Dancing with Wolves
“Dancing with Wolves” won seven Academy Awards in 1990 – and this could not have happened if the film had not accurately portrayed both the dominant and the oppressed cultures that were the subject of this movie. I was moved by director Kevin Costner’s and writer Michael Blake’s portrayal of the Indian population of South Dakota and of the transformation of Lt. John Dunbar, from an uncaring and solitary Union Army officer into a man who learned to love and respect – and to even become – a member of the Sioux-Lakota Indian tribe. Of course, Dunbar could not ride off into the sunset with his new compatriots. Dunbar kept a journal, which he careless left behind at the deserted fort that was supposed to be his to command. When he returned, his troops had arrived, discovered his journal, and turned on the man who was supposed to be their leader.
The dominant group, -- in this case the Union soldiers – acted true to form – in a way that still characterizes some members of the military today when confronted with something or someone that is alien to them. That explained their reaction to a Dunbar gone “native” and to the Indians who had accepted Dunbar into their tribe.
Overall, I cannot see much that Native Americans might object to in this movie. Effort was made to maintain language accuracy with a Lakota/Sioux language instructor brought on the set as dialogue coach. (Wikipedia). The late Severt Young Bear, co-author of the book, “Standing in the Light” A Lakota Way of Seeing” was music and dance consultant for the film. I think members of the tribe were portrayed as real people with all their own individual quirks and personalities within the Sioux culture.
There are two things in the movie that I think the Sioux/Lakota of today might find objectionable. At the beginning of the movie, there is a scene that shows an Indian warrior killing and then scalping a white man. Another is the fact that in the end Dunbar fell in love with Stands with a Fist, a white woman who had been raised as a Sioux. Why her and not another woman of the tribe who was Sioux by birth?
Jet blue and crisis communication
The chapter on evaluating risk communication efforts seems a bit like stating the obvious. But sometimes the obvious is just what it needs and it can be helpful to have a checklist of steps to follow and a guideline to which once can refer. However, like anything else in the communications profession – time and often money is of the essence, so I think it is important to be precise about exactly what one chooses to evaluate.
It was a no-brainer for Jet Blue to figure out what it needed to do to abate ill-will toward the company after the recent spate of flight delays that left passengers stranded on planes for as long as eight hours. Not many happy campers there, and in fact one unhappy customer started a blog: http://jetbluehostage.blogspot.com/ It’s still getting hits. But Jet Blue evaluated the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of its communication plan early on in this crisis and took immediate action by proposing its own passenger bill of rights and sending no other than its CEO David Neeleman to speak for the company on all the top network talks shows. And Jet Blue has kept Neeleman in the fore, letting passengers know that the situation is being followed and monitored from the top. In other words, Jet blue opted for instant evaluation and instant action – something that was called for in this case and which may save the company’s reputation.
The latest posting on Jet Blue’s website:
March 20, 2007 - CEO David Neeleman updates customers on what actions JetBlue has taken since Feb. 20, and how the airline performed over the March 16 winter storm weekend.
There’s a video that goes along with this as well.
Why do I bring this up here as a commentary on a chapter that has to do with risk crisis evaluation? To stress the point – in my view – that it is not always necessary or even wise to sit around too long to ponder and pontificate on the next course of action or inaction. Jet Blue’s evaluation was clearly based around their correctly perceived analysis that the need was to act quickly – but wisely in a consumer friendly way.
This they did, and did quite well. Look at the first few words, again taken from their website introducing their customer Bill of Rights:
Above all else, JetBlue Airways is dedicated to bringing humanity back to air travel. We strive to make every part of your experience as simple and as pleasant as possible. Unfortunately, there are times when things do not go as planned. If you’re inconvenienced as a result, we think it is important that you know exactly what you can expect from us. That’s why we created our Customer Bill of Rights. …
Simple, direct and conveys to me as the consumer that if I do have a (future) unpleasant experience with JetBlue, it will be handled differently than in the past. How effective this plan has been will likely be the subject of further evaluation by JetBlue in the months ahead – but my point here is they did not get so bogged down in trying to figure out what to do about what went wrong that they failed to do anything. And inaction in the face of uncertainty can be one of the downsides of (over) evaluation and measurement.
