A prime example is in today’s Irish Examiner – a newspaper which is fought over by sections of this office as certain Munster people grab it to read its sports section.

The rather dramatic headline on a news article on page 7 reads: “Hoffman saves jogger who had cardiac arrest”.

Reading the article, it quickly becomes clear that Dustin Hoffman (for it was he) actually did no such thing.

According to John Fahey’s article, Mr. Hoffman was walking in Central Park, saw a jogger fall to the ground and “waited with the stricken lawyer until he was resuscitated and rushed to hospital”.

Did Dustin Hoffman actually perform the CPR on the jogger?  No, that was the “three ambulance crews present”.  Maybe Dustin rang for the ambulance crews? Erm, no, not that either.  Apparently, “control has since been back through the calls and it was someone else who called the ambulance”.

Being cynical about it (cynical, moi?), all the actor did was stand around gawking (or in the words of the article, wait around 15 minutes because he was “very concerned”) until the poor man was rushed off to hospital.  Oh, but he did congratulate the ambulance crews afterwards on doing a great job!

So, all this begs the question, did the sub-editor (the guy who actually writes the headlines after a journalist submits copy) actually read the article?  True, ‘Hoffman congratulates ambulance crews for saving jogger’s life’ isn’t as catchy, and why let accuracy stand in the way of a good headline anyway?

In this instance no harm was done, but regularly we see damaging headlines which in no way reflect the content of the balanced article below it.

In this age of speed reading, where increasingly our brains are trained to scan headlines, surely greater accuracy in headlines would do a better service to the work of journalists and the people and companies they are writing about.

One of the big lessons was that engaging and informing young people was crucial to a yes vote. It’s too glib to say a large chunk of them have left the country so there’s less of a need to engage. Generation Yes was arguably the biggest “game changer” in the Lisbon 2 vote. A well-organised, creative, engaging and well-resourced organisation, Generation Yes could rightly take credit for engaging with 18-25 year olds through media channels like Facebook and YouTube – channels that this audience actually used. It was staffed by a small army of young and articulate volunteers who rolled out a really impressive campaign over a number of months through the country’s universities, clubs and bars.

Alas their Facebook page is gathering virtual cobwebs and the Generation Yes website has been put out to grass.

They were, though, only one of the wider number of civil society groups that played a crucial role in educating voters and adding weight to the yes campaign. Other notables were Ireland for Europe, who were subsequently wound down, along with Women for Europe – the latter a strategic play to engage with women, a majority of whom had voted against the first Lisbon referendum.

While special interest groups come and go, given the importance of Europe and the EU to Ireland, the yes side would have benefitted greatly from sustained campaigning from groups like these given the important impact they had in 2009. Given the huge impact they made, their absence this time seems like a real loss.

A report in the last week’s Irish Times suggests that there will be some additions to the yes side. However, given the large number of undecided voters – almost 20% in recent polls – it’s reasonable to ask why it has been left so late?

So, it looks like the Yes side is doing it the hard way again!

My own PPP (personal pet peeve) is the interviewee who constantly uses the interviewers name – “Thank you for the opportunity Pat….Mary, the key point is that….we are delighted to announce Matt…As I’m sure you are aware George…”.

But aside from being a petty annoyance for PR people, it’s a very distracting habit. The beauty of radio is that it’s a very intimate medium. Listeners feel as if they are being spoken to directly; that is until the interviewee reminds them that s/he is, in fact, speaking to the interviewer facing them.

We often hear people complain that interviewees don’t answer the question they’re asked. That’s probably because they’ve been advised to get their complete position across in the answer to the first question. This is a precautionary measure in case the interview is cut short or the questioning takes an unanticipated track.

In most cases, radio interviews are a positive opportunity to explain your position or promote your product or services. With a little preparation you can make sure you get your message across, that listeners enjoy your contribution and, most importantly, that you get asked back on the programme again!

So, for the record, we’re happy to share our top ten tips for making the most of your radio interview:

1. Practice, practice, practice! Prepare your key message and anticipate sticky questions. Then find out if the interviewer has ever covered your issue before and listen back to the interview online. Find out if the interview is one-on-one or if you will be part of a panel. It is critical that you know this so that your advance work can include research on the other panel members and the issues they are likely to raise.

