Deep Thoughts with Brandie Rickett

The concept of wikis is an incredible one. It makes perfect sense to me when I think about it. No one person know everything, but everyone knows something, and together, everyone knows everything. So why not make a way for everyone to contribute their knowledge and expertise and make it available to everyone else? Wikipedia has done this. It’s brilliant. It seems like the perfect way to combine and take advantage of global communication and the availability of knowledge.

However, the downside of this is the lack of ability to regulate the information. As with conducting surveys, there’s no real way to determine the accuracy of responses. A person can respond truthfully or falsely and the surveyor is none-the-wiser. The only way for the surveyor to know if the response is accurate is if the surveyor already knew the truth. But the catch-22 is that if the surveyor already knew the truth then he/she wouldn’t be conducting the survey.

The same holds for wikipedia. The only way a person can know if the information is accurate is if the knowledge was known prior to finding it on wikipedia. But again, one wouldn’t be looking it up on wikipedia if they already knew it. Therein lies the problem. Those searching wikipedia for information simply have to take it as truth, even though the information could be the result of someone who was bored and needed something to do.

I recently came across an article by John Seigenthaler, Sr. He had firsthand experience with the inaccuracies of wikipedia. In his article A False Wikipedia ‘Biography’ Seigenthaler explains that according to wikipedia he was directly involved in the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy. He claims otherwise. He served as the administrative assistant to Robert Kennedy in the 60’s, but Seigenthaler denies the rest of the information. He was able to get the information removed, hoping to one day find the (at the time) anonymous author (the author has since been identified).

This is a prime example of the existence of false information. And the consequences of this false info were not simply that a student had the wrond information for a history paper. The consequences for John Seigenthaler were defamation of character and alleged involvement in one of the biggest scandals in our nation’s history. Although the possibilities of wikis, specifically wikipedia, are endless and incredible, I’m not sure the outcomes will be as good as we all might hope.

I ran across this page describing a PR campaign by Proctor and Gamble called Decision Earth. According to this page, Proctor and Gamble distributed educational information to schools across the US. This packet included information about the Earth from the viewpoint of waste and destruction. However, the information implied that waste and destruction are either not as bad as we’re told or, in fact, beneficial. The examples provided on the previous link are that Proctor and Gamble claim that disposable diapers aren’t any worse for the environment than cloth diapers, and cutting trees is actually good for the environment and promotes growth. The evidence behind the diaper theory was based on studies funded by Proctor and Gamble. There was apparently no scientific evidence supporting the claim about deforestation.

I applaud the initial effort to distribute information the way they did. Proctor and Gamble had a great idea when they decided to create a packet specifically for schools. Since this company provides many household items, there is significant relevance for them providing information relating these types of items to their affects on the environment. And the target audience was perfect. What better way to educate by distributing to educational institutions. Inform the elementary and primary students and they inform their parents. Or at the very least they maintain that information for themselves in the future.

However, I think their idea was skewed out of control when they decided to provide information that has no actual fact base. To date, there is quite a bit of information from various studies that contradict these claims by Proctor and Gamble. Citing one study funded by your own company that refutes multiple scientific studies by various researchers is a dangerous choice. Especially when the new results make your company look better than it previously did. Whether the information is true or not is almost irrelevant. Why should anyone believe this new information? There’s too much evidence against it that isn’t connected to a bias situation, which seems to be the case of the study funded by Proctor and Gamble. I think this campaign started off on the right track and had lots of potential for great PR for Proctor and Gamble. However, lies and misrepresentation are not a great way to provide positive PR for anyone.

Read more about this and other “corporate manipulations” on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website.

