, and was a bit surprised to run into so much trouble.

I was also surprised to see your FAQs listing support only for Internet Explorer 5.5+, Netscape 6.1+, and Opera 7.5. Those standards are quite old; Netscape is no longer a player in the browser market, and your site doesn't support Firefox, which holds more than 20% of
the browser market.

I was wondering:

* if the board recognizes the growing importance of mobile devices and the mobile Web.
* If so, are there plans to revise the site to make it usable on mobile devices?
* If so, when would those revisions be completed?

I'm writing about this for my blog Flacklife, a public relations and communications blog.

After 10 days, I wrote the OREB and asked if I would be getting a reply. They gave me this:

Thank you for your email.

OREB is currently investigating the delivery of content to mobile devices
as well as the business case for doing so.

Thx.

Not exactly fonts of information. Maybe mobile isn't all the real estate business doesn't get. What do you think of their responses? Should I have done something differently?

Ciao,
Bob.

How to promote a talk. And how not to.

A tale of two talks has me thinking. I have to say that my reaction to the news a few weeks ago that Bob Geldof, KBE was going to speak as part of the Tulip Festival was... "huh?"

The Tulip Festival, under new management since a difficult few years took it to the brink, has been revitalized and turned from a kinda-hokey feelgood wooden shoes and rained-out concert-fest into an "ideas festival" called "Celebridee". Much credit should go to world-class cellist AND event organizer Julian Armour. He's a great leader.

The talk was a last minute addition to the program, which also included folks like Rick Mercer and Margaret Atwood speaking, and Lynn Miles, Meredith Luce, and Ian Tyson singing. And it sold like it. While the original story was a scheduling conflict had prevented Geldof from speaking, the Ottawa Sun reported "Geldof talk cancelled after few tickets sold."

Here's the deal. Geldof was, at one point, an incredibly famous and charismatic person. But to me -- and I think I'm pretty well-informed and up to speed with the trends -- he's now this odd mixture of activist / musician / businessman / curmudgeon. I'm not sure what people expected to hear from him, and I'm not sure of what his "brand" is. Without that, what are you going to pay a fairly large amount of money for?

Meanwhile, the United Way / Centraide of Ottawa is bringing someone completely different to town for a talk. Malcolm Gladwell may not be a KBE, but he is one of the big thinkers of the day. Even if you don't recognize the name, you surely will think of the wild hair, or recognize the titles of his books Outliers, Blink and The Tipping Point, or have read his articles in the New Yorker. His latest New Yorker article ties together David, Goliath, Lawrence of Arabia and twelve-year-old basketball players in a discussion of how breaking the rules can help underdogs to win.

The two advantages I think the United Way will have in promoting this event, which is admittedly a pricy one at $75 for individual tickets and up to $5000 for 75 tickets and admission to a post-lecture reception / signing? One, time. They were smart enough to enlist people like me to blog about it. And here I am (btw, I am not getting a comp, or anything other than a blog post, out of this. And what looks like a really cool profile of Ronco founder Ron Popeil on his web site to read on the bus sometime.)

Two, Gladwell is a known quantity. He has recognizability, thanks to that wild mop of hair and the well-known book titles. And he is apparently a good talker -- look at what "This is London" said about a November lecture:

However, what Gladwell does, quite astoundingly in print, is reformulate these simple truths, research some esoteric field, switch the emphasis and make the world seem fresh and exciting again. He’s interested, so we are. So it proved in person. He speaks high, no hesitation, has a kind of serenity to his movements I’ve observed in chess grandmasters.

An aside: I want to be a lecture reviewer when I grow up. Imagine that as a job!

So my lessons from this:

1. Don't try to shoehorn in stuff at the last minute
2. Try to get people who have a defined brand. Even though Geldof had a title for his lecture ("From the Boomtown Rats to Live 8: Lessons from Sir Bob Geldof"), I have more confidence that Gladwell's conversation with journalist and entrepreneur Mark Sutcliffe will provide more value-added than what Geldof would have done.

What have you learned from trying to create events or talks?

Ciao,
Bob.

How communications projects work. Video explains all.

It's funny because it hurts. It hurts because it's true. Therefore, it's funny because it's true.




Hat-tip: Jennifer Lavoie
Ciao,
Bob.

ATM messages to remember, edition 1.

Happened to be walking back to the office today, and walked past a white-label ATM on campus with the following message.


Strangely enough, there was nobody else around.

Ciao,
Bob.

Fake scientific journals: This is not good.

According to The Scientist, "scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted."

Their investigation first came to light on April 30, when a story in The Scientist revealed that the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine was, contrary to appearances, not a peer-reviewed academic journal.

The Scientist has PDF versions of the two issues of the journal available here and here.

The journal was actually produced by a division of Elsevier called Excerpta Medica, which describes itself thusly:


Excerpta has a publication policy online as well, which reads in part:

Industry-Sponsored Publications
Content for Excerpta Medica’s Industry-Sponsored Publications is developed under the direction of an outside expert (eg, editor-in-chief, guest editor). Consistent with the Uniform Requirements and other generally accepted publication practices, Excerpta Medica distinguishes between authors and contributors. Authors are responsible for each article’s final content and are uniquely authorized to approve an article prior to its release/publication. Contributors are those individuals who helped to create the article, but who did not meet the criteria for authorship. Contributors are acknowledged in a manner that is appropriate for the publication (eg, on a Web site; on a masthead; in an acknowledgements section). Contributors may include, but are not limited to: copy editors; freelance writers; production staff; etc. The identity of the sponsor(s) for these publications is disclosed.

