Every day in the United States, hundreds of adults and children disappear. Many of these are runaways, who often return, and others are fleeing abusive situations and want to start over in secrecy. But scores of these people are never, ever seen again.
When people vanish, you usually never hear about it. Law enforcement certainly does its best, but they lack the resources to find every person who disappears. And if this missing person and their family are lucky, the media may cover it – for one or two nights.
But if the missing person is an attractive young white female, you can bet the media will cover it. In fact, you can bet the farm that the media will obsess over it with exclusive after exclusive, regardless of progress, until the case is solved.
Think back to all the famous missing persons cases over the last year or two: Natalee Holloway; Jennifer Wilibanks; Laci Peterson; Lori Hacking; Elizabeth Smart; Chandra Levy. What do these people have in common? All happen to be female, attractive, young and white.
Most of these women ended up dead and I do not want to belittle that fact. I’m sure the unprecedented attention reassured their families that their missing wives or daughters would not be forgotten, and the blanket coverage may have provided leads that helped crack the case. But what about the middle aged African American woman who goes out to work one day and disappears? How about the pretty Hispanic girl who is eight months pregnant and vanishes? And the elderly Indian man who disappears on vacation? Where are their stories? How come they are not profiled in the media? These people disappear every day too; why are they not considered newsworthy?
I can speculate why the media only focuses on missing attractive white women, and while I am treading onto dangerous territory here, I also want to be honest. Race and appearance is definitely a factor with the media – not law enforcement, but the media. Most of the news directors in this country are older white men. While this may be subliminal and not intentional or racist, they may relate to these missing white women as being the equivalent of their girlfriends, wives and daughters. They are also driven by some marketing or demographic gobbledygook that says missing attractive white women means higher ratings. This may very well be a sad reality about our culture and TV viewership, and is of little comfort to the families of minorities that disappear.
There are other lurking cultural issues at work. Virtually everyone on TV – the news, celebrities and even reality shows – is fit and attractive. Most people in the real world are not fit and are not as attractive as the people generally seen on TV. I’m willing to bet that overweight and ugly people also go missing, but will never be seen on the Today Show or an evening news show. And the overweight, ugly people that vanish outnumber the attractive white women that vanish any day.
Another question: Why are attractive, young white men ever featured as a famous missing person, or any man for that matter? Is this because a missing man could conceivably take care of himself, but national alarms must only sound for missing women because women are unable to save themselves and need rescuing? I don’t know if these answers are definitively yes or no, but nobody seems to be asking them.
And here’s the kicker: More men than women in this country go missing each year. Of the almost 50,000 active adult missing person cases tracked by the FBI, 53 percent were men and almost 30 percent are African-American. But you would never, ever know this from watching the news.
I’m not the only one ranting about this. In fact, this comes up every time the national media picks up the case of another attractive missing white woman. Then the media gets criticized so often they do stories on how they’re being criticized, and trot out the news president to say age, race and sex are not a factor in their news coverage. Say what?
Fortunately there are a handful of media who focus on missing people of all types. A story about three missing Hispanic boys in Camden, NJ, received national attention (the boys tragically suffocated in the trunk of a nearby car). The Lost Children’s Network is available online and on some satellite and cable station, and is color blind. And while FOX’s Greta van Sustern seems to have moved to Aruba to cover Natalee Holloway, she has thrown a few bones to covering some other missing people as well, and FOX’s “America’s Most Wanted” spotlights missing people of all ages, sexes and races. That’s not exactly fair and balanced, but it’s a start.
Links:
Amber Alerts: http://codeamber.org/
FBI Kidnapping and Missing Persons Investigations: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/kidnap/kidmiss.htm
Lost Children’s Network: http://lostchildren.org/
National Center for Missing Adults: http://www.theyaremissed.org/ncma/
Friday, August 26, 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
The Flack Dissects the Cindy Sheehan Situation
I am coming out of the closet by disclosing my current day job: Public relations flack for a company that I won’t reveal because I’d like to keep my current day job. But I’ve been doing this long enough that I feel I can comment on the current Cindy Sheehan situation, which the press has coined a “PR Nightmare” for the President.
PR is basically a marketing function and marketing has two objectives. The first is drive sales (or votes and donations, if you’re in public affairs). The second is branding or establishing an identity for a company, candidate, cause, etc., and making sure the entity you represent is correctly and fairly represented in the media or the all-important “buzz” on the streets and water coolers of our country.