I haven’t watched the new series “Commander in Chief,” starring Geena Davis, but I’ve heard a lot about it. I’ve seen Geena Davis give interviews about the show, and heard various reviews and opinions of the show; but the most interesting thing I’ve heard is that it is a PR campaign for the next election to promote a woman in the White House. I am pretty sure that’s not an official purpose of the show, but I tend to believe it’s at least somewhat true.
In the show, Geena Davis’s character becomes president after the death of the previous president. So the show isn’t as “unrealistic” as saying that a woman was actually voted into the office of president. That would be a leap, even for a television series. But the show depicts a hypothetical situation: what if something happened to the elected president and the vice president takes over, and what if the new president is a woman? What would happen? The show attempts to provide a hypothetical answer to the situation. I think maybe they’re taking this opportunity to let people get used to seeing a female in that position, so that when Election Day comes it won’t be such a stretch to imagine.
As I’ve said, I’ve never seen the show, but I’ve heard it leans more toward Democratic views. I’ve also heard rumors that Senator Hillary Clinton will be running in the next presidential election, who is, incidentally, a Democrat. I think it’s an interesting situation.
I don’t think that the whole purpose behind the creation of “Commander in Chief” was a publicity stunt in preparation for the 2008 election, but neither do I think that they have nothing to do with each other. If it is a publicity stunt, on some level, I think it is an extremely clever one, and one that could prove to be very beneficial. It could promote a female president in such a way as to bring that hypothetical situation closer to reality; or it could provide feedback implying that regardless of what they see on TV, the people will never vote in a woman as president. This information could be useful to specific people. Either way, it has definitely provided publicity that has already brought this hypothetical situation a little closer to reality.

I have always had a mental debate with myself regarding the ethics behind the paparazzi. Part of me feels that these people have a job to do, and that job is to take pictures of famous people and the things they do. They are protected by their right to free press and freedom of expression. And besides, these people are famous. Part of their job is to be photographed and put into the news. The purpose to their whole career is for their face and name to be plastered all over the place. If one can’t handle that part of the business, they shouldn’t be in that business.
However, there is the other part of me that thinks that some ethical boundaries are being crossed when it comes to paparazzi. They completely intrude on the lives of others, disrespecting privacy just so they can make a buck. They exploit famous people, often not even representing their images accurately, just so they can make some money.
I tend to see these people as lazy. They are playing off of people’s inherent nosiness and using it to make money fast. They don’t do it because they enjoy photography. If that were the case they would be photographing the Grand Canyon or Yosemite National Park or a field of sunflowers.
They do it because they enjoy the gossip. They don’t care about artistic talent or capturing beauty; they only care about who can get the juiciest photograph and create the most talked about gossip. Paparazzi are nosy, so they intrude in other people’s business to get photos so they can make some easy money. They’re lazy and would rather work half as hard and make twice the money, and can’t understand why they get criticized for how they make their living.

On October 13, 2005, Auburn University received a bomb threat for Haley Center. The building was evacuated, eventually. The University received the threat about 11:30 in the morning, but the building still had students inside several hours later. Instead of pulling the fire alarm to alert the occupants of the building that they needed to evacuate, authorities went door-to-door, classroom-to-classroom, telling people they needed to evacuate the building. The Plainsman, our campus newspaper, had personal accounts from students still inside the building as late as two that afternoon because they didn’t know anything was wrong.
It seems like the University should have a better plan than this. Because it was simply a threat, and not an actual bomb, this doesn’t seem like a huge crisis. However, it was severe enough to evacuate the tallest building in Lee County, cancel classes and bring in police authorities and K-9 units to search the building looking for the alleged bomb. Auburn authorities claimed they didn’t want to take any precautions, and yet they didn’t seem too anxious to get students out of the building. It would have been more efficient and safe to ring the emergency bells so students, faculty and other occupants could safely exit the building.
Because of the possible severity of the situation, it seems that “what to do in case of a bomb threat” would be included in the university’s crisis plan. If it is included, they need a refresher course on how to implement it. If this was their plan, it needs to be revised immediately. If it isn’t included, hopefully this will inspire them to add it in, as it is a necessary part that is missing.
This was a sudden crisis, created by an outside source; one that could not have been prevented, but could have easily been anticipated. Although there’s usually no way to determine when a bomb threat will occur, it’s unfortunately common enough to where an organization can anticipate its occurrence and plan accordingly. A few simple guidelines and steps to follow could create a protocol that would quickly and effectively get civilians out of harm’s way. An institution as large as Auburn University should have better protocol for such a situation, and I hope that this event will be the motivation they need to get things together in case this happens again. Next time it might not turn out so well and might turn into a crisis.