Apparently this either didn't happen in the bone and joint journal case, or the policy was instituted after these journals were published.

Parent company Elsevier says the following on its website about the "Duties of the Publisher:"

We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Elsevier will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions--and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

As a communicator, I'm really concerned that an important publisher of scientific journals and books (over 2,000 journals and 19,000 books each year) would allow this sort of opacity in its publishing process.

Apparently, the articles were all reprints of previously published scholarly work. That's great. But who selected the articles? Did the articles shape a perception around the sponsors' products? Was the perception accurate? Would the perception have been the same had full disclosure been made?

Here's the statement Elsevier issued from Michael Hansen, the CEO of their Health Sciences Division, on May 7:

“Elsevier prides itself on operating its business in the most ethical, honest and transparent manner possible. We have been stewards of the scientific record for more than 125 years and we take our role in advancing medical and scientific research seriously.

It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.

We are currently conducting an internal review but believe this was an isolated practice from a past period in time. It does not reflect the way we operate today. The individuals involved in the project have long since left the company. I have affirmed our business practices as they relate to what defines a journal and the proper use of disclosure language with our employees to ensure this does not happen again.

We will continue to partner with all scientists and clinical investigators, including those in the pharmaceutical industry, to help communicate the findings of high-quality, peer-reviewed medical research. We have strict disclosure rules in place so that readers are aware of any financial interests behind a specific article or journal, or when entire compilation products are created for pharmaceutical marketing purposes.

I understand this issue has troubled our communities of authors, editors, customers and employees. But I can assure all that the integrity of Elsevier’s publications and business practices remains intact.”

I hope that this statement is accurate. It's unfortunate, as the Australian points out, that this had to come out in court, rather than a voluntary disclosure.

Ethical breaches can happen anywhere. And they're wrong no matter where they occur. But when it's material that could have major individual or collective impacts on someone's health, man, it is wrong wrong wrong.

Not only is it wrong because... it's wrong... but it's wrong because it erodes the belief of people in the system. Look at this comment on the Boingboing post covering this:

"Remember: these are the same guys plying mothers with, "YOU don't want to give your babies CANCER, do you? You don't want to be a BAD parent, do you? Then you need to get your daughters Gardasil!"

It's sick. The company is sick."

When folks like Jenny McCarthy are getting blogs (and likely their own talk shows) from Oprah Winfrey to spew opinions about scientific issues that are quite unsupported by science, these sorts of ethical lapses give them lots of ammunition. That's a bad thing. All due respect to Jenny McCarthy, but I don't find her credible on medical matters.

This is wrong to me as a communicator, and even more as a health-care consumer. I don't want my doctor making judgment calls based on advertorials.

More evidence -- as if you needed more -- that we ALL need to be VERY careful to assess the validity of information, even if it looks totally legitimate.

What do you think?

Ciao,
Bob.

I wouldn't be caught dead doing that...

Oh dear. According to J-Source.ca, a number of UK papers fell into the trap of Irish student Shane Fitzgerald (left) by reprinting a fake quote he added to the wikipedia entry for French composer Maurice Jarre. Jarre died at the end of March. Fitzgerald described what he did in an article for The Irish Times:

The death of the French composer Maurice Jarre was reported in true Sky News fashion in the very early hours of March 30th.

I immediately grabbed my laptop, went to Maurice Jarre’s Wikipedia page, clicked the edit button on screen and proceeded to lay the trap for my unsuspecting prey, the journalists.

“One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack,” I wrote into the Wikipedia entry. “Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head and that only I can hear.”

He then described the outcome:

While I expected online blogs and maybe some smaller papers to use the quote, I did not think it would have a major impact. I was wrong. Quality newspapers in England, India, America and as far away as Australia had my words in their reports of Jarre’s death. I was shocked that highly respected newspapers would use material from Wikipedia without first sourcing and referencing it properly.

The issues about the media and quality reporting that this experiment raises requires a whole new article by itself – because the implications are far-reaching. If I could so easily falsify the news across the globe, even to this small extent, then it is unnerving to think about what other false information may be reported in the press.

The Guardian has addressed this slight embarassment with a post from 'Readers' Editor' Siobhan Butterworth, which said in part:

Wikipedia editors were more sceptical about the unsourced quote. They deleted it twice on 30 March and when Fitzgerald added it the second time it lasted only six minutes on the page. His third attempt was more successful - the quote stayed on the site for around 25 hours before it was spotted and removed again.

The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn't use information they find there if it can't be traced back to a reliable primary source.

It's nice to see at least one journalistic kerfuffle kick up that doesn't end up being the fault of us PR folks.

Ciao,
Bob.

Comics and Editorial Cartoons: F Minus on Yahoo! News

I haven't spent NEARLY enough time on the bike so far this year. But my heart is still that of a cyclist, so this tickles my fancy. Of course he shoulda had another tube in his jersey pocket, but still.



Ciao,
Bob.