Hello PR Methods Students!
This is our last and final blog for the 2008 Summer A Term. I have certainly enjoyed spending the last six weeks with you all and I sincerely hope that each of you now has a better sense of how to write and prepare the most important tools of our trade.
You will have until Sunday, June 22, 2008, at 5:00 p.m to complete this last and final blog. I must submit my grades by Noon on Monday (June 23) so don't delay.
A few weeks ago there was a story on the evening news about an elderly man who was attempting to cross the street and was hit by a car. The man fell to the pavement and the driver of the car that hit him kept going. As if that weren't bad enough, an oncoming car ran over him again and kept going.
The most peculiar element of this story is that there were literally dozens of bystanders who witnessed the entire incident and did nothing. It was astonishing to see people gathered on the sidewalk, staring at the man, and doing nothing. No one attempted to make a cell phone call for help. No one went out into the street to try to help him. Not only that, but cars continued to drive around him as he lay there motionless in the street.
A video camera on a nearby traffic light caught the whole thing on tape. If I had not seen it on tape I would not have believed it.
My questions to you are as follows:
1. In your opinion, why would someone NOT help someone who had been in an accident? Peer pressure? Afraid of risk? Afriad of being sued?
2. What would you do if you were in a similar situation?
3. What kind of current trend does this suggest in terms of our ability to be humanitarians? What is our world coming to? Are we really too busy to stop and help people?
Professor Kinchlow
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Is Public Relations An Unethical Profession?
Greetings PR Methods Students:
I have a guilty pleasure that I don't get to indulge very often.
Every once in awhile I like to sleep in on Sunday mornings, get up when I wake up, throw something on over my PJs, run to the convenience store and pick up the NY Times, come back home, get back in the bed, and spend the morning leisurely reading the paper, working the crossword puzzles, sipping coffee or tea, and listening to CBS Sunday Morning on television.
Pure luxury!
Sunday, June 1st, I decided to welcome the new month by indulging my guilty pleasure. There I was, propped up on a bed filled with pillows, truly enjoying my Sunday morning, half-listening to the television and perusing the NY Times magazine section, wallowing in the peacefulness of it all.
All of the sudden, this commentator comes on the CBS Sunday Morning show and begins talking about Scott McClelland's new book and how ALL PR people are untruthful, slick, liars. He said that the American public should not criticize Scott McClelland because he was trained to do what all PR people are trained to do; lie. The commentator went on to say that the PRSA Code of Ethics was a sham and that PR professionals are hypocrites.
He said that we are trained to convince people to change their opinions about things and that we use unethical, deceitful methods to do so.
Needless to say, I immediately snapped out of my haze and began to think about what he was saying. After all, such national attention to my chosen profession could have negative repercussions on many fronts. PR is one of the hottest degree programs on college campuses all over this country right now. Negative opinions like the ones being espoused by the Sunday Morning commentator could potentially shut a program down!
I personally think the FAMU SJGC has one of the best PR degree programs going. We continue to get overwhelmingly positive feedback from the industry about how well our students are trained and how far ahead they are from their counterparts at other schools like FSU, UF, Howard, Hampton, and others. Our program gives students a nice balanced mix of journalism, PR, business, and design.
I also think that there is nothing unethical or immoral about persuading or influencing public opinion as long as you observe fairness, expertise, loyalty, etc., in doing so. We don't 'spin' situations to make them appear to be something that they are not. We give the company or client's 'side' of the story and are always open to hear what others think.
But that's MY opinion. What do you think?
1. Is Scott McClelland (one-time White House Press Secretary for President Bush) wrong for writing a book that details the deceit and corruption that went on in the White House? Should he have told the American public what was going on while he was employed as the press secretary instead of pretending like everything was okay?
2. Do you think the principals that we practice as PR people are inherently unethical at the core of what we do?
3. Based upon your personal experiences, do you think FAMU has a good PR degree program? If not, what could we do better?
Professor Kinchlow
I have a guilty pleasure that I don't get to indulge very often.
Every once in awhile I like to sleep in on Sunday mornings, get up when I wake up, throw something on over my PJs, run to the convenience store and pick up the NY Times, come back home, get back in the bed, and spend the morning leisurely reading the paper, working the crossword puzzles, sipping coffee or tea, and listening to CBS Sunday Morning on television.
Pure luxury!
Sunday, June 1st, I decided to welcome the new month by indulging my guilty pleasure. There I was, propped up on a bed filled with pillows, truly enjoying my Sunday morning, half-listening to the television and perusing the NY Times magazine section, wallowing in the peacefulness of it all.
All of the sudden, this commentator comes on the CBS Sunday Morning show and begins talking about Scott McClelland's new book and how ALL PR people are untruthful, slick, liars. He said that the American public should not criticize Scott McClelland because he was trained to do what all PR people are trained to do; lie. The commentator went on to say that the PRSA Code of Ethics was a sham and that PR professionals are hypocrites.
He said that we are trained to convince people to change their opinions about things and that we use unethical, deceitful methods to do so.