It’s amazing how many things seem to blend into the background when we get so used to having them around. I think many issues in our nation today can be described as just that. And it’s interesting how these issues can “come to light” at the strangest and most unexpected times.
Last year I had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to travel to Australia to do a semester abroad. It seems like such a “duh” statement to say that it’s a whole different country, but it’s not quite as “duh” as people might think. While there, in a country often paralleled to America, I encountered so many differences in lifestyle and issues that I don’t think twice about here.
For example, the issue of guns was brought up while I was there. Just about nobody in Australia has guns, so when my roommate found a statistic saying that something like 57 percent of Americans own a gun, she freaked out. She suggested that we are a society driven by fear and we are a violent nation. Now I can’t say that’s entirely inaccurate; but I believe that’s not a fair statement simply based on that fact.
I think that statistic is flawed, because most statistics are. You can manipulate it to say whatever you want it to say. But as this was brought up, I began to think about how many guns I see on a daily basis here in Alabama, the heart of the South. It’s not only common, it’s normal to see guns in the rearview windows of vehicles, especially during this time of year. Most of my male friends own at least one gun, and often carry one in their vehicle. My Australian friends were appalled to learn that I have not only seen and held a gun, but that I’ve also shot them. It never occurred to me that that was unusual.
We live in a region where hunting is a common sport, and where people get together with friends and shoot at targets for the social experience. It doesn’t come to my mind that gun control might be a problem. I’m just so used to being around guns and knowing that they’re there, that it seems like an everyday thing.
It’s fascinating to me that issues like this that can have a major affect on our society become blended into the background. It usually takes a significant occurrence regarding one of these issues before it moves back to the forefront of people’s minds.
An example of this would be the protests near the University of Florida campus by members of Voices for Planned Parenthood of Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The VPP members were upset because of the nomination of a conservative to the Supreme Court, further endangering the legality of abortion. I’m sure that most people in their everyday lives don’t think about abortion as an issue. Although it comes up in conversation every once in a while, it’s one of those issues that gets put on the backburner until something significant occurs.
As a result of the protests in Florida, I’m sure there are many other people who will start scratching their heads saying “Yeah, I agree with them,” as well as others deciding that they disagree.
It seems like these issues never get resolved. When something significant happens, the issue will be the topic of many debates for a while, and then people get tired of it and move on. Although no resolution occurs, people seem to agree to disagree for the time being, until yet another situation arises in which it starts all over again. It’s quite interesting to me that things of such importance continue to make their rounds throughout society, never actually going anywhere except in circles.

My last semester of high school, I only had two classes. So I left school about 11:45 everyday. I started working for John Merrill. He is the Director of Community Relations and Community Education for the Tuscaloosa County School System. I worked for him as a student intern that semester.
I did a lot of general office duties, but I also was able to help with some of his PR specialty stuff. This often included talking to the media about various things. Well, John had a system set up where he sent out forms to the schools so they could fill out what was going on each week in their school. John chose the events that were newsworthy and then relayed the information to the various media.
I often worked by myself in the office because John was out doing his stuff. One day, while I was alone, I answered a call from one of the local reporters asking to speak with John. I offered to take a message and the reporter proceeded to make his smart comment to me. He said “Yeah, I just wanted to tell John that we were unable to cover [this even] because we didn’t know about it, and I wanted to tell him ‘thanks.’” I don’t remember what the event was, but I couldn’t believe he said that to me; or that he was intending to say it to John.
When John got back I told him what the reporter had said. He didn’t seem to get angry, but he was understandably annoyed that this guy made that comment, and also that the guy actually said it to me instead of waiting to talk to John.
There are 29 schools in the system that John has to keep up with, so he relies on these forms returned by the schools to know what is going on so he can relay it to the news and papers. So although it was his responsibility to provide the information, it wasn’t his fault that he didn’t have it. In my opinion, the reporter was out of line for reacting the way that he did.
This is kind of on the reverse side of how we’ve been discussing media relations. We’ve mainly discussed media relations as pr to media, not so much media to pr. John didn’t know that there was information he didn’t have, or he would have gotten it. It wouldn’t have been difficult to get the information; a quick phone call to the school would have done it. But, like I said, he didn’t know he didn’t have all the information.
The reverse media relations in this situation didn’t seem great, because if the reporter is relying on John for information, John’s not the one he should be getting smart with. I know that John would never withhold information from a reporter because of a silly comment like that, but it was still gutsy on the part of the reporter to take the chance of ticking off his “source.”
Anyway, in the semester I worked for him, John seemed to do a good job with media relations for the school system. As I mentioned before, he kind of had a system set up so he could do the best he could to get all the relevant information to pass on to the media. He also made himself available for comment when anything happened that was large enough to warrant interviews and statements. I feel like this situation gives a good example of media relations from both angles.

