Usher Blogs

Helicopters and Headaches

I work in downtown Denver, (LoDo to be exact) and there are currently at least 4 helicopters flying low overhead.

They are obviously staking out positions for the planned march in support of immigrants today (which will pass right by my office).  Hey, I'm all for immigrants and their supporters marching, boycotting work today, whatever.  They have their right and should call attention to their cause, etc. I'm not bothered by the inconvenience (at least not yet.)

I have an issue with the local news channels though.  First, is it safe to fly that many helicopters in such close proximity?  Second, do they have to fly so freaking low?  It is really loud and my head hurts.  Third, why (especially given the price of fuel and the constant drum beat of there not being enough money in the news business) don't they try having a pool helicopter?  Keep your own chopper for scoop/exclusive opportunities, but for a planned event can't we just have one chopper with pool footage?  Seem excessive and LOUD...the news organizations are - through sheer decibels - becoming part of the story.

PR Offensive

We (US) are losing the "war for the hearts and minds" of the Muslim and Arab world for a lot of reasons, but very near the top is terrible PR. 

It always struck me as odd that in Iraq we didn't flood the Arab and Western airwaves with images of Saddam's brutality.  Yes, the American media sucks at reporting and didn't cover it enough, but I don't think our government made a very solid PR push either.  That meant forcing the mass graves in front of the cameras as we did in Europe in 1945. 

Reading Nicolas Kristof's opinion in the NY Times today  on the crisis in Darfur and potential remedies reminded me of this.  Kristof points out that:

A no-fly zone and a U.N. force are among the ways we can apply pressure, but another essential element is public diplomacy. We should respond to Osama by shining a spotlight on the Muslim victims of Darfur (many Arabs have instinctively sided with Sudan's rulers and have no idea that nearly all of the victims of the genocide are Muslim). [emphasis mine.]

The White House can invite survivors for a photo-op so they themselves can recount, in Arabic, how their children were beheaded and their mosques destroyed. We can release atrocity photos, like one I have from an African Union archive of the body of a 2-year-old boy whose face was beaten into mush. President Bush can make a major speech about Darfur, while sending Condi Rice and a planeload of television journalists to a refugee camp in Chad to meet orphans.

We absolutely should do this in Darfur. We must also refresh our PR strategy in the whole Middle East to focus on only three things.  1) The death that muslims are bringing to other muslims in Iraq and elsewhere.  2) Our desire to champion the rights of ordinary people and leave them *soon* to a better future of their own determination.  3) That the other side offers only death.

Right now I'm guessing too many people believe both sides only offer death, and that has to change.

Insulting

Hu Jintao was roundly insulted today.  Dana Milbank is more thorough than I can be.  This was done for a reason and I don't think it was just payback for President Bush's inability to find the door. 

No, there's more and it seems an odd strategy when you need China as a diplomatic partner with the geo-strategic and -economic interests in North Korea and Iran to help us peacefully resolve those Nuclear tensions.   

Treating the Chinese with respect when they are our guests does not remove any options from the table.  It does not tie our hands with North Korea, or Iran, or anyone else, least of all the Chinese.  Slapping them publicly probably removes options, I think this was a mistake. 

Where's the News?

According to The New York Times and its reporter Michael Barbaro:

   

"What is different about Wal-Mart's approach to blogging is that         rather than promoting a product — something it does quite well, given     its $300 billion in annual sales — it is trying to improve its             battered image."

I am not sure how this makes Wal-Mart unique.  Earlier in the story there is a reference to GE meeting with environmental bloggers before investing in green technology "to build support."  Is that promoting a product other than the GE brand?  Is that wrong? 

Having a strong brand helps promote and sell product.  Selling is not necessarily evil, even when it is done in obscene quantities.  Both companies are engaged in grassroots PR and they're not alone and that is a good thing.  Wal-Mart's brand is under attack and they have every right to defend themselves.  Wal-Mart probably does a lot of good, but with a footprint of their size they are bound to trample at least as much. 

The real question (which the Times didn't ask) and its answer are what is actually newsworthy...will Wal-Mart take advantage of the blogosphere as a two way dialogue?  Rather than working only with their friends, will they engage their critics in the blogosphere, open a dialogue, and use blogs as a platform for addressing their concerns.  Wal-Mart is too big and too polarizing today to win over everyone, but by listening to all of their constituents and working on reasonable criticisms, my guess is that they will win more hearts and minds than they lose. (the low prices help too).