So it seems that impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich should have sought counsel — and I don’t mean legal counsel, before he spoke “off the cuff” in a series of radio interviews and a nationally televised news conference stating, according to the Chicago Tribune today, “that the impeachment trial was a “sham” and that “Democrats have a vendetta against him for his independent political streak,”  dug the Governor into a post impeachment deeper hole.

Now look where’s he’s at.  Even his lead criminal defense attorney quit.

Where were his PR advisors?

I have got to assume that the beleaguered Governor got his share of detailed media training as most public figures and corporate heads do, and was forewarned by his PR people never to take to the microphone with any “off the cuff” remarks.  So what happened, was it a matter of an “out of control” client or a case of irrational thinking overtaking logical thinking?

Based on our experience with some clients who have weaved their way in and out of crises, it’s possible that legal counsel, in their overwhelming zeal to take control of every aspect of the case, simply overtook the PR function as well, determining what can and cannot be said, without thought to the standard “role playing” and detailed training that PR professionals give their clients.

Well, lesson to be learnt…  Legal and PR have to partner to protect their client and neither should take precedence over the other.

In any case, it’s known that his lawyers simply quit.  Did his PR counselors do so as well?

I love the NY Times.  It has been my “journalistic” bible since my first days as a PR professional.  Moreover, I peruse the Opinion page even before I finish the front page.  And that is why I was so disappointed with Nicholas Kristof’s column in the NY Times on Sunday January 18.

Traditionally there has been a line written in stone between journalism and advertising – a heavy black line.  However, in the last decade, that line took on shades of gray when smaller publications offered editorial content, when advertising dollars were spent.  And then, of course, came the advertorial, which is an ad disguised as an editorial.

But I did not expect a venerable columnist such as Kristof to muddle the PR/Advertising waters.

In his column he wrote about a contest that he “concocted” that takes the winning university student with him on a reporting trip to Africa.  The reason for the trip is commendable, since he wanted to generate “activism for distant people whom we can’t visualize” and basically build outrage among young people for the likes of Dafur, Somalia, etc. through first hand experience.

But my take is that he used his column as a self-serving vehicle to advertise his contest, right down to what applicants can do and how.  The column speaks directly to potential applicants basically soliciting applications.  C’mon, that’s advertising.

I don’t profess to tell the NY Times how their much-respected columnists should write.  I also do not have a problem with informing readers about a courageous step taken to engage young people as to global issues. But I do have a problem with the way it was written.

As a PR professional I still believe that journalists, opinion writers or not, should adhere to that old rule of separating editorial facts and opinions from blatant self-serving solicitation which is best left to advertising.

The euphoria that engulfed the United States today (and the world) need not be relegated to a moment in time.  President Obama’s 18-minute inauguration speech, has put us on a “hope-watch.”

We are privileged…

We are a part of a defining moment, one that has been hard to define to date.  What does one name a movement that seems to engage waves and waves of people that then create bigger and bigger waves that engulf even more people?  It cannot just be about change, for change itself has no description.  Change sounds good, but it is a vague term, gray in color and remains undefined.

It must be “hope.”

Today’s speech was not about rhetoric alone, as some cynics might say.  It was a daunting speech because the person who delivered those eloquent words of hope, strength and defiance in the face of mounting challenges, really, really believes that Americans can once again become resilient and fight their way out of the sinking swirl that has sapped them of hope.

Every generation has its leaders or visionaries who can behold a possibility and then are relentless in driving that possibility to its end goal.  We have such a President, one whose strong belief in the inalienable rights of the individual had most of us won over after his “first hello.”

Remember the popular ad campaign of some years ago  “reach out and touch somebody?” Well, President Obama, you have reached out and touched billions in the world.

By simply being here in this moment in time, we are privileged.

It’s now up to us to get past this moment in time and turn the message of hope into a lasting one.

I take great exception to the title of Michael Arrington’s “Facebook Blows A Whopper Of An Opportunity” read on TechCrunch today.  I would have entitled it the reverse “Red-Faced Facebook Belatedly Shuts Down Burger King’s Whopper Sacrifice Fiasco. “ OK, so they shut it down, but for the wrong reasons, citing privacy.