Needless to say, I immediately snapped out of my haze and began to think about what he was saying. After all, such national attention to my chosen profession could have negative repercussions on many fronts. PR is one of the hottest degree programs on college campuses all over this country right now. Negative opinions like the ones being espoused by the Sunday Morning commentator could potentially shut a program down!
I personally think the FAMU SJGC has one of the best PR degree programs going. We continue to get overwhelmingly positive feedback from the industry about how well our students are trained and how far ahead they are from their counterparts at other schools like FSU, UF, Howard, Hampton, and others. Our program gives students a nice balanced mix of journalism, PR, business, and design.
I also think that there is nothing unethical or immoral about persuading or influencing public opinion as long as you observe fairness, expertise, loyalty, etc., in doing so. We don't 'spin' situations to make them appear to be something that they are not. We give the company or client's 'side' of the story and are always open to hear what others think.
But that's MY opinion. What do you think?
1. Is Scott McClelland (one-time White House Press Secretary for President Bush) wrong for writing a book that details the deceit and corruption that went on in the White House? Should he have told the American public what was going on while he was employed as the press secretary instead of pretending like everything was okay?
2. Do you think the principals that we practice as PR people are inherently unethical at the core of what we do?
3. Based upon your personal experiences, do you think FAMU has a good PR degree program? If not, what could we do better?
Professor Kinchlow
Is the Oprah 'Magic' Gone?
Greetings PR Methods Students:
This blog post is about Oprah Winfrey, the reigning queen of talk show hosts who has dominated the television talk show industry for the past 20 years.
I can remember when Oprah first hit the talk show circuit. She was an overweight, very unpolished and unsophisticated young woman who many of us did not think would last long in the industry. She dressed funny and she spent a lot of time out in the audience hugging people and crying with them. For those of us who considered ourselves very forward-thinking back then in the early 1980's, her chronic need to pacify her guests (mostly white women) seemed too much like the tragic 'mammy' figure from earlier times. We really wished she would stop.
And eventually she did.
Over the years Oprah Winfrey has parlayed her talent to talk into a billion-dollar empire. Not only did her talk show go on to consistently win the ratings sweeps each year, but she developed Harpo Studios and began to branch out into television movies, big-screen productions, product endorsements, book clubs, angel networks, a popular website, talk radio, and more. Many of you will recall the leadership school that she runs in South Africa, the housing efforts that she is leading in New Orleans, and her recent 'Big Give' television reality show/contest. (Yes, Amanda, we know FAMU's chapter of DST won the competition!)
Indeed, Oprah has the 'Midas' touch....or does she?
A review of the ratings for her television talk show indicate that she is gradually slipping in percentage points. And in spite of the ongoing list of new projects that she takes on each year, many of them don't automaticaly soar to the top of the charts as they once did.
Some media outlets attribute her decline to her support of Senator Barack Obama. They believe that white female viewers (her largest and most faithful demographic for the past 20 years) have stopped watching Oprah for this reason.
Some viewers are tired of the format (regardless of how often she redesigns the set) and think it is time for her to move aside and let someone younger come in.
Others believe that Oprah's inability to connect with people of color (African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc.) as well as her long-standing rift with black men is finally beginning to take its toll on her ratings. Her track record shows that she has pandered almost exclusively to middle-to-upper class white women and that she has designed her who's programming and format to accomodate them. Meanwhile, the census data show a clear indication that people of color (particularly Hispanics) are the fastest-growing population segment in America. Maybe Oprah is missing the boat.
I personally think that in spite of Oprah's wealth, she has never been allowed to truly be herself. She has had to satisfy the media's need to expose every aspect of her life as a celebrity and and she has had to live a life (on and off the cameras) that 'fit' with the image that television has created of her. As a result, she hasn't been allowed to openly love her man (Stedman) or get rid of him and find a new one. She has only been allowed to form one friendship (Gayle). Her battle with weight (something a lot of women face) has been publicly monitored down to every pound that she loses or gains. She has even had to forego building bonds with her family (other than her father) because her target publics might not watch her show otherwise.
She has sacrificed much to be where she is today. I'm just not sure the sacrifices were worth it. In the final analysis, the television viewing audience is fickle. They love you until they get tired of you.
What are your thoughts? Why is Oprah Winfrey's talk show on a gradual decline? Do you think it has anything to do with the three theories presented in this blog? Or is it something else?
Let us know what you think.
You have until Sunday, June 8, 2008, at 5:00pm, to repsond to this post.
Professor Kinchlow
This blog post is about Oprah Winfrey, the reigning queen of talk show hosts who has dominated the television talk show industry for the past 20 years.
I can remember when Oprah first hit the talk show circuit. She was an overweight, very unpolished and unsophisticated young woman who many of us did not think would last long in the industry. She dressed funny and she spent a lot of time out in the audience hugging people and crying with them. For those of us who considered ourselves very forward-thinking back then in the early 1980's, her chronic need to pacify her guests (mostly white women) seemed too much like the tragic 'mammy' figure from earlier times. We really wished she would stop.
