Bio not provided
As someone with more than a decade in the journalism industry, here's the key ... Is there, technically speaking, such a thing as "off the record"? Of course. Journalists do, in fact, grant it (reluctantly) to some people in some limited cases, where the sensitivity of the subject demands it, but we still want badly enough to report what they're saying. It's generally a last resort, because it's the only way we can get the story, which is our main goal. I know of many editors who simply, 100% will not allow anonymous sources to support a story, and I get why.
However, if you're a PR person, Gini is absolutely right ... there IS NO off the record. We simply have no reason to grant it to you, because you're not at all likely to give us controversial information that we'd trust enough to run with. And that's fine, because part of your *job* is to protect the company you work for. If the PR person starts telling you terrible things about their company, you get suspicious. If the PR person tells you terrible things about another company, you dismiss it. If the PR person tells you great things about their company, why would they want it off the record?
And we sure as heck aren't going to make your profanity-laced rant off the record? What's in that for us? Not a darn thing, I can assure you. So yes, don't say anything to a journalist you don't expect to be publicly attributed to you.
7 months, 1 week ago on There is No Such Thing as Off-the-Record
Using a different app for each account is a great tip and one not nearly enough people do. It's way too easy to just not realize which account you're in when you're running around with your phone and trying to post something quickly. I've had a couple of times when I've had to punch myself in the face (almost literally ... OK, somewhat literally) because I started to type a personal tweet on my company account. I'm not exactly making fun of the president's grandma or throwing curse words around like a scurvy sailor on my personal account, but it's also pretty far from being buttoned up and corporate-y. That's why I put them in separate apps a few months back, and it pretty much solves the problem, even if I curse (like said sailor) my Tweeting inefficiency from time to time.
1 year, 5 months ago on KitchenAid Handles Offensive Tweet Crisis Extraordinarily Well
I got the last question. Clearly, this says good things about me as a person.
1 year, 6 months ago on Join Margie Clayman for a Special Livefyre Q&A Today
If you could have a beer/coffee/meal with any 3 historical figures, who would they be?
How do you feel about LeBron?
@margieclayman Yes! That's right. You mentioned that before. Atlanta's totally worth a stop, if only for my stellar company alone.
Have you ever been to Atlanta? Are you ever going to come and let me buy you a beer?
What's your favorite geeky historical reference you've made as a marketing metaphor?
Which myth is doing the most damage to myth-mesmerized marketers? #alliteration
@barrettrossie @KenMueller @JeffHaws @PattiRoseKnight @jenzings @ginidietrich @MackCollier In a vacuum, that'd be a fine policy. Problem is, we have to deal in reality. And the reality is, marriage is entrenched in society, and the government is entrenched in marriage. Assuming your proposal isn't ever going to happen (I'd say it's almost certain it won't), let's look at the best possible solution given the parameters of the reality in which we live. That would be to offer the same rights to all couples, regardless of the sex of those involved. If that means marriage, it means marriage.
1 year, 7 months ago on The Chick-fil-A PR Crisis
@KenMueller @PattiRoseKnight @jenzings @ginidietrich @MackCollier Right. That's fair. Certainly, all members of any group aren't going to agree. But I'd also point out that, just because you're a member of a particular out-group doesn't mean your views on the equality issues of your group make any sense.
I'd be interested to hear a sensible argument that simply having the same OPTION to get married that every other couple has would somehow have the government impose something upon you or have more control over you, and make gay couples WORSE off than they are without that option. That'd be fascinating reasoning.
@KenMueller @PattiRoseKnight @jenzings @ginidietrich @MackCollier I don't really hear that. But it's the benefits that go along with "marriage" that are what's at stake here. There's no reason gay couples would want to forego rights afforded other couples, is there? Such as tax benefits, hospital visitation, etc.? How would having the option of marriage give the state any control over anything you do?
@KenMueller @PattiRoseKnight @jenzings @ginidietrich @MackCollier You have friends who want gay marriage to be illegal for EVERYONE because they personally don't want their relationships defined by the state? Sounds rather selfish. Or am I misunderstanding you?
@jenzings @PattiRoseKnight Yeah, as much as I hate to say it, I begrudgingly have to agree with jenzings here. It's one thing for customers to decide to spend their money elsewhere due to ... well, due to whatever reasons they want, really. But once government officials start showing favoritism toward one view or another, it does start to look like the government is advocating one opinion over another.
Not to necessarily compare Chick-Fil-A with the KKK (although ...), but it's similar to when they tried recently to adopt a highway in Georgia and were blocked by the government. The ACLU is defending them in court against this government overstep, and I agree that it's a case the ACLU should take on.
I'm uncomfortable with opinions being legislated by the government, at least partially because my or your opinion might be next. Also because it seems to go against our fundamental principles as a nation.
@dangerdubs Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's much more about his comment confirming what many had suspected, which is that they're donating to groups with the express purpose of supporting the cause of fighting gay marriage. If it was just this one man's opinion, but it didn't amount to direct support/opposition, it wouldn't mean too much. Prior to this, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (partially because chicken is delicious) that their donations were just to Christian groups who happened to oppose gay marriage (as many of them do). Now, they get no such benefit, and I'm making my own #screwchickfila sandwich recipe, damn it.
@ginidietrich Heh ... right. It's one thing to piss off the gay and gay-friendly community. Once you start picking on all the divorced people,even the homophobic people in the crowd start saying, "Whoa, whoa, now ... Let's not lose our heads here! My priest never said nothing about staying with that crazy woman."
Being from Atlanta, it's an especially interesting case to me. This is a brand that had been pretty much bulletproof in the South. The only thing anyone ever complained about was that they always craved chicken sandwiches on Sunday and would go banging the place's door down trying to get in. Now, they've waded into the political arena, which is rarely part of a savvy business model.
One of the interesting parts of religion for many is that it can give them a sense of righteousness in their positions on issues such as this. I imagine Dan Cathy is sitting back basically saying, "If God is with us, who can be against us?" As a private business, they may be willing even to sacrifice some profit and goodwill for the sake of stating what they believe to be what is "right," according to their god. Given that, I suspect their strategy will be to sit back, let this play out and just state that their official policy is to "treat others" well, despite their behind-the-scenes machinations, funneling money to groups that push for the "traditional marriage" protection their leaders favor. It also makes me doubt they did the Facebook account, because there's really no need for it. They feel they're right with God, so people who disagree can say what they want.