I recently spent several days in Tennessee and Texas with the public relations manager of one of Rose Communications’ clients, a leading healthcare delivery company. Our trip had multiple purposes, a few of which included attending a local event in Nashville we had helped plan and promote; kicking off a series of interviews with one of the company’s executives to inform a foundational branding platform; conducting media training with Texas market executives; and gathering information for a strategy to address a regional communications challenge.

The trip was satisfying and eventful. For a company such as this one that serves people in several areas of the country, nothing compares to being “on the ground.” The PR manager and I were able to meet with the people instrumental in working on critical issues relevant to the lives of members in those markets.

I appreciated hearing directly from a variety of executives and staff members about their communications needs. I was also pleased to have the opportunity to introduce myself as a resource for them to tap as they work to convey messages to their diverse audiences.

Being there also gave me unique insights into the audiences we were trying to reach. If I hadn’t traveled to the various communities, my perception of the lifestyle and quality of life would not have been as accurate. I wouldn’t, for example, know what an assisted living facility looks, feels or smells like. I wouldn’t understand the barriers people there face every day when they don’t speak or read English, or can’t read at all.

I came back to work enlightened and energized. The experience reinforced for me the immense value of human-to-human interaction and cultural immersion in gaining the nuanced insights I need to do my job well. Obvious, perhaps, but important to remember in this age of technologically powered communications.

When we depend too much on smartphones and emails, sometimes the very things we need to know can get lost in translation.

One year ago this November, my teenage daughter was misdiagnosed with medulloblastoma – a devastating, potentially terminal type of brain cancer. The hours before the true, much less serious diagnosis was discovered were some of the most excruciating I’ve ever had to live through.

She had been feeling dizzy, and then started to develop vision problems. When she stumbled down the stairs in our home, I knew something was very wrong. I took her to the pediatrician, who ordered a CT scan. As we came back home and walked through the door afterward, the phone was ringing.

It was the doctor saying my daughter had a highly malignant brain tumor.

My world was turned inside out as the doctor calmly yet firmly gave me instructions: tell your daughter the news right now, call your husband at work and tell him to come home as quickly as possible, and then go immediately to the pediatric emergency room at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Tonight. I hung up the phone and sank to my knees.

At that moment, something inside me gave way and separated from me, lost forever. I knew that the life I knew before was gone and that my life from that point on would be spent fighting for my daughter’s life and, perhaps, coming to terms with her death. The feeling was visceral; a mother’s ultimate pain.

Since that autumn evening, I’ve thought a lot about the power of communication and how a few words can alter our perceptions – of others, ourselves and even life itself. Words, language and thoughts can change the world. They can lift up and they can destroy.

Nothing takes away the life-altering feeling of being told your child will probably die soon. Although my reality is mercifully much different than the nightmare I thought it would be (my daughter has a venous cavernous malformation or cavernoma that bled and caused her symptoms), I am changed, and the way I hear, process and convey information is different. I’m more careful in my word choices, and more skeptical of information I receive.

What have you experienced that prompted you to ponder the awesome — and sometimes awful — power of words?

I have always been curious about why people become journalists.  What compels them to spend their lives seeking out the news? What makes them tick?

My current obsession is Anderson Cooper, the anchor of CNN’s nightly news roundup Anderson Cooper 360º .

Cooper fascinates me. He’s the son of heiress Gloria Vanderbilt, the “poor little rich girl” who grew up to head a fashion empire that launched millions of pairs of tight-fitting jeans. He’s the great-great-great-grandson of shipping and railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose statue stands at New York’s Grand Central Station.

This guy could have gone the route of many heirs to fortunes and sat around doing nothing but enjoying the fruits of his family’s labors.

So why become a reporter who frequently puts himself in harm’s way to cover bloody conflicts and natural disasters? With no formal journalistic education, Cooper has said the loss he felt after his older brother committed suicide compelled him to search for answers as a reporter:  “I think when you experience any kind of loss, especially the kind I did, you have questions about survival: Why do some people thrive in situations that others can’t tolerate?”

