Social Media Pushes Boundaries in China; Inspires Change
Traditional media has, on many occasions, served as a “checks and balances” system for those in power. Social media has taken it one step further—erasing the middle man by allowing individuals to directly challenge those in charge. Saturday’s fatal crash of China’s first generation bullet train highlights an important functional aspect of social media: Is it impossible to silence? The crash killed nearly 39 people when one train derailed and collided with another which was stalled near the city of Wenzhou. Officials initially said lighting cut power supplies affecting monitoring systems. However, rail officials concluded that signaling issues may have been the cause. Chinese authorities published a set of guidelines for the press on a website called “Ministry of Truth” which often posts copies of government directives; the posts included: “The major theme for the Wenzhou bullet train case from now on will be known as ‘in the face of great tragedy, there’s great love,’” states the orders. “Do not question, do not elaborate.” However, the crash is being labeled as a “public-relations disaster” for the government as efforts to quiet and control the media have been unsuccessful—including alleged attempts to pay-off families of victims while burying parts of the wreckage, according to various news reports. The Chinese people have taken to social media platforms to vent their frustration, questions and demands of their government—a notion that is proving a major change in the landscape of Chinese media. While many micro-blogging communities in China have made bold statements about the government’s alleged dishonesty, journalists seem to be slowly following suit. Traditional media, previously monitored closely by the government, is catching up with its worldwide counterparts. China is seeing “more publications and journalists who are interested in pushing the boundaries,” says David Bandurski, editor of the China Media Project website via USAtoday.com. “This is one of the biggest ever venting of anger and doubt, through social media, in China.” While there are still large parts of this evolving story to unfold, one thing is certain – many in China have an opinion and are expressing themselves through various social media distribution points, without the “middle man.”
News Corp. Scandal Continues, Leadership Questioned
Tuesday, July 19th—Rupert Murdoch and his son James are appearing before Parliament to give their testimonies on the News of the World’s phone hacking scandal. One of the key issues discussed is the Murdoch family’s involvement with News Corp.—the parent company to the newspaper. When questioned about Rupert Murdoch’s seemingly “hands-off” approach, Murdoch reveals he “very seldom” spoke to the News of the World. “I’m not really in touch,” he says, adding that he frequently corresponds with the Wall Street Journal. However, he denies that he’s “hands-off.” Denying that the fault lies with him, but rather with those that he hired and trusted—Murdoch represents a classic example of leadership gone awry. Whether or not his awareness of the matter existed—the point he makes is no doubt a troublesome one for many businesses, and leaves us asking, what is the extent of a leader’s field of vision? In an interview with media writer Ken Auletta on Monday night, Piers Morgan, host of CNN and former News of the World editor spoke on behalf of Rupert Murdoch, saying that he “cannot be expected to micromanage the methodology of every single part of his company.” After the current scandal, we now see that unethical practice can result in huge losses, and preventative measures must be put into place. In a statement to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Rupert Murdoch was quoted as saying, “We now know that things went badly wrong at the News of the World. For a newspaper that held others to account, it failed when it came to itself. The behavior that occurred went against everything that I stand for. It not only betrayed our readers and me, but also the many thousands of magnificent professionals in our other divisions around the world.” While it is nearly impossible to control every aspect of your business alone, it is possible to make smart decisions about the people that surround your business. It is now clearer than ever; a leader’s field of vision only extends as far as the people he trusts to represent him. The old adage, “trust but verify,” couldn’t be more true as leaders may choose to delegate authority, but can never shed accountability.