2. Nerves are normal but if you think they might impact your ability to articulate your message, make sure you have a written note of the two-three key points you want to communicate in front of you.

3. Live interviews are always best. They give you total control and like championship football, you will probably give your best performance.

4. If it’s possible, do the interview in studio. You’ll be less anxious and build a better rapport with the interviewer if you’re looking into the whites of their eyes. Failing that….

5. Consider the listener and use a landline rather than a mobile phone. Do not use a speaker phone! Mobile lines are unreliable and phones on speaker sound too distant.

6. Do not, under ANY circumstances, read your answer verbatim from a page. It makes listeners question the credibility of the interviewee. “Do you really know what you’re talking about if you are obviously reading from notes?”

7. Be conscious of any words or phrases you tend to overuse. If you tend to say “like” or “you know” or “do you know what I mean” at the end of every sentence then you will really need to consciously force yourself not to fall into the habit on-air.

8. Make sure you can provide back-up for any point you make. Evidence makes a interview credible.

9. Do not get annoyed or respond emotionally.

10. If you don’t know something, you can either say you don’t know or………. prove you don’t know!

Finally, embrace the opportunity. Unlike many other countries, Ireland has a fantastic tradition of talk radio and there really is no better way to get your message into the kitchens and cars of the country.

You’d think the Government would have learned a few lessons since then but events in recent days relating to the installation of water meters suggest otherwise.

Indeed all of the signals to date are of two parties in Government plainly not communicating with each other, never mind the electorate.

The chorus of ‘Oh No you won’t’ from Tánaiste Gilmore and ‘Oh Yes you will’ [have to pay] from Taoiseach Kenny would not be out of place in the Gaiety’s Christmas Pantomime.

And with the IMF in town this week, and a referendum campaign to be fought in the next 5 weeks, could the timing be any worse?

The Taoiseach and Tánaiste are astute politicians with plenty of experience who should know better.

This always had the potential to assume ‘crisis’ proportions and there was always going to be the need for a very strong communications campaign on this issue given the opposition expressed to it since it was first mooted. As every professional PR person will tell you, it’s too late to start planning when the crisis hits. Plans should have been agreed, key messaging aligned and spokespeople appointed before now.

So what can be done now to limit the damage of the latest communications mishap?

1. Get everyone to stop talking until there is an agreed position.

2. Agree what is the position on water meters – their installation, who pays and when the invoices will be levied on householders.

3. Get the message right. Make it relevant to the electorate and easily understood.

4. Get messaging documents circulated to all members of Government so that if any are door stepped on the issue they can answer correctly.

5. Be ready for a long and protracted campaign

Last Saturday the Irish Times ran a front page report on the payment of fees to professional PR consultants by individual Ministers and asked why this was necessary when many Departments had in-house press offices. A glib answer would be ‘look at the debacles of the septic tanks, household charges and now the water meters’. But the reality is that there are many excellent PR professionals working across all Government departments and sectors. Either they are not being listened to by Ministers or they are not shouting loud enough to make their voices heard.

Less panic and a more planned and co-ordinated communications approach from the Government’s programme managers has to be the order of the day or this Government risks reputational damage which will be beyond repair.

My first real encounter with a flash mob was the brilliant T-mobile ads and there have been some wonderful examples (our favourites include Mr. Blue Sky in Cork , Frozen Grand Central and the Food Court Hallelujah )

According to Wikipedia, the fountain of all information, the flash mob was created in New York in 2003 by Bill Wasik, senior editor of Harper’s Magazine and with the growth of YouTube the flash mob became an ideal way to create that much sought after “viral video”

But sadly like most things that make an impact the flash mob has been done to death and they became poorly thought out and poorly executed.

But a few fantastic examples have emerged this week that shows if you do it well the flash mob can still be an extremely effective tool for PR.

The first from Belgium is possibly the best example I have ever seen, it’s not exactly a traditional flash mob but I defy you to watch it without smiling. (I only wish I had the chance to press the button).

The second is a more traditional flash mob taking advantage of an unsuspecting passerby.

The Belgian video was uploaded less than 48 hours ago and it already had over 10 million views on YouTube!