While he has proven himself to be a serious journalist, Cooper has a breezier side. He took a break from covering breaking news with a two-year stint hosting the reality show The Mole. He banters with bawdy comedian Kathy Griffin during their annual New Year’s Eve countdown specials in Times Square. He sandwiches the satirical “The RidicuList” segment into his otherwise staid nightly news program (his giggle fit during a recent RidicuList story is now the stuff of YouTube legend and, at last count, has been recommended by almost 15,000 people on Facebook). And although he’s a celebrity of sorts in his own right, he frequently seems smitten with movie stars and other show biz personalities.

To me, Cooper’s appeal as a journalist is that he comes across as genuine, not a robotic talking head. He’s relatable, even goofy at times. He can laugh at himself, which reflects his approach to anchoring the news: “I think the notion of the traditional anchor is fading away, the all-knowing, all-seeing person who speaks from on high. I don’t think the audience really buys that anymore. I think you have to be yourself, and you have to be real… I tend to relate more to people on television who are just themselves, for good or for bad, than I do to someone who I believe is putting on some sort of persona.”

Cooper recently announced he’s adding daytime talk show host to his repertoire: Anderson debuts on September 12.

My curiosity duly piqued, I’ll be tuning in. How about you?

Rupert Murdoch

There are some people who believe the only truly pure news is the weather forecast.

How ironic it is that forecasting the weather used to be more about entertainment than news. Consider that Diane Sawyer was referred to as a “weather bunny” back in the days she worked as a forecaster at a TV station in Kentucky.

With the advent of Doppler radar, forecasting the weather went from iffy suggestion (“you might want to grab your umbrella on the way out the door today”) to life-saving directive (“a Category 5 hurricane will make landfall on the Outer Banks by midnight tonight”).

As media mogul Rupert Murdoch weathers his own storm today, appearing before the British Parliament to defend his tabloids’ alleged illegal tactics, I was again reminded of the current nature of the news, and how it has become more about titillation than information.

Some believe the News of the World scandal is a sad commentary on the failure of corporate leaders to keep a tighter rein on the actions of their employees.  But as a PR person, I am prompted to consider just how low so-called journalists can go in pursuit of the next big headline.

For some, it’s all about the race to the bottom. When did bribing police and hacking personal phone lines become acceptable journalistic practices?  In today’s tough economic times, perhaps these journalists thought their jobs depended on uncovering and reporting – by any means possible – the most salacious and shocking stories. Grieving families of terror victims and murdered children be damned.

Or maybe it’s just always been this way – the muckrakers (in the original sense of the term) vs. the scandal-mongers.

As media continues to morph on a daily basis, many are predicting the death of journalism. Yet there is still cause for optimism. Blogger Lauren Rae Orsini, an unabashedly dedicated young journalist, puts it this way: “I worry that a lot of young journalists have given up because they don’t see the opportunity that still exists, even as the state of the media changes. My story is the reminder that many of us need. Journalism jobs are dead. Journalism opportunities are everywhere.”

She continues, “In 2011, there are so many ways a young woman can use her journalism degree. She simply needs to look outside of the box of ‘traditional’ journalism jobs and not wait for The New York Times to hire her when she can become a fully realized journalist on her own.”

For Orsini, “the tenets of journalism that I learned in school have remained my life philosophy: Be curious. Be honest. Be bold.”

Perhaps she could teach Murdoch and his minions a thing or two.

Many times I’ve sat in my car in my driveway, waiting to turn off the engine so I could hear the last bit of some fascinating or heart-tugging feature, usually on NPR. Those types of stories have been dubbed “driveway stories” to describe any authentic, well-told narrative that grabs your attention and won’t let go.

To me, telling such compelling stories is really what public relations is all about. Good PR people connect with and captivate their audience, turning storytelling into an art form.

One person who truly understood the value of good PR was William Donald Schaefer. Schaefer, the former Baltimore mayor and Maryland governor and comptroller credited with revitalizing Baltimore with his “do-it-now” work ethic, passed away last week at age 89.  Throughout his life, Schaefer worked tirelessly to promote the city he loved.  He wanted everyone to see his hometown as he saw it:  not as a laughing stock, but as a unique and delightful place to live, work and visit that ranked among the nation’s best.

An example of his PR prowess occurred back in 1981, when Schaefer famously followed through on his promise to jump into the seal tank at the National Aquarium if the new harbor attraction he spearheaded didn’t open on time. Behind the scenes, he dreaded donning the old-fashioned bathing suit and straw boater hat for fear he’d look like an idiot, or worse, make Baltimore look ridiculous in the process.  But jump in he did, holding an inflatable rubber duck. The rest, as they say, is history. He caught the attention of the nation and was subsequently featured in Esquire magazine as “the best mayor in America.” 

