The Public Editor is pledged to giving voice to the Times readers. His column appears every other Sunday in the Week in Review section. Mr. Hoyt says he will be driven by “what readers care about and complain about.”

It would be interesting to know how you as professional communicators rate the importance of Public Editors. Thanks for answering these questions:

Does the Public Editor serve a worthwhile role?

Do you read his column in the Sunday Times?

Have you ever e-mailed him a comment or complaint? Why not?

And while we are polling, please answer this question:

If you had a vote, would you favor or oppose Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to take over Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal? Why?

(Posted by Larry Foster)

By the way, if you have any junkie tendencies about the progress (or regress) of the news media business, you may also want to check out journalism.org, a decade-old center that just last year came under the wing of Pew Research Center.

(Posted by Ray Jordan)

It’s interesting that the advice I give them also applies to professionals working their way up the ladder. And to those on the top rung as well.

Become intimately familiar with the company’s (or client’s) business so you can better understand key issues or problems.
(It’s amazing how often this basic is overlooked.)

Earn a reputation for bringing good judgment to the decision making process.
(Good judgment is one of the most illusive of all skills. Think before you jump in with an opinion when big decisions are being made.)

Don’t be afraid to disagree.
(Some of the best PR reputations are built on hearing from “the loyal opposition.”)

Become recognized for your writing talent.
(If you can write an internal memo with clarity and persuasion and a degree of brevity you are headed for distinction. Competing against the lawyers is the most fun of all.)

Now it’s your turn to come up with some basics I’ve missed.

(Posted by Larry Foster)

(Posted by Ray Jordan)

Back in the mid-90′s, the Internet’s World Wide Web looked like an intriguing communications space, though far from proven. Its users were mostly geeks and its applications mostly sketchy and technical. I had put up a small company web site for my employer by then, but wasn’t thinking terribly much about it. Then, one evening, I opened an admittedly young bottle of 1994 Rutherford Hill Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. Printed right there on the cork, along with the winery phone number, was “http://www.rutherfordhill.com“.

My goodness. Think about this. Here was one of world’s most low-tech producers, a winery, thinking enough of the World Wide Web to print a web site address on a cork — a cork that was designed to stay in some bottles of this wine for half a decade or more. What a commitment. It meant that 5 or 10 years from now, this winery would still have its web site operating. It meant, indeed, that this emerging communications environment was real, durable, and ubiquitous across industries. It was my “cork moment”. From that point forward, I knew the web would change much about our world.

Fast forward to today. The world of social media – blogs, wikis, MySpace, etc – is intriguing. Its users have been mostly kids and geeks and its applications mostly sketchy and personal. I’ve helped my employer put up a small history blog, but haven’t been thinking terribly much about it. Frankly, I’ve been waiting for a cork moment.

Then, one recent evening, I was fortunate enough to hear Brian Akre of General Motors tell the story about the tussle between GM and the New York Times concerning a letter to the editor. The scrap started when a NY Times op ed piece by Thomas Friedman accused the company of being “dangerous to America’s future” and likening it to a “crack dealer”. Taking a first traditional step to remedy the claims, GM sought to have a rebuttal letter published by the Times. When informed by the Times that their letter in response to the 800-word column could contain 175 words max, GM began a negotiation process that ultimately bought them an additional 25 words.

As Brian tells the story, “Our letter opened with a paragraph that accurately summarized the most bizarre elements of Mr. Friedman’s attack, then reacted with this one-word sentence: ‘Rubbish.’”

The New York Times objected to the use of the phrase “Rubbish.” and instead offered “We beg to differ.”

So ensued an ultimately futile stand-off between the companies. Frustrated with the proceedings, GM opted to drop the negotiations with the New York Times and instead came clean with this entire story via its own blog. As it turned out, the blog itself became an online attraction, rapidly drawing hundreds of incoming links. The full story was soon picked up by publications ranging from major daily newspapers to the Columbia Journalism Review. In a strange turnabout, GM was sometimes characterized as the “David” to the New York Times’ “Goliath”. From a public relations perspective, imagine GM, with a market cap of over $19 billion, being characterized as “David”.

My goodness. Think about this. Here was one of the world’s largest employers effectively taking on one of the world’s most influential newspapers on that newspaper’s home turf – public opinion – via a blog. Could anyone now believe that this communications environment was not real, durable or ubiquitous across industries? This was my “rubbish moment”. I must now acknowledge that social media (or whatever it is destined to be called) will change much about our world.