Two semesters ago, Spring 2005, I had the wonderful opportunity to do a semester abroad in Australia. I studied at James Cook University in Cairns, Queensland, Australia. My roommate was from Brisbane, QLD. She had plans to go home one weekend toward the end of the semester, around May. She invited me to go home with her. She wanted her mom and friends back home to meet me. I wasn’t sure if I would have the money to go, but my parents told me they wanted me to be able to go with her so they would take care of it. So I went online and booked a flight with Jetstar Airways, the cheapest airline in Australia.

When I booked my flight, they sent me a list of “rules” regarding how to travel with them. For example, you can check in for your flight no sooner than two hours before and no later than 30 minutes before your flight is scheduled to leave. Well my flight was scheduled to leave at 6:30 in the morning. My roommate’s flight wasn’t until about an hour later. So my roommate, her boyfriend, another friend and I loaded up and headed to the airport about 5:30 that morning. We got there just before six.

When I went up to the counter to check in, the desk attendant told me that check out had closed. I asked why and she said that check-in closes 30 minutes before the flight is scheduled to leave. I told her that according to my watch we still had a couple of minutes before that was supposed to happen, and she proceeded to tell me that she was sorry I didn’t have a more reliable way to tell time but there was nothing she could do except put me on a later flight. The later flight wasn’t until after 11. She also said that it would be $50 to move me to the later flight because my ticket was booked online, which meant that it was non-transferable and non-refundable.

I didn’t have enough money to cover the difference, so my roommate paid for it. I was so upset that my roommate had to pay that money, but also that either of us was expected to pay it. I was also appalled that the attendant would go so far as to tell me that I had an unreliable source of time and that I was wrong. That didn’t represent good customer service or consumer relations. When she printed out my new ticket I asked if I could go on and check in my luggage so I wouldn’t have to carry it around. After all we’d just been through, she said no, that I couldn’t check it in until two hours before the flight was scheduled to leave.

I was so disappointed and offended with how I was treated by this woman. I understand that there are company policies, but I also understand that the consumer is what makes the business work. There was no way to convince me that the difference of one or two minutes at that point would throw the whole airline out of whack. As a result, I told everyone I could not to fly with Jetstar because of the awful experience I had. My roommate told her mother what happened. Her mother, who has many contacts throughout Australia, said that she would discourage anyone she knew from flying Jetstar also.

I chose the cheap airline for my flight because I didn’t have a lot of money, and it was only going to be a two-hour flight. I didn’t need to have a meal, or a huge amount of space, so flying the more expensive airline didn’t seem logical. But I did pay for a ticket, and cheap or not I deserved to get treated with more respect than that. As a customer, I was not delighted with the service and the way I was treated. She was more concerned with rules than with me, the consumer. In my one experience with Jetstar, they demonstrated their lack of consumer relations, and assured that my one experience with them would be an only experience.

My story has a history, so I’ll make the history as short as possible in order to get to the point. In August 2001 I was in a horrific car accident. I was badly injured and spent 18 days in the hospital after two extensive surgeries to my face.

As a result, I received some settlement money from my insurance company (my dad had an uninsured motorist plan, and, since the guy that hit me was uninsured, my insurance company gave it to us) and some insurance money from the rental car company from which the car had been rented by the guy who hit me. Not any huge amount of money, especially after paying lawyer’s fees and bills related to my accident, but more than most 18 year olds can imagine. Most of the money I asked my mom to put into her savings account because I wasn’t sure it was a good idea to keep it in mine, for obvious reasons. And so we get to the point…

My parents have a financial adviser who we’ll call John. Mom and Dad were having a meeting with him regarding their investments and such when John asked my mom how much money was in her savings account. She replied “You mean the money that’s mine?” This confused John so Mom briefly ran through the story of how I got money and why it was in her account. John immediately said that I needed to do something with that money because it didn’t need to just be sitting in a savings account; so he wanted to meet with me.