As the city says goodbye to Schaefer this week, The Baltimore Sun quoted many notable Baltimoreans who reflected on their feelings about the legendary figure’s impact. 

A former client of mine, Bronwyn Mayden, who worked for Schaefer when he was mayor and now serves as assistant dean of continuing professional education at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, commented on Schaefer’s devotion to Baltimore, saying, “His heart was in the city.”

Baltimore filmmaker John Waters, an adept storyteller in his own right, summed up Schaefer’s keen understanding of the value of telling Baltimore’s story this way: “He was always great to me, even when everybody else thought my movies were obscene. He used to say, ‘I don’t care what they are, just keep making them.’”

“I think it was just to keep the name of Baltimore out there,” Waters said.

Schaefer’s legacy will live on in the hearts and minds of the thousands of people he touched during his lifetime. But more importantly, perhaps, is his achievement of telling Baltimore’s story with genuine pride, passion and love, as only he could.

The term “press release” bothers me.

Historically, I’m told, “press release” referred to the targeting of news to newspapers, while “news release” encompasses all forms of media. I know it’s the perpetually idealistic (read: hard-headed) journalism student in me, but in my mind, a press release implies that the issuer is just out to get “ink,” news value be damned. I prefer the term “news release” because it conveys the loftier goal of providing information that is genuinely valuable to the intended audience.

You’ll be happy to know I’m not as much of a stickler on this issue anymore. I guess I’ve softened a bit, and using the term “press release” is not as angst-ridden for me as it used to be.

A trivial point? Perhaps. But semantics aside, I always keep in mind the higher purpose of a release so I’m sure to serve my clients well. That means constantly asking, “What’s the news?”

We live in a world teeming with information and countless channels for delivering it. The cliché of “cutting through the clutter” was never more accurate than it is today because there really is much more clutter than ever before. And cutting through it is getting ever tougher with each new blog, Twitter and Facebook.

Add to the mix the fact that many people can now read releases verbatim via online news databases that grab, cut and paste the releases directly from newswire feeds. It can be easy to fall into the trap of relying on such regurgitation and writing releases only for prospective customers (not to mention the SEO gods), forgetting authentic news value altogether.

Telling the client’s story well is one part of my job. But perhaps an even more important duty is to help identify, package and deliver the message in a way that truly serves the information needs of the target audience.

How do you define what’s news release-worthy?

I recently attended a trade show where my client had a booth in the exhibit hall. This particular client is an environmentally focused manufacturer committed to reducing its carbon footprint and protecting the planet for future generations. They initiated a “green action” program more than 10 years ago, before “carbon footprint” and “sustainability” became the popular terms they are today. The program includes lean manufacturing initiatives to lesson energy consumption and eliminate material waste.

The show had a dedicated press room where exhibitors could place media materials to highlight existing products or announce new ones. When planning our public relations strategy for the show, we chose to provide our media materials on USB flash drives instead of supplying hard copy kits. This decision was an instinctive one in keeping with the client’s position as well as our own. Not only does it make sense environmentally, it also lightens the load for journalists attending the show.

When I stopped by the press room to drop off our flash drives, I was surprised to find a long table laden with stacks and stacks of traditional media kits – fancy folders and elaborate packages bulging with printed materials. Many of the companies’ materials ironically touted their commitment to the environment.

This experience made me think about the importance of considering all the ways a company communicates and staying true to the brand. Certainly, a slick media kit chock-full of dazzling graphic pieces grabs attention, but what message does that send about the company’s commitment to sustainable business practices?

The new season of AMC’s hit TV series Mad Men started off with a bang (pardon the pun), with a peek into the bedroom of creative director and new bachelor Don Draper.  It also revealed the tensions inherent in the pursuit of new business at fledgling ad agency Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.

I confess I’m a “Mad-dict,” in part because I’ve worked at a few advertising agencies in my career and many of the situations hit home for me. 

In my experience, some clients view advertising as the golden child and public relations as the bastard at the proverbial family reunion. PR can be an after-thought, while creative gets the lion’s share of the attention.  After all, how do you quantify something you can’t storyboard or plot into a media plan?