(Posted by Ray Jordan)

(Posted by Ray Jordan)

      My thoughts today deal with playing the role of “Loyal Opposition” when participating in discussions leading to important decisions.  It can be both risky and rewarding, but in my view it is one of the key contributions an experienced public relations professional can make to the decision-making process.  Even more important if it is a viewpoint that represents “the public interest.” 

      I have always felt that the public relations professional should be more attuned to “the public interest” than anyone else on the senior staff.  It is an important part of our area of responsibility. 

      When I went to Johnson & Johnson to help form its first public relations department I had come from the city room of a large newspaper – where opinions and beliefs are constantly challenged.  I naively thought it was the same in corporations. 

      The then chairman and CEO decided that the new PR department would report to him (and that’s the way it has wisely remained at J&J).  At an early discussion on an important decision I had the temerity to disagree with a decision that was evolving.  The subject had to do with the way an important announcement would be interpreted by the public.  Fortunately, my position proved to be right and I persuaded the others to see it my way.  That was my entry into the minefield of “Loyal Opposition.”  

      The importance of playing this role comes as no revelation to many of you who do it well.  For those who are wary, I offer encouragement. 

      When you are reasonably confident that your good judgment and knowledge of the subject strengthens your opposing view, become the “loyal opposition” even if most or all others are against you, including the CEO. 

      If you are right more often than you are wrong your views will be sought repeatedly.  Your value will be enhanced and your counseling will attain new levels of importance, especially to the CEO.  There will always be others in the room fearful about taking an opposing position.  You should not be. 

      I recommend being thoughtful about your decision, not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.  That gets you nowhere.  But often you will find that an opposing view stimulates more discussion, and even if your point is not adopted there is added value in stirring discussion.  Sometimes a compromise decision emerges. 

      It doesn’t have to be the CEO who is running the meetings.  It can be anyone in charge.  By raising concerns about a questionable decision you see emerging, and doing it in a diplomatic way, you will be serving your company and enhancing your own reputation as someone who is a vital part of important discussion leading to important decisions. 

      Your response to this bit of advice may be “Well, doesn’t everyone do this?”  The answer is an emphatic “No.”  How many times have you left a meeting and someone (maybe you) said:  “I wanted to tell them I thought they were wrong.”

(Posted by Larry Foster)

 With apologies to my colleagues, Ray and Larry, for taking so long to enter this space, here is my first entry for Calm Patient and Good-Humored.

Frankly, I find this new form of communication to be very intimidating. I’m sure that’s why it has taken me so long to do this. Larry and I exchanged e-mails early on about Ray’s suggestion that the three of us collaborate on a blog. It seemed like a good idea …at first. Then came the reality of posting for … who knows? … to read.

I guess this made me realize that down deep, I have always wanted to be in control of my messages and thoughts until I was certain I was right and could prevail on a point of view. So in this give and take environment, it has taken me awhile to work up the courage to put my thoughts out there. We’ll see how it goes.

I’m sharing this little confession at the outset because I believe many others feel as I do. If so, I’d love to hear how you’re dealing with it and whether you’ve gotten over it.

Enough of that!

Of all the Principles of practice attributed to Arthur W. Page, I have always found “Remain calm patient and good-humored” to be my favorite. I think that’s because it suits my personal style.

In the many crisis situations I’ve dealt with over the years, it was always easier to see your way forward if you could get people involved and concerned to just calm down so you could talk through the situation.

Ralph Larsen, Johnson & Johnson’s ceo during the 1990s was a master at creating a calm and steady environment for discussion. Even during the worst moments, he would say, “this, too, shall pass.” It was such a liberating comment. Of course it was easy for him to say that; he was the ceo. But in setting that tone, he took the pressure off and assured that cool heads would prevail. And, I think we reached better decisions as a result. I know we did!

“Remain calm, patient and good-humored” is a mantra that we could use more widely in society. The lack of civility in public discourse, especially in political rhetoric that is inflamed in the media, makes it nearly impossible to reach a consensus on anything. We need more leaders who exhibit a tone of reason, who care enough about establishing a common ground for the public good to want to embrace opposing views with calming speech, patience and good humor.

More on this in a future post.

So, thanks, Ray, for picking a great thematic for this discussion place.

(Posted by Bill Nielsen)