There is something to be said about the choice of words, or put differently, the art of wordsmithing.

The full page ‘sorry’ ads taken out in the major British newspapers by Rupert Murdoch over the weekend, certainly seem inconsequential in light of the calamitous series of consequences that resulted from the illegal practice of phone hacking employed, approved and accepted as normal policy by Murdoch’s top level journalists and editors. For goodness sake, laws were broken and private and public lives were exposed, hurt or damaged, political favors were encouraged,sought and won — all in the pursuit of scooped news.

Sorry? Just doesn’t do it.

The resignations are piling up by the hour and just Sunday it included, of all people, the head of Scotland Yard. The unfolding story of intrigue and back room deals has embroiled politicians, police and, in essence, brought into question the very ethics of the UK media industry. Trust in journalism has been chipped, or tainted…

And you get a ‘sorry’? It just won’t do.

‘Sorry’ described as apologetic in the Thesaurus, is too flippant a word in this case. You say sorry when you bump into someone in the mall or when you spill something during a meal or if you forget the wine for a hostess. Nobody cares right now if Murdoch is sorry. It’s too late for that, for the incredulous story has spiraled out of control. It is akin to the example of running a red light while driving and inadvertently killing someone. What does one say to the family, ‘sorry’?

A ‘sorry’ won’t rehire the 600 employees who lost their jobs on the spot with the closing of the 168-year old tabloid. A ‘sorry’ won’t hide the collusion of politicians and police who silently acquiesced or participated with the phone hacking scheming. A ‘sorry’ won’t save those senior executives and editors who stumbled and mumbled in the immediate aftermath something about “not knowing anything” or “not having anything to do with such policies,” — those same ones that were arrested over the last few days and carted away,

In Murdoch’s own words in the ad, an apology is not enough. So what is?

Immediate indignation might have served him better. Murdoch would have done well to invoke President Truman’s favorite line, “The buck stops here” instead of offering a ‘sorry.’ He could have said, instead, that he takes full responsibility for whatever policies were set by his executives, for whatever practices were implemented under those policies, for the little oversight that allowed and perpetuated the illegal behaviors, for the damages that these caused and that he will personally ‘promise’ (a better word than ‘sorry’) that the ethics of journalism will be reset at all his publications with strict checks and balances in place.

A ‘sorry’ is too meaningless to save his Empire. Maybe nothing will. Time will tell.

‘Tis the season to say thanks and, pat downs and virtual scanners notwithstanding, it would behoove all of us to include the TSA among the many things for which we are grateful.  TSA’s efforts at keeping us safe in the skies, deserve our thanks…

The public outcry is nonsense.  It is emotionally driven and without any rational thought behind it.  Just consider what any traveler would reply, when asked whether their own privacy issue would trump taking security risks. C’mon, would anyone want to chance having another Christmas bomber, or shoe bomber or some other murderous-thinking terrorist on board when flying?  Isn’t a pat down or a step into the virtual scanner worth taking, in order to fend off a risk?

And yet, the outcry has reached such proportions that it’s now got Washington involved, with both sides of the political aisle jumping on board saying the TSA has gone too far with their new airport security measures. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, when asked on Sunday’s CBS’ “Face the Nation” if she would submit to one of the new pat-downs gave a somewhat stammered answer,  “Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?” Even the Homeland Security chairman called for the TSA to ‘Reconsider’ pat downs…

The popular Drudge Report has been leading the charge in escalating the outcry with screaming headlines that have escalated the public’s ire.  First it was, “TSA Warns: Submit Or Pay.”  This was followed with “Former Gov. Ventura Will No Longer Fly Due to Abuse He’s Endured at Hands of TSA” and “Tears After Rough Skirt Search,” “Airports Consider Call To Ditch TSA,” and finally a bit of humor with, “Will Turkey Day Fliers Cry Foul?”

TSA deserves all this, for they anticipated none of it.