C’mon.  Considering that Facebook’s “mantra” is for users to amass friends and create a platform for interactive communication, why was it ever OK, even for one day, one hour, to run any campaign that encourages the dumping of friends, no matter how faceless they are?

Sure, I can understand that any of our consumer product clients would want to grab the attention of 150 million Facebook users, a number that amounts to half the population of the entire United States, and garner brand engagement with just one or two clicks.

But this is not the wild, wild, west anymore, where anything goes. The potential to tap such a mass audience must be accompanied with careful strategy and not go against the very principles upon which Facebook was founded.

And dumping friends is never acceptable, not even for the love of money.

The measure of a friendship is really subjective. There are intimate friends, best friends, acquaintances or the ‘faceless’ friends of the social networking communities. But they all seemingly have value and need different degrees of nurturing.   Even the ‘faceless’ friends have value for someone or other, otherwise why go to the trouble of cultivating them?

Now Burger King is suggesting that Facebook users dump ten Facebook friends in order to get a free Whopper in their recent “Whopper Sacrifice Facebook app.” Really!  So the question begs, is a free Whopper such a big deal that it’s worth dumping ten friends?  Or are they saying that Facebook attracts too many ‘faceless’ friends anyway, and that their value as friends is so minimal that it’s worth it to sacrifice ten, to get a free Whopper?  Is it a question of what really counts – a Whopper or ten friends?

And then, whom do you pick to dump among the faceless many?   And the challenge in dumping is that friends have to agree to be friends, so you can only dump your half of the friendship if your other half dumps you in retaliation.

It all gets very complicated.

Even more so when you take it a step further, as Jason Kottke did, when he attempted to calculate Facebook’s valuation in terms of Whoppers.  That’s right, not $$, but Whoppers.  After some complex math, he deducted that each friend is worth five Whoppers or $12, at $2.40 each Whopper.  Kottke calculated that with 150 million friends on Facebook, that it would add up to a $1.8 billion valuation.  But of course, in Whoppers.

The campaign is making mincemeat (or ground meat) out of a social networking community, underscoring the superficiality of it all.  If tossing friends is so casually done, why bother amassing them in the first place?

With the economy in shambles, a raging war in Gaza, a startling 7.2 % unemployment and rising, exchanging friends for a free Whopper makes about as much crazy sense as anything else.

Still, I would keep my friends – even faceless ones.

Years ago, while at The Juilliard School as a student, there was an anecdote that circulated over and over again about how to get to Carnegie Hall. The answer clearly was not about directions, rather – “practice, practice, practice” with the implication that you will get there and make a career. Now it has resurged, this time on YouTube, with composer and organizer, Tan Dun, chanting the “same tune.”

Just imagine … a budding violinist or clarinetist or tuba player, in a remote village or town in India or China or Bolivia, practices a specially composed piece, then, when well-prepared, submits a video of their performance to the YouTube Symphony Orchestra, who will offer the first ever virtual performance. Apparently the world’s first collaborative online orchestra will perform the new work with the player’s compiled videos.

It’s worth noting that built into this concept is also a road to Carnegie Hall. Young talents can send a video performance from a list of recommended works and finalists will be chosen from the pool of submissions by a judging panel, to travel to New York City in April 2009, to participate in a performance of the YouTube Symphony Orchestra under the direction of famed conductor, Michael Tilson Thomas.

Leave it to the arts medium to be the first to tap global social media platforms to find young musicians to participate in both virtual concert performances and live on stage. The convergence is audacious and brilliant. Social media breaks down the geographical barriers that would otherwise make this collaboration an impossibility. Moreover, in the days of much anguish as to what the future of classical music will be and where will new audiences come from for that musical genre, along comes an innovative and compelling idea that will surely ignite the imagination of young talents and reverberate worldwide.

With all the persuasive concert marketers, publicists and promoters that abound, wouldn’t it be something if it turned out that YouTube found the “golden ticket?”