Female Role Models XI

Dave Winer is a really smart guy.  The ideas he had decades ago help us share information online today.  If you've ever used an online news feed or a blog or subscribed to a podcast, you've likely benefited from Winer's work. Winer is also an advocate for some great causes in technology and communication - open source programming, innovation in journalism, and free speech.

But he really screwed up when he asked, "Why are there so few women programmers?"

OK, maybe not when he asked.  More like when he answered:

Now, I'm sure there is sexism, probably a lot of sexism. But I also think there's something about programming that makes many women not want to do it. Here's a theory why that might be.

Programming is a very modal activity. To be any good at it you have to focus. And be very patient. I imagine it's a lot like sitting in a blind waiting for a rabbit to show up so you can grab it and bring it home for dinner.

There is specialization in our species. It seems pretty clear that programming as it exists today is a mostly male thing. Which also raises the obvious question that perhaps we can make it so that it can better-use the abilities of the other half of our species?

And then, apparently oblivious to the irony:

I invite comment on this post, but be careful about saying derogatory things about whole genders, which btw, also includes my gender.

See, this is what happens when otherwise decent guys basically talk out of their ass.

OK, let's try the old "replace-a-word" trick to see how bad this is.  Replace "women" with "African-Americans" and "male" with "white."  After all, African-Americans make up a disproportionately small percentage of the field too.  If Winer said he's "sure there is racism, probably a lot of racism," but this is a "modal activity and to be any good at it you have to focus," and "there is specialization in our species" - we all know where Winer would be right now.  Or at least we'd know what creek he'd be up.

I'm also pretty sure coding isn't the only job that requires patience and focus. For example,  Veterinary medicine is majority female and it's trending even more female, given stats for vet school enrollment.

Of course, I might have trouble "focusing" if one of the biggest names in the history of my field suspects there may be something to my biology that keeps me from being any good at it. For that matter, I might have trouble focusing if I had to endure rape threats and death threats (not to mention a pink slip) if I call people out on their penis jokes at professional conferences.  In fact, I might just go find another line of work.

To his credit, Winer updated his post with a strikethrough and acknowledged "this was not a well written post." He later wrote a clarifying post of sorts - not an apology, but an explanation that "I write what occurs to me" along with a shout-out to his mom.

In what I think was an attempt to be helpful, or at least a peace offering, he tweeted out a link to Girls Who Code.  And that's when Winer and I had an exchange:

Girls Who Code. http://t.co/mSheCJSa5X
— Dave Winer ☮ (@davewiner) August 20, 2013

@davewiner I was kinda wondering when you would tweet that link. I think the question is do you want to be part of the solution?
— David Wescott (@dwescott1) August 20, 2013

@dwescott1 -- that's fairly condescending.
— Dave Winer ☮ (@davewiner) August 20, 2013

@davewiner so was your blog post.
— David Wescott (@dwescott1) August 20, 2013

@dwescott1 -- from your point of view. from mine it was inquisitive.
— Dave Winer ☮ (@davewiner) August 20, 2013

@davewiner OK. bottom line I think we both want to see more women in STEM, particularly coding. how do you do it?
— David Wescott (@dwescott1) August 20, 2013

And that's where we ended.

Winer may not have a lot to say about solutions, but I have some ideas. First, we change the mindset.  If it - ahem - "occurs" to you that the reason women don't do something may be because that something is hard, you probably want to review your thought process a little bit.  For a long time men thought voting was too complicated and profound a task for members of the weaker sex, so prone to flights of fancy or delicate distractions. The same was said about careers in law or medicine. Now apparently it's coding.  Winer is now saying he doesn't care what non-programmers think because programming is so hard and equating his critics with opponents of free speech.  Seriously. Enough already.

Second, confront sexism wherever it exists, especially in the workplace.  Work today is hard enough without people doing everything from suggesting you're not capable to hitting on you to threatening to kill you. When Winer wrote what occurred to him, it's good that people slammed him for it.  (Ironically, I see no examples of someone saying he doesn't have the right to speak, at least not on that thread.)

Third, recognize and celebrate those who bust stereotypes in the workplace (and elsewhere) and serve as role models.  These are the people who show the dudes they can do the work, and give younger people someone to emulate.  People who, as I've said ten times before:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

People like:

Gina Trapani. She's apparently a friend of Winer's who chalks this whole mess up to a "bad day" that has apparently stretched into a few days now. She founded lifehacker. She's a programmer and and a podcaster and an entrepreneur. And yes, she's smart enough to write code.