There’s been a great deal of emphasis these days on measurement and evaluation as part of the effort by the public relations profession in general to prove and demonstrate its worth. So much so, that it has spawned a whole new branch of research in the field – both professionally and academically. I am aware that the public relations profession is engaged in a great battle to demonstrate the worth of the profession to those in the executive suite and measurement and evaluation can help the case along. However, in my view this is sometimes overdone with more resources given over to the measurement and evaluation process than the actual event or endeavor which itself is the subject of scrutiny. This is not to say that I don’t think evaluation and measurement has a value – but to an extent. Sometimes what is obvious can be treated as the obvious without going into a whole procedure to demonstrate that what is obviously so is indeed obviously so.
Public Relations
Media relations is a key component of public relations, but it is an undertaking that traditionally has been fraught with tensions and mishaps on both sides of the equation. Journalists do not trust public relations practitioners; public relations practitioners do not trust journalists – yet both need the other. The difficulty and challenge is finding the right balance to work together.
As a journalist, I seldom went through the public relations office of any story I was covering, unless it was absolutely essential – i.e. an interview with a key spokesperson or access to a particular site had to be solicited through that office. I distrusted the public relations practitioner who I viewed as an obstacle to getting my story – not as an asset. And the public relations practitioner undoubtedly viewed me in a similar light – as someone whose idea of balance and equitable coverage did not quite match up with what the practitioner sought to convey.
On the other hand, we did sometimes find that we needed each other and we would make a cautious approach and swap of information. But that came about with an equitable give-and-take which made for a win-win for both of us – I got the information I sought and the public relations practitioner got out an aspect of his or her message.
I disagree with both Merrill and Dennis in what they state in their respective arguments. I don’t think public relations manipulates the news – at least not all the time – nor do I think public relations provides an essential news service. Both arguments give the practice of public relations too much power. Public relations is just one component of public information – no more, no less.
That is not to say that there is not public relations does not try to manipulate the news. Certainly it does and the production of VNRs is one very good example of that. VNRs do come in disguise – and quite often are faked. However, the VNRs would not be effective if the public relations agency or office did not have a partner in crime – the television news programs that accept the VNRs and present the information as their own. That’s just what KMSP in Minnesota did with its use of the General Motors VNR
So when it comes to VNRs, I think both sides are guilty.
This week’s readings provide a grounding in the basics of current public relations thinking – the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly – the perception and the reality that even today, despite the concern about ethics and excellence within the practice of public relations there is still much that is neither excellent nor ethnical. I mentioned VNRs, but third-party endorsement campaigns are also disturbing. They are part of the same disquieting trends that we looked out in advertising – like the camera phone ploy used on New York City tourists. I would also put a kind of talking in tongues that is another tool of the trade right up there – such as the quite successful public relations ploy implemented by the Bush Administration to refer to global warming as climate change.
Or referring to its own public relations efforts as public diplomacy?
The Linning article was right on target in many ways – from its start in 1652 and the practice of getting someone else to “lye” for you to the “example of clean water example of “emotional blackmail.” And with so many communication channels available these days by way of blogs, podcasts. I think those kinds of practices will not only continue but thrive.