It is a classic case of naïveté that a program was rolled out without a carefully planned public information campaign behind it. For instance, as a first, a well-orchestrated PR plan could have informed the public, well in advance, of the radiation statistics of the virtual scanner — that it is ten times less than an ordinary lung X-ray.  That would have assuaged unwarranted fears and minimized the need for the alternative tactic of so-called “humiliating” pat downs. Second, pat downs could have been explained as necessary, citing that terrorists are getting more creative about what they do to hide explosives in crazy things — like underwear. There could have been videos planned, showing what to expect in pat downs, and that “groping” is not the intent. Third, the TSA airport staff should have received “pat down” sensitivity training to avoid the impression of “groping” and thus have better managed the patted-down public’s expectations of the experience.

The momentum is building for a “National Opt-Out day” — meaning passengers should refuse the new virtual body scanners in use at airports around the country and opt out of that procedure.  It is a shame that TSA did not get their act together in time for the biggest travel day of the year, the day before Thanksgiving.  All too late…  Damage done.

Happily TSA Administrator John Pistole said, “the ingenuity and determination of terrorists trying to bring down an airplane rules out changes in screening policies that have been assailed by some passengers as an invasion of privacy.”

Here’s my message: Get over it and get scanned or patted down, for I personally don’t want to have an opt-outer or non-patted down person get on my plane.  Would you?

And THANK YOU, John Pistole for not being dissuaded from keeping us safe….

It’s downright unthinkable and puzzling that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, of all people, wouldn’t think through potential consequences before taking action.  Unless, of course, he has a different agenda…

In the recent profile published by the magazine, titled “The Runaway General,” McChrystal disparaged administration officials, mocking Vice President Joseph Biden and criticizing special envoy for Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and U.S. Ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, with whom McChrystal is supposed to carry out U.S. policy, potentially fracturing the unified front that Obama has sought to build for the war and the international coalition.

Oops…

Was this blatant naïveté on the part of McChrystal to simply speak off the cuff and blast the administration or just flawed judgment?  Apparently McChrystal, who spent much of his military career in the world of special operations, didn’t have as much experience dealing with the media, as did other top commanders, such as Gen. David H. Petraeus.  Still, he had “handlers” –civilian press aides assigned to him by the US military.

According to a report in The Washington Post, his now-resigned civilian press aide, Duncan Boothby said that, “he was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff, so that Hastings could write the profile.”  Was Boothby aware of the bent that the story was to take?  Did he research the magazine and the reporter? Did he take steps to veer the story in such a way as to forestall any potential damaging results from the interview?  Was the reporter given too much access to McChrystal and his “anonymous” aides, with too little control? Did Boothby media train McChrystal at all?  Were McChrystal and his aides not aware of the administration’s policy that military officers must respect civilian leadership and keep their advice and views private?

Something doesn’t make sense…

It gets more dumbfounding.  Both Boothby and McChrystal fact-checked the story.  What did they read and approve? Did McChrystal intentionally speak out against the administration and choose a popular publication as a platform in which to vent?  If so, poor judgment, that triggered a public spectacle (or circus) with consequences that were easily predictable – a very public firing — reminiscent of the firing of General Douglas MacArthur, who played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II and who was fired for insubordination by President Truman.

McChrystal issued an apology yesterday saying that,  “It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.” How about that old adage, “think before you speak? “

Poor judgment, indeed.  Sometimes — “It is all a matter of judgment”

As if Toyota does not have enough troubles, along comes Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood…

Apparently, during testimony before a Congressional panel Secretary LaHood was asked as to what guidance he would give to Toyota owners affected by a series of recalls.  Not one to ever mince words, reminiscent of President Harry Truman’s folksy style, LaHood said, “If anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it. And take it to a Toyota dealer.”

Feels like sound advice to me.  You better believe it that if my car had the possibility of brake troubles the only driving I would do is to the dealer.  Toyota itself has urged drivers of recalled cars to do so.