These are just two great examples that show when done well a flash mob is still an exception way to create a buzz for your brand.

The day happened to be 30^th March and the moderator of the Denis Mahony Motors Facebook page announced to the page’s 10,000 Facebook fans that anyone who liked their page over the previous week would be entered into a competition for a new Mercedes. Great! The problem arose when they announced later that day that the competition was indeed an April Fools Joke.

Never mind that the “joke” was a day early, the revelation was met with a torrent of vitriolic abuse from “fans” that would make even Eamon Dunphy blush. Interestingly, the page’s fan count dropped from 10,000 to 5,000 in the space of an hour or two.

Undoubtedly, the idea to announce a competition that turned out to be nothing more than a joke was a mistake. The moderator of the page does however have to be given some kudos for their subsequent management of the page and communication with the page’s followers.

While the fall in fans was regrettable, as was the stream of abuse that accompanied it, the communication from the Denis Mahony Motors page did start to repair the damage. The message on April 1^st from the group states “Thanks to everyone who entered this competition and apologies about the confusion over the premature April fools competition. It was done in a light hearted manner and certainly wasn’t our intention to upset anyone. We meant it as a fun idea but obviously we didn’t get it 100% right. As a result, we have taken all your comments on board, both good and bad, and as of next week we will run a series of competitions and giveaways on this page with everything from concert tickets to restaurant vouchers to sports tickets up for grabs.” The number of fans has recovered and currently stands at 7,305.

An increasing number of clients are seeking advice on how best to moderate their social media interaction. Having worked on a wide range of social media campaigns for clients, we regularly put together guidelines and briefings on how to manage this moderation. Some of the basic rules of thumb include:

• Remember that you are always representing the company.
• Be professional, polite and respectful of customers, suppliers, partners and competitors.
• In your posts and discussions, be sensitive, constructive and think about the consequences of what you want to say before you post it.
• If the commenter is a well known negative commenter or ‘troll’, it is usually best not to respond directly, but this must be considered on its merits.

If the comments are recent but of a positive or neutral nature, no response is necessary.

Notwithstanding this, we have encountered a vast array of play-acting from an array of opponents of the measure. ‘Ah, we never received a bill’; ‘we got no correspondence at all about the measure’; ‘we don’t know where to pay it’; ‘we don’t know how to pay it’. Imagine if any giveaway measure had been announced in a similar fashion by Government, would we have heard the same chorus of helpless know-nothings?

Of course not.  However, opponents of this very necessary, very timid move towards broadening the tax base, and eventually achieving more balance between tax on work and enterprise, on the one hand, and fixed assets, like property on the other, have been allowed have a field day in the media using the pretext of not understanding what it’s all about.  A plain “I don’t want to pay” stance would be far more credible.

Of course much of the scope for this play-acting has been ceded by the hamfisted manner in which the Government advanced the measure. Not one of Minister Hogan’s finest hours by any means.

As professionals in the communications business, now polishing off entries for the annual PR Awards which recognise best in class programmes undertaken in the past year, it is a fair bet that if there was an award for the worst communications programme in the public services arena, the prize would probably go the Government’s roll-out – or should that be muddle-out – of the household charge.

Absent have been the most elementary elements of any worthwhile communications campaign.  There was also going to be opposition to this tax, that was obvious from the moment it was announced by Government and yet no concerted effort was made to proactively explain why it was being introduced and what the money would be used for.  Expecting taxpayers to pay the charge without receiving a reminder or invoice was also probably a step too far.

At the very least, the measure should have been contextualised so that the ensuing debate could be set in a proper framework. For example, set out the level of household property charges faced by house-owners and occupiers in Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland, and perhaps a few comparable sized other EU states, like Denmark, Belgium and Holland. That would provide valid comparisons and perhaps soften the cough of some protestors.

On that topic, Lucinda Creighton scored a neat bulls-eye hit on Sinn Fein’s Paraic McLoughlin on RTE’s Morning Ireland last week when she contrasted that party’s opposition to the new household charge here with their role as part of Government in Northern Ireland, exacting much higher household property charges from people there.