And eventually she did.
Over the years Oprah Winfrey has parlayed her talent to talk into a billion-dollar empire. Not only did her talk show go on to consistently win the ratings sweeps each year, but she developed Harpo Studios and began to branch out into television movies, big-screen productions, product endorsements, book clubs, angel networks, a popular website, talk radio, and more. Many of you will recall the leadership school that she runs in South Africa, the housing efforts that she is leading in New Orleans, and her recent 'Big Give' television reality show/contest. (Yes, Amanda, we know FAMU's chapter of DST won the competition!)
Indeed, Oprah has the 'Midas' touch....or does she?
A review of the ratings for her television talk show indicate that she is gradually slipping in percentage points. And in spite of the ongoing list of new projects that she takes on each year, many of them don't automaticaly soar to the top of the charts as they once did.
Some media outlets attribute her decline to her support of Senator Barack Obama. They believe that white female viewers (her largest and most faithful demographic for the past 20 years) have stopped watching Oprah for this reason.
Some viewers are tired of the format (regardless of how often she redesigns the set) and think it is time for her to move aside and let someone younger come in.
Others believe that Oprah's inability to connect with people of color (African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc.) as well as her long-standing rift with black men is finally beginning to take its toll on her ratings. Her track record shows that she has pandered almost exclusively to middle-to-upper class white women and that she has designed her who's programming and format to accomodate them. Meanwhile, the census data show a clear indication that people of color (particularly Hispanics) are the fastest-growing population segment in America. Maybe Oprah is missing the boat.
I personally think that in spite of Oprah's wealth, she has never been allowed to truly be herself. She has had to satisfy the media's need to expose every aspect of her life as a celebrity and and she has had to live a life (on and off the cameras) that 'fit' with the image that television has created of her. As a result, she hasn't been allowed to openly love her man (Stedman) or get rid of him and find a new one. She has only been allowed to form one friendship (Gayle). Her battle with weight (something a lot of women face) has been publicly monitored down to every pound that she loses or gains. She has even had to forego building bonds with her family (other than her father) because her target publics might not watch her show otherwise.
She has sacrificed much to be where she is today. I'm just not sure the sacrifices were worth it. In the final analysis, the television viewing audience is fickle. They love you until they get tired of you.
What are your thoughts? Why is Oprah Winfrey's talk show on a gradual decline? Do you think it has anything to do with the three theories presented in this blog? Or is it something else?
Let us know what you think.
You have until Sunday, June 8, 2008, at 5:00pm, to repsond to this post.
Professor Kinchlow
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
Hello PR Methods Students and Welcome to My Blog!
Each week for the next five weeks I will post a blog topic for your review and response. The topics will be current events and you can earn up to 10 points each week that you provide a thoughtful, well-written response.
I'll be looking at grammar, spelling, sentence structure and content. I will also be looking for demonstration of critical thinking, ability to bring additional relevant information to the discussion, and thoughtfulness of your response.
Last night on my way home from class, I was listening to the car radio and was interested to learn that the Detroit City Council unanimously voted yesterday to remove Mayor Kilpatrick from office. Representatives on the Council indicated that they were hoodwinked into supporting Kilpatrick's proposal to award two city policemen a rather large settlement in response to a lawsuit that had been filed against the city. They went on to say that they had no idea that a caveat for the settlement was that the text messages between the mayor and his Chief of Staff could not be made public.
Kilpatrick's attorneys have advised that the City Council does not have the power to remove a mayor from office and that their vote yesterday was illegal and irrelevant.
What a mess!
Can you imagine being the Director of Public Relations for the City of Detroit?
Enlighten me on some interesting aspects of this case and share your thoughts on whether you think Mayor Kilpatrick should resign or remain in office.
Don't forget! The deadline is 5pm on Sunday!
Professor Kinchlow
Each week for the next five weeks I will post a blog topic for your review and response. The topics will be current events and you can earn up to 10 points each week that you provide a thoughtful, well-written response.
I'll be looking at grammar, spelling, sentence structure and content. I will also be looking for demonstration of critical thinking, ability to bring additional relevant information to the discussion, and thoughtfulness of your response.
Last night on my way home from class, I was listening to the car radio and was interested to learn that the Detroit City Council unanimously voted yesterday to remove Mayor Kilpatrick from office. Representatives on the Council indicated that they were hoodwinked into supporting Kilpatrick's proposal to award two city policemen a rather large settlement in response to a lawsuit that had been filed against the city. They went on to say that they had no idea that a caveat for the settlement was that the text messages between the mayor and his Chief of Staff could not be made public.
Kilpatrick's attorneys have advised that the City Council does not have the power to remove a mayor from office and that their vote yesterday was illegal and irrelevant.
What a mess!
Can you imagine being the Director of Public Relations for the City of Detroit?
Enlighten me on some interesting aspects of this case and share your thoughts on whether you think Mayor Kilpatrick should resign or remain in office.
Don't forget! The deadline is 5pm on Sunday!
Professor Kinchlow
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)