But unfortunately the media heard only three words –“stop driving it” and a PR storm erupted as those words, now out of context, ricocheted over the airwaves, print publications, news wires and Internet, unfurling an all around  “hissy fit.” Toyota expressed “dismay,” and the Chief of Staff at the White House, Rahm Emanuel, felt obliged to come to Mr. LaHood’s defense, saying that “the President thinks Ray’s been a great secretary,” and adding that “when the Secretary misspoke, he immediately realized he’d said it.”

Misspoke.  LaHood did try to modify his words, saying “What I said in there was obviously a misstatement,” adding that he meant to say, “If you own one of these cars, or if you’re in doubt, take it to the dealer.”

Sounds like semantics to me.  Same message, softer edges…

In any case, this has once again made the case for being scripted in the first place – and sticking to it.

Look, as communication professionals, we agonize about the possibility of a client breaking with carefully crafted messaging that is painstakingly dissected for any potential risks. In the case of LaHood, being in the position of transportation authority, the risk of going “off message” is that his words can further damage the already tarnished Toyota image with consumers and be “officially” seen, per his position, as escalating fears of safety causing even the White House to issue a statement of confidence in the Secretary.  But, damage done.  Backtracking rarely works.

Here’s my advice: change the old adage of “Think before you speak” to “Read before you speak.” Helps to stay on message…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Today, the agency introduces a new channel on the corporate blog called “Digital Trenches,” which will feature tactical suggestions and guidance on trending digital communications and marketing topics including search optimization, social media, mobile marketing, online media and the blogosphere.

If you have ever sat through a tedious afternoon in a time-share sales presentation, just so that you could take advantage of the offer that came with it — a free weekend stay in Vegas or Reno, you will get the concept that is about to be launched by FreeAllMusic. This recycled version is about watching a 15-30 second video advertisement to get a free downloadable song of your choice.

That’s it! Spend 15 seconds to save 99¢ for a song download.  Doesn’t sound like much of a deal at first glance.

Still, when you consider that the company is testing offers of 15 to 20 free downloads per month, five per user session, it probably adds up to a compiled album of your choice — for free. Moreover, the site, which began as a test version a week ago and plans to open to the public within January, will allow the downloaded songs to be copied and shared, unencumbered by digital rights management restrictions.

Sounds great, that is, until Richard Nailling, chief executive of FreeAllMusic, got caught in print with negative messaging, saying that the service hopes to draw “casual pirates who, for whatever reason, are not paying for music,” and added, “we have made this process easier than stealing.”

Really? Look pirating, stealing or free sharing of songs, has been around for a long time and this site is not about to police that, curtail it or grab pirates’ attention.  The thrill of pirating has always been about bucking the law.

Here’s what I would recommend for the CEO to focus on, in his pre-launch quotes:

Speak about the win-win situation in which advertisers can’t get ‘TiVoed’ out; users get the songs they want; and record labels get paid for the free songs by advertisers.  Speak about the two major labels that have already signed up and the six advertisers who are on board for the site’s debut this month, including Coca-Cola, Warner Bros, Zappos.com, etc.

Comment on the empowerment of the user as an “influencer,” for the new site will encourage them to post the details on their Facebook profiles and Twitter streams. And articulate to advertisers how this will extend virally into social networks like Facebook, for friends who opt to download the same song, must first also watch the same ad.

And then consider the odd side effect.  Actually watching an ad, can open up a whole new vista for the TiVo generation, which has never known the entertainment value of some of the TV commercials that had a profound effect on our culture in the 40′s through the 70′s and beyond — ads that to this day remain icons.

The 15-second forced viewing, may force advertisers, to rekindle creativity, to tell a story that engages viewers and binds them with the brand.  Advertisers just got lucky — and all for the love of music.

No need to help pirates go straight.  Just a need to get good messaging out.