You obviously answer to your employer (or client). If you’re working for an obscure company competing with a Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil or similar giant, you’ll take any press that you can get. But if you work for one of those three companies or the President, your job changes a bit. Getting press isn’t the problem – the problem is making sure that company’s or person’s image is held in high regard and doesn’t change for the worse. Some things you won’t have control over (i.e. Raffi Palmeiro’s press person didn’t know their client was a basehead), which leads to crisis situations you need to manage. But for the most part, you need to ensure the dog is wagging the tail instead of vice versa.
When you represent a big company, celebrity or politician, there will be a core group of press and people who will hate you no matter what. While you need to monitor what’s being said about your employer or client, you are not under obligation to address or even acknowledge everything that is said about you. For example, last year documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock made “Super Size Me,” his odyssey about eating at McDonald’s for a solid month while watching his body fat rise and health diminish. He asked if someone from McDonald’s would answer his questions and be part of his movie.
McDonald’s declined, which was perceived as the company ducking the situation. But from a PR perspective, it was the correct response. The movie was obviously anti-McDonald’s and the company would have achieved nothing from participating. It could even be seen as giving the movie a tacit endorsement or acquiescing to its claim that McDonald’s makes you fat and sick. If you worked for Greenpeace and a publication called “Oil Refineries Rule!” contacted you for an interview you knew would be a hatchet job, would you participate? Probably not, because you knew you’d be setting yourself up for a fall.
With that long-winded background information, let’s turn back to Cindy Sheehan. I am heartbroken over her loss and agree that the administration’s negligence has turned Iraq into a completely avoidable quagmire. But there she is, camped near the President’s ranch, and not going anywhere until she gets her meeting with the President. Is this a “PR Nightmare?” I think Iraq is more of a nightmare, and the woman is more of what I would call a “situation.” She’s not hurting anyone (bothering anyone is another story), but August is a slow news time and the press is following her cause with a fervor that is surprising. So should the President meet her to stop this “PR Nightmare?”
I’m not going to go into all the facts of the case since they’ve been well documented everywhere else, so I’ll just go through the highlights here. Right-wing partisans have predictably gone on a character assassination against Ms. Sheehan, as they tend to do when someone has the nerve to disagree with them. These have ranged from accusing her of being a traitor to parroting anti-Israel and anti-American views often embraced by ultra-liberals like Michael Moore. It’s also true that the President already met her last year after terrorists murdered her son and the media attention is being partly bankrolled by True Majority, a public interest group that wants to decrease the Pentagon’s budget.
While I’m as weary of mudslinging as everyone else, I sincerely hope this woman is not being used by left-wing partisans who seem to have coached her, because every interview she gives is becoming increasingly political and less personal. The personal story is far more compelling and likely to get her the meeting she wants. Die-hard Republicans also accuse her of supporting the President and now being an anti-war activist, but so what? Look at the opinion polls – plenty of people have turned against the war lately.
So, putting on the PR hat again, would the President gain anything by meeting with Ms. Sheehan again? If I was on the president’s staff, here’s what I would recommend (Note: This is not the day job I was referring to earlier.)
I would suggest that the President meet with Ms. Sheehan, but set the agenda as much as possible. Have someone bring her in without warning and have it take place on the ranch where he’s in control. This way, if she is being coached, she doesn’t have time to prepare a diatribe. Have no more than one aide present. Keep the meeting short – 10 or 15 minutes. But most of all, stay personal and reassuring – something the President is quite good at. Focus on the loss of her son. Don’t discuss policy, or fit a war into a bigger picture of a war on terror because that is not appropriate here. Do one fast photo and then let her go. If she doesn’t leave the ranch, starts bashing his politics again, or is disrespectful she validates the kooky right-wing conspiracy theory and the President looks all the better.
The President’s staff would say there are PR risks here – you validate your enemy’s position, capitulate to their demands, look weak, etc. Those are valid. But you also nip the situation in the bud and prevent further escalation. If the press got tired of this woman after a few days, you could ignore it. But it’s not happening and you need to control the agenda again. One of the great things about America is that you have the right to ask the president of the country or a company whatever you want without getting thrown in jail. And looking at the President’s approval numbers, these are the sort of things he should be doing to improve his overall PR image.
More info:
How the Right Wing is Smearing Cindy Sheehan (left-wing site, but this is accurate): http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
An Opposing View from Slate’s Chris Hitchens: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/
Abraham Lincoln’s Letter to Mrs. Bixby, whose sons died in battle during the Civil War (this letter was read in Saving Private Ryan) http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/mrs_bixby_letter.asp
PR is basically a marketing function and marketing has two objectives. The first is drive sales (or votes and donations, if you’re in public affairs). The second is branding or establishing an identity for a company, candidate, cause, etc., and making sure the entity you represent is correctly and fairly represented in the media or the all-important “buzz” on the streets and water coolers of our country.