Scandal Brings an End to 168 year-old ‘News of the World’
The empire that Rupert Murdoch built continues to crumble a bit as the Murdoch-owned British tabloid, News of the World, remains under fire for allegedly hacking into the voicemail of many public figures and other subjects of its reporting. The 168-year-old tabloid announced that it would shut down amidst the scrutiny and allegations it has received for the past five years. The move was a scramble to salvage what was left of the tabloid’s reputation. James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch and chairman to News Corp, was quoted as saying, “News of the World is in the business of holding others to account. But it failed when it came to itself. Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued.” Once seen as an asset to its parent company, News Corp, the tabloid’s reputation has reversed itself at lightning speed. The statement made by Murdoch, along with other efforts such as donating the tabloid’s profits to charities—however carefully calculated; serve as last ditch efforts to regain the integrity lost by the brand. Reputation is not the only facet of the company impacted by the scandal. After multiple firings, the question still remains of where to place blame. While the dishonesty of those closest to the scandal—the reporters and editors, can certainly be held accountable, the Murdoch family itself and others at the head of the company are also being called into question. At least one of Rupert Murdoch’s current business acquisitions is in jeopardy because of the controversy. Murdoch was in the process of bidding on the satellite broadcasting company, BskyB before the scandal broke, but Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said the British government would vote to support a motion asking Murdoch to withdraw his bid. Whether it be the inability to provide adequate leadership for such a large corporation–or just pure negligence, it is clear that certain measures must be taken to ensure resilience from these types of scandals. The relentless mission of securing your assets, protecting your people and strengthening your brand is never a responsibility that wanes or can be delegated. Integrity starts and ends at the top – what are you doing today to protect your brand?
Casey Anthony Trials: The Social Media Verdict
While Casey Anthony may have been found ‘not guilty’ this Tuesday—the court of public opinion had decided quite the contrary long ago, reacting to the decision with an outpour of disgruntled opinions on Facebook and Twitter. The much awaited verdict of the murder trial was reached on Tuesday when the jury found Casey Anthony, mother of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony, not guilty of first degree murder, aggravated manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse of her daughter. The outcome left many reeling with confusion. On Tuesday afternoon, Twitter users tweeted 34,000 updates with the term ‘Casey Anthony’, and according to MSNBC.com, almost 325,283 of updates of that day were trial-related—and had negative opinions of the verdict. Throughout the 36 day trial, Facebook pages popped up showing support for Caylee Anthony, urging users to commemorate her death. Statuses educated users on the findings of the trials. The sites gave an incredible testament to how public opinion is reflected heavily through these networks, as well as how they are rapidly advancing to become sources of information and systems of interacting with news coverage. As for Casey Anthony—she remains forever guilty…on Facebook.
Did He Cross the Line, Hon
How quickly can a seemingly non-violent protest become a threat to public safety and personal property? Recent controversy revolving around Baltimore’s iconic, Café Hon, has made it more apparent how easily that line can be toed. Café Hon owner Denise Whiting’s decision to trademark the word ‘Hon’ to protect her business and brand, caused an uproar when some felt trademarking the word was capitalizing on a Baltimore tradition—as well as trying to create proprietary rights around the city’s colloquialisms. The debate over ‘hon’ took a more serious turn during Honfest—a summer festival and local tradition run by the Café. Steve Akers, a fervent protestor of the brand, allegedly opted for a more aggressive approach—harassing and scaring patrons by shouting slogans into the crowded Café Hon during the festival. Other allegations against Akers include trespassing into Whiting’s businesses, harassing employees, and cyber-bullying. The sharing of strong opposing opinions always can become heated, and as the ‘Hon’ controversy illustrates, in these situations it is not always clear where to draw the line. How far is too far? That question is now in the hands of a Baltimore City Circuit Court judge who has already made a first move to impose a temporary restraining order. We’ll keep you posted.
Congressman Weiner: What Can We Learn
In a digital age where information can be received and delivered instantly, many fail to realize that it is not as easy to retract–or suppress. So seems to be the case with former Representative Anthony Wiener who found himself at the hands of social media when he “tweeted” revealing pictures to a young female “follower” on the microblog, Twitter. With a slip of the mouse, Weiner’s pictures, intended to be private, were made public. When not careful, this is extremely easy to overlook as all Twitter posts are public by default. This is not the first time a public figure’s carelessness has been displayed on sites such as Twitter. The end results can be career-crippling. Weiner’s resignation serves as a reminder to us all that in 2011 it is becoming increasingly easier to broadcast yourself, and it is important to be aware of the image we are broadcasting. A fleeting lapse in judgement cause catastrophic consequences to one’s reputation, and ultimately career.