I agreed to meet with him. When I did, he went over a few things with me, mainly options of what I could do with this money, all of which involved investing. I told him I wanted to do a semester abroad in Australia because it was my lifelong dream to go to Australia. Since I had some money to go, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity.

He proceeded to inform me of a trip he took in college to study in Colorado. He “had” to go to Colorado, but after he finished his studies he realized it wasn’t as great as he thought it would be and he would have been better off using his money other ways. Basically he told me that it would be a bad investment for me to take this trip. I said something smart like “Well I could invest it in a car; that would be a much worse investment.” I’m not too sure that was called for, but I reacted to him telling me that it wasn’t worth fulfilling a lifelong dream.

Then he had the nerve to tell me that he would have given anything to have had this much money as an 18 year old. He could have invested it and had a huge down payment on a house waiting for him when he finished college. I almost started crying and walked out, because he had no idea what he was talking about. He had no right to say that, because if he had thought about it a little more he would have realized that I would gladly have given back every bit of the money if I could take away what happened to me and get my life back to normal.

By the grace of God and the skill and wisdom of my doctors most people can’t even tell that I’ve been through such an ordeal. For that I’m thankful. I’m also thankful that my life is normal now, and I can go on with my life as if nothing happened. And I’m sure that because I didn’t have any physical evidence of the accident, John didn’t comprehend the extent of the situation. But he should have been more sensitive to the situation and thought more about what he said. This is an experience from the other end of financial relations, but his comments led me to decide not to do business with him in the future. Obviously, this was not a good example of good financial relations.

The church I attend in Tuscaloosa, Ala. (where I’m from), is Tuscaloosa Life Church, TLC for short. We are only about four years old, and I am one of the original members. After four years, TLC is still a small church. We average between 30 and 50 each Sunday, with about half of them being elementary-age children.

We started a community outreach program called Adopt-a-Block, where we would go through the neighborhoods behind our church picking up trash and developing relationships with the residents. Our church is located right in the middle of one of the “worst” areas of town. The crime rate is high, education level low and a large percentage of the residents are on some sort of government financial aid.

We developed relationships with the residents by asking how we can serve them. Some examples of the responses we got are mowing grass, helping pay bills and tutoring children. We are not equipped to meet all the financial needs of our neighbors, but our pastor developed an idea called ABC-123. ABC stands for “Alberta’s Back-to-School Connection” (Alberta is the name of the community). We started the event in July 2004, just before school started. The response was so large we held it again last year, with the intention of making it an annual event.

The purpose of ABC-123 is to provide backpacks and school supplies to children in the community whose families don’t have enough money to buy these things for their children. Many of these families are on low income and/or have multiple children. This time of year makes it tough on them since they have so many things to buy for their children and so little money with which to buy them.

TLC takes care of all of the advertisement of ABC-123. The members of our church visit the area businesses asking for their support, either by monetary donations or donations of school supplies. Several churches with which TLC has relationships volunteer their time and efforts, as well as provide donations from their members.

This past July, on the day of the event, we were able to give out over 200 backpacks, feed over 300 people, and provide a few hours of entertainment for those in attendance. A few law enforcement officers from the local police department came to help with the event. Many of these children have bad images of the officers because many of their family members and relatives have been arrested. We wanted the children to see the officers as “good guys,” not “bad guys.”

This event is a great example of community relations. A modern definition of community relations says that community relations should be beneficial to the company/organization and the community, and this definition is the core of why TLC takes part in events like ABC-123. TLC participates in the community “to maintain and enhance its environment to the benefit of both the institution and the community.” TLC benefits by developing positive relationships with the residents, as well as creating a positive name for ourselves as a church and as individuals. The community benefits because the residents’ needs are met through the help of the church and the activities. This event demonstrates good community relations.