You obviously answer to your employer (or client). If you’re working for an obscure company competing with a Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil or similar giant, you’ll take any press that you can get. But if you work for one of those three companies or the President, your job changes a bit. Getting press isn’t the problem – the problem is making sure that company’s or person’s image is held in high regard and doesn’t change for the worse. Some things you won’t have control over (i.e. Raffi Palmeiro’s press person didn’t know their client was a basehead), which leads to crisis situations you need to manage. But for the most part, you need to ensure the dog is wagging the tail instead of vice versa.
When you represent a big company, celebrity or politician, there will be a core group of press and people who will hate you no matter what. While you need to monitor what’s being said about your employer or client, you are not under obligation to address or even acknowledge everything that is said about you. For example, last year documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock made “Super Size Me,” his odyssey about eating at McDonald’s for a solid month while watching his body fat rise and health diminish. He asked if someone from McDonald’s would answer his questions and be part of his movie.
McDonald’s declined, which was perceived as the company ducking the situation. But from a PR perspective, it was the correct response. The movie was obviously anti-McDonald’s and the company would have achieved nothing from participating. It could even be seen as giving the movie a tacit endorsement or acquiescing to its claim that McDonald’s makes you fat and sick. If you worked for Greenpeace and a publication called “Oil Refineries Rule!” contacted you for an interview you knew would be a hatchet job, would you participate? Probably not, because you knew you’d be setting yourself up for a fall.
With that long-winded background information, let’s turn back to Cindy Sheehan. I am heartbroken over her loss and agree that the administration’s negligence has turned Iraq into a completely avoidable quagmire. But there she is, camped near the President’s ranch, and not going anywhere until she gets her meeting with the President. Is this a “PR Nightmare?” I think Iraq is more of a nightmare, and the woman is more of what I would call a “situation.” She’s not hurting anyone (bothering anyone is another story), but August is a slow news time and the press is following her cause with a fervor that is surprising. So should the President meet her to stop this “PR Nightmare?”
I’m not going to go into all the facts of the case since they’ve been well documented everywhere else, so I’ll just go through the highlights here. Right-wing partisans have predictably gone on a character assassination against Ms. Sheehan, as they tend to do when someone has the nerve to disagree with them. These have ranged from accusing her of being a traitor to parroting anti-Israel and anti-American views often embraced by ultra-liberals like Michael Moore. It’s also true that the President already met her last year after terrorists murdered her son and the media attention is being partly bankrolled by True Majority, a public interest group that wants to decrease the Pentagon’s budget.
While I’m as weary of mudslinging as everyone else, I sincerely hope this woman is not being used by left-wing partisans who seem to have coached her, because every interview she gives is becoming increasingly political and less personal. The personal story is far more compelling and likely to get her the meeting she wants. Die-hard Republicans also accuse her of supporting the President and now being an anti-war activist, but so what? Look at the opinion polls – plenty of people have turned against the war lately.
So, putting on the PR hat again, would the President gain anything by meeting with Ms. Sheehan again? If I was on the president’s staff, here’s what I would recommend (Note: This is not the day job I was referring to earlier.)
I would suggest that the President meet with Ms. Sheehan, but set the agenda as much as possible. Have someone bring her in without warning and have it take place on the ranch where he’s in control. This way, if she is being coached, she doesn’t have time to prepare a diatribe. Have no more than one aide present. Keep the meeting short – 10 or 15 minutes. But most of all, stay personal and reassuring – something the President is quite good at. Focus on the loss of her son. Don’t discuss policy, or fit a war into a bigger picture of a war on terror because that is not appropriate here. Do one fast photo and then let her go. If she doesn’t leave the ranch, starts bashing his politics again, or is disrespectful she validates the kooky right-wing conspiracy theory and the President looks all the better.
The President’s staff would say there are PR risks here – you validate your enemy’s position, capitulate to their demands, look weak, etc. Those are valid. But you also nip the situation in the bud and prevent further escalation. If the press got tired of this woman after a few days, you could ignore it. But it’s not happening and you need to control the agenda again. One of the great things about America is that you have the right to ask the president of the country or a company whatever you want without getting thrown in jail. And looking at the President’s approval numbers, these are the sort of things he should be doing to improve his overall PR image.
More info:
How the Right Wing is Smearing Cindy Sheehan (left-wing site, but this is accurate): http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
An Opposing View from Slate’s Chris Hitchens: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/
Abraham Lincoln’s Letter to Mrs. Bixby, whose sons died in battle during the Civil War (this letter was read in Saving Private Ryan) http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/mrs_bixby_letter.asp
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Why Do I Hate Rafael Palmeiro? Let Us Count the Ways
Rafael Palmeiro used to be – until this week – one of my favorite baseball players. He never had the biggest salary, the biggest mouth, the biggest ego or the biggest bat on the many teams he played. He just showed up every day and did his job better than almost anyone else.