Proactive vs. Reactive Security
By Frank Barile — Heckler & Koch is a German weapons manufacturer. Their weapons are used by elite military and police units all over the world. They have a saying, “In a world of compromise, some don’t”. This saying reflects a corporate attitude that has passed down to all levels of management and manufacturing. H&K produces some of the very best weapons known for their reliability, durability and quality. They know that when your life is on the line, you need the very best weapon and there is no room for compromise. In the world of security, many times it is just the opposite with plenty of compromises. Many organizations that need security services truly do not understand what security is, or what types of security should be obtained. In a post 9-11 world, security companies have sprung-up all over the country, ranging in all levels of experience, capabilities and resources. It is a maze of offerings which takes someone very experienced to help corporate management navigate through. Once the security services are obtained, corporate managers responsible for the security services generally make several mistakes. The first mistake is overwhelmingly created by inadequate financial resources. Limited financial resources, combined with the lack of research and experience, create a reactive security operations plan. What this means is that organizations requiring security are not adequately protected; and, if any significant security crisis emerges the security company will not be able to handle the incident properly. Inadequate security protection will leave the corporation exposed and open to liability – it will cost time, money, customers and careers. Upper management will be forced to react to the incident and reinvest more financial resources to protect from further liability while engrossed in damage control. The second mistake is created from inexperience alone. The corporation requiring security services generally has limited or no experience with what type of training should be required for their security personnel and omits the specified training requirements with the contracted security company. Just because you have a security firm now protecting your organization (or investment) doesn’t mean they are qualified to do so. This lack of proper training or “failing to train to standard” is a costly mistake when your corporation is sitting in court. Juries typically have no patience for inadequate training standards. The attitude of “we don’t need to spend the money because it won’t happen to us” is like playing Russian roulette. In today’s world it is not a matter of “if” an incident requiring security will happen; it is a matter of “when.” Are you prepared and fully protected – the decisions you make today will be judged by many for years to come! Conversely, proactive security operations plans appear more expensive at first glance but when you consider the financial cost associated from liability, proactive security plans are a smarter investment. In order to create a proactive security plan, you need a manager or an outside firm experienced with the many types of security services offered. This experience will save you time and money. Proactive security plans are created by having a proper security evaluation conducted by a qualified individual or security consulting firm. The security evaluation will make informed recommendations for security firms, to include types of services and the training qualifications necessary to really protect a firm’s people, assets and brand. This information is invaluable for corporate managers who are ultimately responsible for obtaining security services. When it comes to providing personal security and protection to your family or organization, it is best to remember the H&K saying, “In a world of compromise, some don’t. For more information or help with security matters please contact the Fallston Group at 410-420-2001.
30-Foot Reactionary Rule for Safety
By Frank Barile — The warm weather is upon us once again and it is time to get out the short pants and bathing suits. Typically, we wear less during the summer months and tend to become more physically active. It is usually a time to get outdoors and exercise as we attempt to shed the few extra pounds we gained during the winter months. As we become more active, we need to realize that sexual predators become more active as well. They are drawn out by the lore of athletic-attired women walking, biking or jogging along the roadside. Police recruits are taught about the “30-Foot Reactionary Rule” while they are attending the police academy. It is understood that 30 feet is the minimal distance that a police officer wants to keep between them and a suspect who intends to physically harm them, either by hand and/or by knife. In other words, the police officer needs, minimally, a 30 foot distance to create enough reaction time to successfully draw a handgun and repel the attacker who may be rushing the officer. Simply put, action is always faster than reaction, and the greater distance from a potential threat, the more time we have to react and possibly escape (flight) or confront the danger (fight). How can women use this rule in their day to day lives? As human beings, we do not a have super hero senses to know whether or not someone intends to do us physical harm, especially if they seem very friendly. Remember, most serial killers usually are very friendly and non-intimidating right up until they attack. The old saying “kill them with kindness” is taken literally by these predatory criminals. When attacked, we have to see the danger, process it and then react appropriately in order to survive the encounter. Distance equals time; the longer the distance the more reactionary time you have. Here is some advice for women (and men) during the summer months – be careful where you walk, jog, or bike! Use the sidewalk as much as possible and stay off the roadside where someone can easily grab you and pull you into their vehicle. Try and exercise outside with a partner or group. If someone unknown approaches you, do not allow them to close within your 30-foot reactionary gap. If possible, cross the street to avoid potential unwelcome contacts. Avoid running trails that go off into wooded or isolated areas. Walk, jog or bike only in well populated areas during times when people are active. Never go with anyone you don’t know even if they are asking for help. Exercise during daylight hours. When talking with someone you don’t know, try and keep distance between you and never close within reaching distance. Lastly, always carry your cell phone while exercising outdoors; stay alert and be safe! For more information on safety tips for women contact the Fallston Group at 410-420-2001.