Aside from failing to frame the debate about the measure, the really lamentable communications failure has been the “making it up as you go along” approach to how the tax is to be paid.  The confusion over whether or not the tax can be paid at a Post Office, and the proposal to get Local Authority staff knocking on doors to get people to pay up were indicative of both panic on the part of government and the lack of a proper thought through strategy.

Coming so soon after the debacle about the septic tax registration fee, one is reminded about the rueful comment of Albert Reynolds that as a Taoiseach “it’s the small things that trip you up”. It’s great for this country to see our current Taoiseach cutting such a dash across the global stage, be it Washington or Beijing. No doubt, meticulous planning went into every last detail of these adventures.

But the same kind of careful planning is just as important, indeed even more important, when the winning of the hearts and minds of householders here at home is at stake.

However, this review should be also be the opportunity to take a more comprehensive look at other aspects of the station’s news-gathering and broadcasting policies. Certainly Leo Varadkar has posed a timely query about the texting and tweeting tyranny that seems to be overtaking more and more radio broadcast output (and not just from RTE). Offering engagement and accessibility to Sean and Mary Citizen is all well and good (“do keep your texts and tweets rolling in”), but too often this is becoming a platform for political soreheads of every hue.

And surely there should be a requirement to establish the provenance of this Babel of contributors that is more authoritative than “Joe from Ballinasloe”, or “Mary from Finglas”. The benchmark should be fewer and authenticated contributors that are making comments greater than the “mad as hell” variety.

This should also extend beyond the texters and tweeters when it comes to news gathering and public affairs commentary. Over the past year or so, one stand-out feature of the reporting of the so-called wave of protest sweeping the land, whether to do with water tax, septic tanks or bin charges, is the uncontested platform offered to these same protesters by many radio and TV programmers.

“So why are you here protesting outside the gates of Leinster House?” has become the  standard opening salvo. This is followed by a fulminating tirade about the oppression of rural dwellers, the entitlement of people to various services, the unfairness of double-taxation (whatever that is), and the need to get “the rich” to pay their fair share of taxation. Forget about the inherent contradictions and faultlines. And now it’s back to the studio.

The septic-tank protest movement is the classic of the species. Spurious claims of rural dwellers being oppressed and put-upon, as opposed to their city-slicker cousins, predominate, while the vital importance of ensuring that ground water supplies are not contaminated by leaking tanks is glossed over. Most rural householders see the maintenance of their septic tank in the same bracket as dealing with a leaky roof, repairing the washing machine, and servicing the family car, and accept they are liable for the consequential cost. They don’t go looking for a State hand-out, end of story. As someone born and reared in rural Ireland, I know this to be the case.

Yet, much of the media has allowed a kind of victimhood/entitlement culture to be peddled by the septic tank protestors. They need to be taken on. Do they accept that if their septic tank is leaking that it could be a public health hazard? Do they accept that checking that the tank is OK is a prudent thing to do? Do they accept that they are responsible for the proper maintenance of the tank? If they protest that city and town-dwellers enjoy mains sewerage services, then what about the higher cost of virtually all public services provided to rural dwellers – post, telephone, public transport, etc.?

Similar challenges need to be posed to the water tax objectors and the opponents of refuse charges. We need to put a price on clean, drinkable water. It is extremely expensive to produce, and allowing people unlimited, free consumption is pure madness in this day and age. It is a further truism that our overall taxation system is seriously lop-sided, and we need a progressive property tax to help achieve a more balanced, sustainable tax system.

Besides the matter of how protest groups are engaged by the media, another factor is worthy of consideration. Over the past year and more, I have been struck by the number of people who declare that they have given up listening to such-and-such a current affairs programme. “Too much moaning, people constantly giving out, putting me in a bad mood, hearing the same old voices banging on and on”. There are lots of people who don’t want to be fed a constant diet of negativity.

This is not a plea for a fantasy Alice-in-Wonderland approach to news and current affairs. Our systemic economic crisis is awful and the pain and suffering of many people is real and palpable. But most people want to do their best, no matter how daunting the odds. They want to believe that things can be better and they would like the media to give them some reason to believe.