He never hogged the media spotlight. He never asked for any big demands and he almost never put up the biggest numbers. He just quietly and effectively produced for 19 seasons and soon became one of the league’s respected elder statesmen, amassing 3,000 hits, 569 homers and four All-Star appearances.
What finally made him a household name to non-baseball fans was his testimony before Congress on the anti-steroid hearings last winter. While other players like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa came off worse for the wear with evasive answers, Palmeiro was a model of credibility: “I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never.”
Well, we all know what happened this week. And now we can substitute new words to describe this so-called athlete: Phony. Stupid. Cheater. Busted. And those are the polite ones. Palmeiro must think we’re as dumb as he is with his lame “I don’t know where the steroid came from!” excuse. While not as creative as “Barry Bonds spiked my Viagra,” most people are aware of everything that enters their body.
There’s always a domino effect when big athletes are caught with their hands in the stanozolol jar. Sure, Palmeiro will lose a whopping 10 days pay. He will now be better known for this charade no matter what his final hit or home run total will be. Yes, he may not get into the Hall of Fame now. But there are additional punishments in store.
First, from this day forward I will refer to Rafael Palmeiro as “Raffi,” because his crybaby excuses remind me of the unbelievably annoying Raffi who sings for children. If you do not have small children, you have been spared a five-year prison term of listening to music that makes Clay Aiken sound hardcore.
Second, and most unforgivably, Raffi has made Jose Canseco into a respectable, honorable person. Canseco, the classic kid who tells on the kid who doesn’t do his homework, is bizarrely redeemed through this whole sorry affair. His claim of injecting Raffi and others with steroids now holds water, and he’s been transformed from clubhouse rat to courageous whistleblower. In a sleazy side note, Canseco’s ex-wife bares more in next month’s Playboy.
Raffi may have taken the heat off his fellow baseheads Jason Giambi and the other players caught under the new steroid rules, and I’ve still got my eye on Barry Bonds. But here’s hoping he’s hauled back before Congress to explain why he lied under oath. His magnificent performance in Washington last March has now replaced Pete Rose’s “I never bet on baseball” as the biggest lie to cripple a sport that’s already weak in the knees.
He never hogged the media spotlight. He never asked for any big demands and he almost never put up the biggest numbers. He just quietly and effectively produced for 19 seasons and soon became one of the league’s respected elder statesmen, amassing 3,000 hits, 569 homers and four All-Star appearances.
What finally made him a household name to non-baseball fans was his testimony before Congress on the anti-steroid hearings last winter. While other players like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa came off worse for the wear with evasive answers, Palmeiro was a model of credibility: “I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never.”
Well, we all know what happened this week. And now we can substitute new words to describe this so-called athlete: Phony. Stupid. Cheater. Busted. And those are the polite ones. Palmeiro must think we’re as dumb as he is with his lame “I don’t know where the steroid came from!” excuse. While not as creative as “Barry Bonds spiked my Viagra,” most people are aware of everything that enters their body.
There’s always a domino effect when big athletes are caught with their hands in the stanozolol jar. Sure, Palmeiro will lose a whopping 10 days pay. He will now be better known for this charade no matter what his final hit or home run total will be. Yes, he may not get into the Hall of Fame now. But there are additional punishments in store.
First, from this day forward I will refer to Rafael Palmeiro as “Raffi,” because his crybaby excuses remind me of the unbelievably annoying Raffi who sings for children. If you do not have small children, you have been spared a five-year prison term of listening to music that makes Clay Aiken sound hardcore.
Second, and most unforgivably, Raffi has made Jose Canseco into a respectable, honorable person. Canseco, the classic kid who tells on the kid who doesn’t do his homework, is bizarrely redeemed through this whole sorry affair. His claim of injecting Raffi and others with steroids now holds water, and he’s been transformed from clubhouse rat to courageous whistleblower. In a sleazy side note, Canseco’s ex-wife bares more in next month’s Playboy.
Raffi may have taken the heat off his fellow baseheads Jason Giambi and the other players caught under the new steroid rules, and I’ve still got my eye on Barry Bonds. But here’s hoping he’s hauled back before Congress to explain why he lied under oath. His magnificent performance in Washington last March has now replaced Pete Rose’s “I never bet on baseball” as the biggest lie to cripple a sport that’s already weak in the knees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)