Traditionally, or at least in recent years, the relationships between journalists and public relation practitioners in the United States have been ones of mutual dependency and mutual distrust. Are we two sides of the same coin? I don’t know. But this may not necessarily be so in other countries and in other contexts. For example, in many countries public relations practitioners are considered journalists. In Latin America, for example, the public relations person or “relacionista” I is often referred to as the “periodista” or journalists. In many countries communicators across the board are members of the same quasi-labor unions. That is not the case, here of course, but this crossing over concept as practiced in other countries might merit further exploration
Non Verbal Communication
When I moved back to the United States after living in Latin America for nearly 12 years, I had to redefine and renegotiate my whole concept of personal space. Latin America is a high-contact society and I was accustomed to working and living in that world. When people spoke to each other, they stood closer together. We touched more often. In fact, greetings did not occur without some sort of physical contact – a handshake in a more formal setting; a kiss on the cheek in more informal circumstances. Whether it was hello or good-bye, or even a simple introduction, a connection was made because of that physical contact. We used our hands when we talked to express ourselves, irrespective of class or gender.
I can only think of one person whom I encountered, who made a conscious effort not to use his hands when he spoke and that was former Chilean President Eduardo Frei. I interviewed Frei many times and I was always struck by how he sat with his hands clasped in front of him. All that would move were his thumbs! We decided he did this to distance himself from the stereotype of the agitated, overly expressive Latin American. (That’s just a thought – no documentation on this.)
Once away from Latin America and “back home” in the U.S., I had to take a giant step backwards whenever I engaged in conversation with anyone – literally and figuratively. If I stood too close, I got a clear sense of invading someone’s personal space. And heaven forbid there should be any touching when an introduction was made. No handshake and definitely no kiss on the cheek. I felt – and still do feel lost – without that physical gesture that goes accompanies saying “nice to meet you.”
On a trip to Korea a few years ago, I encountered another type of non verbal communication in professional encounters concerning the exchange of business cards. In the U.S., we don’t pay much attention to the swap – we get a card and may not even look at it, before putting it in our pocket. That is an insult in Korea – where it is customary to carefully study both sides of the card before putting it away in a wallet or some other designated holder – never in your pocket.
After reading this chapter and reflecting on some of the different ways we communicate nonverbally, thoughts of world leaders and how they say what they wish to say without uttering a word came to mind. Dress is important. Mahatma Gandhi was a leader of symbolic communication through his choice of attire. The father of Indian independence and nonviolent protest adopted the draped dhoti of India, as his standard garb. In so doing, Gandhi succeeded in aligning himself with India’s poorest people. To be a bit more current, think of the fatigues always worn by Cuban President Fidel Castro or the striped sweater, or “chompa” worn by Bolivian President Evo Morales on his first state visit to Europe last year instead of a suit and tie. His “fashion statement” made headlines around the world.
Perhaps the saying is true that you can’t judge a book by its cover, but the cover can say a lot.
Note: I obtained the information about Gandhi from Kishan Rana’s writings from this website: textus.diplomacy.edu. I followed the controversy about Morales’ attire after he was elected to office last year. And Fidel, when he wore something other than fatigues, that was news.
Good Customer Service
Johnson and Johnson’s handling of the Tylenol crisis is a casebook study of what to do right. I am certain everyone here is familiar with it, so there is no need to wax excessively about it here. Random bottles of Tylenol contained pills that had been laced with cyanide. The connection to Tylenol was made after several people tied. Johnson & Johnson immediately recalled the product and told consumers not to use Tylenol again until they (Johnson & Johnson) advised them otherwise. Johnson and Johnson put customers first – and in so doing assured the success of their company and of the particular product once it was put back on the shelf in tamper-proof packaging.
Those actions fit with the Johnson & Johnson credo of people first and their belief that their “first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others, who use our products and services. Stockholders come last. That is not to say that Johnson & Johnson is not interested in making a profit – obviously like any corporation they are. But it does seem that they have learned to live by the idea of true customer service.
In a different kind of way, that is what Jet Blue is attempting to do as it tries to regain its footing after the bad weather debacle at Kennedy Airport that left passengers stranded on the tarmac for hours. In this day and age, the incident of course spurred a blog, http://jetbluehostage.blogspot.com. Jet Blue CEO David Neeleman has gone public with his apologies and with the presentation of the company’s own passenger bill of rights. Regaining customer confidence at any cost seems to be Jet Blue’s credo these days. Something has been learned.