Flexible Thinking Key to Safety and Security
By Frank Barile – When the US Navy Seals arrived at their objective in Abbottabad, Pakistan they had already spent multiple hours planning and rehearsing for the raid they were about to conduct. The best military tacticians had designed a clever operation to use a two-pronged assault on the compound that housed Osama bin Laden. One assault team would attack from the roof top working their way down and another assault team would attack from the ground, preventing any escape. Unfortunately, regardless of all the best planning in the world no one could prevent a helicopter from having mechanical trouble causing it to crash land. This unforeseen crash landing could have caused the raid to end disastrously because the crash prevented a SEAL team from mounting the roof as planned. Instead, the SEALs used the unforeseen chain of events to reorganize their strategy and pull-off one of the greatest Special Forces raids in our lifetime. How were they able to reorganize and respond so effectively after the crash landing? US Special Operations Soldiers are trained to be redundant and flexible in their thinking. They are taught very early in their training to realize that their mind is the greatest weapon they possess. Also, you can bet that during the pre-raid rehearsals, the assault teams looked at the various things that could go wrong and planned contingencies for any possible mishap. The flexibility to adapt, combined with the proper mindset, is what makes Special Forces elite. We can learn a very valuable lesson from the monumental event and turn adversity into advantage in our daily lives just like the Seals did during the raid. Too often we are rigid in our thinking and do not plan for contingencies when it comes to our safety and security. Whether we are planning a vacation, trip to the mall or routine business travel, we can take a few minutes to prepare and plan for most unforeseen emergencies. Flexible thinking is a key to your safety and security. It is the mechanism that allows us to plan for the “what if” scenarios which are paramount to our safety and security during crisis and turmoil. To learn more about flexible thinking applied to crisis and issue management contact the Fallston Group at 410-420-2001.
Tweeting: A Costly Game if Not Well Thought-Out
One of the ongoing dangers of social media is the spontaneity with which people distribute their random thoughts, emotion and message. We have seen a number of brands negatively impacted recently by the “quick trigger” of wanting to be heard. After the failings of Kenneth Cole when he tweeted about his spring collection and Cairo, there is now yet another example of an athlete losing a lucrative endorsement deal because he spoke his mind without thinking. The Pittsburgh Associated Press reported the following earlier this week: “PITTSBURGH (AP) The Champion sports apparel company has ended its endorsement deal with Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall over Twitter remarks the player made criticizing people for celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Friday that Champion “strongly disagreed” with the tweets and ended a new four-year contract the player recently signed. Mendenhall has endorsed the company’s products since entering the league in 2008. Mendenhall on Monday questioned the public celebrations of bin Laden’s death, and whether the World Trade Center towers were really brought down on Sept. 11, 2001, only by crashing two hijacked airliners into the buildings. Mendenhall has since clarified his remarks by saying Americans were insulted when some people celebrated the terrorist attacks masterminded by bin Laden, and that others might view Americans celebrating bin Laden’s death the same way.” Let this yet serve as another lesson to everyone…think before you Tweet!