In his brilliant biography of the late Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson relates a showdown the Apple founder had with Rupert Murdoch over Fox News. Jobs regarded the station as destructive and harmful to America. “You’re blowing it with Fox News. The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you have cast your lot in with the destructive people. Fox has become an incredibly destructive force in our society”, he said.

It would be interesting to apply this paradigm shift to Ireland. Against a backdrop of the IMF/EU bailout, and with Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fail sharing the same broad policy agenda, and our left wing politicians also scrabbling for the centre ground, would this offer a more meaningful approach, than left wing/right wing analysis?

Applying this constructive-destructive axis could be a much more meaningful way of approaching our politics and public polity generally, including news and current affairs programme making. Then we might get to see who is being constructive, and who are – to quote Steve Jobs again – the “puller-downers”.

This article originally featured in the Irish Times on Saturday 31^st March 2012

Privacy online - it’s a bit of a thorny issue with a lot of people and as I do some work with Google I know just how deep and highly emotive the debate can become.  It is one area where the generation gap really comes to the fore. Attitudes towards online privacy differ depending on what age you are and if you can remember a time without the Internet.

For younger people or ‘digital natives’ access to information and the ability to share and download are really important and attempts to police this have been met with some resistance, to put it mildly. On the other side of the debate many older users worry that Internet companies know too much about them and that the information held about them could be used for identity theft and fraudulent activities.

Although it’s almost impossible to go online and not leave some kind of digital footprint, ultimately each of us is in control of the information we share online and there are simple steps each of us can take to protect ourselves online.

• We use a web browser to surf the Internet. Whenever you launch a browser it should give you the option of starting a private session or incognito session so check the settings and select this if you don’t want to leave a trail of your online activities.

• Don’t use your real name online use an alias. Many people do this on twitter and facebook so that only those who know their alias will know where to find them.

• Never share personal information online if you feel the website is not legitimate. If in doubt err on the side of caution.  When you do have to share information online make sure that it is through a trusted website that has a proper security protocol in place and learn to look for signs of good online security. A safe site’s address starts with “https://” and displays a padlock icon in your browser.

• Learn how to use email safely and set strong passwords using a long, interspersed combination of lower-case letters, capital letters and numbers.  Some email service providers have a two step verification process to guard against accounts being hacked but as a general rule you should not share personal information such as bank account details or passwords via email.

• Guard against phishing. If you receive an email with an amazing offer and it sounds too good to be true then it usually is! Also beware of the sob story email along the lines of a friend stuck in Shanghai needing you to wire some money, again the rule of thumb is, if it sounds dodgy check it out before you respond.  Never enter your password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site and don’t send your password via email or write it down.

• Become aware of cookies. These are not something you dunk in milk  -they are a tiny pieces of code stored on your computer when you visit websites. Most are harmless but you can set your browser to disable them or clear them at the end of an online session if you wish. Be sure to clear private data from your browser, including passwords, cache, form data and cookies on a regular basis, both from your private laptop / computer but especially right after using a public computer.  And always log out of sessions after using a public computer.

• Be careful about logging onto unknown wireless networks in public places such as hotels, airports or restaurants.  Be sure to select public settings on your laptop as these are a lot more secure.

• Read privacy policies. It may be full of legal jargon and little bit boring but if it’s something you are concerned about then take the time check out the policies for the services you regularly use online.  Some privacy settings are ‘opt out’ rather than ‘opt in’ so you may need to adjust your settings accordingly.

• When filling in an online form which has a box asking for permission to share your information with others make sure you uncheck the box to prevent information being shared with third parties unless this is what you want.

• Set up a free email address to use for signing up to discount offers or joining discussion forums so that you can keep personal and business communication separate.

• Untag yourself from photos on social networking sites or set your settings so that you know when someone has tagged you in a photo.  You can then decide whether or not you want to be tagged.

• When it comes to posting comments online the advice is the same as we give to our clients preparing for a media interview - if you don’t what to see it then don’t say it.  Remember, once you post online, it is there forever and you cannot take it back!.  And never post online when you’re angry. Why? Just ask New Media Strategies who formerly managed the Chrysler Autos Twitter account.

These are some of the basic steps which can be taken to help safeguard privacy online.   If you know them already good for you, go forth and preach the gospel according to good common sense online. You’d be amazed how many people still don’t get it!