The season premiere of Mad Men, entitled “Public Relations,” opened with Don being interviewed by an Advertising Age reporter.  Don’s lackluster responses and subsequent dismissal of the interview as a waste of his time reminded me of a few clients’ view of doing media interviews.

When the article showcases Don in a less than favorable light, he’s called onto the carpet by his agency partner Roger Sterling:

Don:  He never asked me that. Did he check any of the facts?

Roger:  You didn’t give him any facts. He had to make some assumptions.

Don:  My job is to write ads, not go around talking about who I am.

Roger:  Who knows who you are? This was supposed to be an advertisement for the firm…this is a missed opportunity.

By the end of the episode, Don has an “aha” moment when he realizes the value of PR as a tool to tell the agency’s story the way he wants it to be told.  During his interview later on with the Wall Street Journal, it’s obvious Don’s in control.

Smart organizations (the Roger Sterlings) know the value of leveraging editorial coverage to their advantage.  For those that don’t (the Don Drapers), we’re here to tell them.

One of the first things I thought when I heard Helen Thomas’ comments about Israel and Palestine was, “Hasn’t she been in this business long enough to know better?”

A journalist for 67 years, Thomas is perhaps best known as a fixture of the White House press corps, covering every president since Eisenhower from her reserved seat in the front row. Throughout her long career, she broke gender barriers and received countless awards recognizing her contribution to journalism.

In an interview by RabbiLIVE.com’s Rabbi David Nesenhoff at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration on May 27, Thomas said Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany, Poland, America or elsewhere. The video went viral, and Thomas’ storied career was finished. She resigned earlier this week, saying in a statement on June 4:

“I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

Some say Thomas, who is of Arab descent, has shown her bias on this issue before and this incident is just the latest in a long list. Two years after resigning from UPI in 2000 to work for the Hearst Corporation, Thomas reportedly said in a lecture at MIT, “I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Now I wake up and ask myself, ‘Who do I hate today?’” (An object of her disdain that day was then-president George Bush, and Thomas’ condemnation of the war in Iraq drew cheers from the audience.)

There has been much debate about Thomas’ remarks. There are those who say she has a right to speak her mind, no matter how offensive her point of view may be to some. Others say it’s her tough, outspoken nature and no-nonsense approach that made her such a successful journalist. And, in her current position as an opinion columnist, it can be argued that she has more leeway than she did as a reporter.

Whatever one believes about the issue, all journalists must hold themselves to a higher standard and strive to be as objective as humanly possible.

Of course, the operative phrase is “humanly possible.” But I would think after almost 70 years in the industry, Thomas would have tempered her remarks and kept her personal opinion of this particularly incendiary issue to herself, especially in an interview setting (and while being filmed, no less).

An ironic side note to this story: Nesenhoff’s full interview begins with Thomas giving advice to new members of the press corps standing nearby:

“Go for it. You’ll never be unhappy. You’ll always keep people informed, and you’ll always keep learning. The greatest thing of the profession is, you’ll never stop learning.”

How true.

Back in the 70s, my friends used to come over and watch in awe as I played games on our family’s little Mac with the cute multi-colored apple logo on the monitor.

My father was a successful computer scientist and programmer with NASA and NOAA, and so we were the first ones in our neighborhood to have a home computer.

Dad died more than 27 years ago. He had always advised me never to socialize with the people I work with; he believed people should keep their private life separate from their professional life. So I often wonder what this early adopter of computer technology would think about the cultural phenomenon that is social networking.

Many people thrive on putting their daily activities and innermost thoughts out there for the world (or at least their friends or followers) to see. Chances are good that a friend-of-a-friend is the friend of a co-worker, so it’s common sense to think twice before posting pictures of yourself getting your drink on or tweeting about how much you cannot stand your job.

Those of us in the public relations profession have always had rules about separating one’s personal and professional lives, especially when counseling C-level execs. We advise clients to think carefully before firing off a letter to the editor that’s based on personal opinion, since their position may be taken as representative of their company’s stance on a particular issue. Sometimes the two don’t match up, and that could be problematic.

Is that limiting free speech? To some degree, I suppose it is. But it’s worth the time to thoughtfully consider ways to express personal views that don’t cross the boundaries between home life and work life.

Now that the means to communicate quickly, easily and broadly have increased so dramatically, it’s more important than ever to think twice before posting your answer to the question: “What’s on your mind?”