Zerlina Maxwell. She's a lawyer, a writer for a bunch of different sites like The Grio, and an advocate for women who have experienced domestic violence.  She's the woman who went on FOX News and said that maybe men should take responsibility for their own actions when it comes to rape - and then got rape threats from men online.  She hasn't backed down - she's experienced domestic violence and she spends her time trying to make it easier for others who have experienced it as well.

Andrea Kuszewski. Not only is she an outstanding curator on Google+, She's an expert in cognitive neuroscience and particularly good at looking at how different types of people think.  I thought that might be especially relevant for this post. She also tells me that the peer-reviewed research that looks at differences in how women and men think suggests women are more patient. Funny how that works.

Darlene Cavalier. Just another one of those perky blonde cheerleaders.  We all know the type, right?  The one with the masters degree from the Ivy League school, the emmy-award winning series, the gig at Discover Magazine, and the business startup?  Dime a dozen.  Darlene has devoted her career to improving science literacy and encouraging young people, particularly young women, to go into STEM careers.

Worlds collide on Loos Tales

Yes, he really wears this stuff everywhere

A couple of months ago I returned to my "old Kentucky home" and the Alltech 29th International Symposium in Lexington. It's a wonderful event - the largest (and arguably most diverse) conference in Kentucky each year - and it's put together by a relentlessly entrepreneurial, socially conscious and hard-working group of people.  I'm proud to have done some work for them.

I was at the Symposium to give a couple of presentations and attend a discussion dinner on crisis communications.  While there, a friend from Alltech asked me to appear on a radio show hosted by one of the people there covering the event, presumably to talk about crisis communications and how agriculture companies can do a better job talking with consumers. The radio host's name was Trent Loos - I hadn't heard of him before.  "You'll like Trent," my friend said. "He's... interesting."  He said he would introduce me ahead of time and do the show the next morning.  Oh, and he told Trent that I spent some time working for Senator Ted Kennedy, and that piqued Trent's curiosity.

I met Trent that night.  He looked like he just walked off the set of The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly - apart, of course, from the nametag he wore that said, "Catherine Keogh, Chief Marketing Officer, Alltech." He sauntered into the discussion dinner, telling the young Hungarian woman who was checking the list of pre-registered attendees that his name was "Dick Cheney" as he walked by.  (It took a minute for the woman to realize what had happened.)  He spent the evening peppering people he hadn't met with questions that seemed more like statements out of the "Things We Say To Annoy Liberals Handbook."  He wasn't thrilled with the "socialist" systems they have over in Europe and didn't mind telling the Europeans in the room about that.  He was even less thrilled with the regulations "Obama is imposing" on American farmers, and with people who "don't know a thing" about how food is made but keep telling farmers how to do their jobs.  Oh, and it's totally cool to eat horses.  Yes, Trent said this in Lexington Kentucky, "Horse Capital of the World."  And yet everyone in the room thought he was funny and charming - even me.

After the dinner, I sheepishly went up to Trent and asked him what he wanted to talk about in the morning. "I don't know," he said. "I'm sure we'll think of something."

So later that night I checked out Trent's website and learned he's on 100 radio stations with an audience of 3 million people. Gulp.

The next morning I went on his show - and he started off by introducing me as a "crisis communicator." Fair enough, I thought, we're gonna talk shop.  I can do this.  First crisis he wanted to talk about?  Newly-elected Congressman, Mark "hiking the Appalachian Trail" Sanford.  So I knew where this was going, and I basically walked right into the question about Senator Kennedy.  Then he started talking about his history of controversy with Robert Kennedy Jr. and made a few sweeping statements that made me think he was trying to push my buttons - things like "men make better leaders than women" -  and comparing the plight of Governor Sarah Palin to that of Secretary Hillary Clinton, and so on.  So I started thinking I was talking with a Rush Limbaugh clone in a cowboy hat.  Even when I agreed with him he said, "well, I don't want to talk about that anymore." The sixth-generation farmer from Nebraska was just looking for an argument with the  liberal Bostonian PR flack to entertain his predominantly rural, conservative audience.

In other words, he was doing his job.  And by not getting tripped up or too emotional about it, I was doing mine.

But then something really weird happened.  We started finding substantive common ground on really important issues and ideas.  Things like how crises are opportunities to show your mettle as a leader. Or how too many people ignore sound science when it comes to making decisions about food or food policy.   Or how an emotionally-driven insistence on certain farming practices can ultimately hurt animals, people, and the environment in the long run.  Most importantly, I think we agree on this - we will never solve the world's most pressing problems if the only people we talk to think exactly the way we do.

I think that's why the premise of Trent's show, Rural Route Radio, is bringing urban and rural perspectives together.  It's why Trent has had me back on his show twice now.  Once he had me on with a doctor and researcher from Texas to talk about how the mainstream media sometimes botches science reporting. Earlier this week he had me on with a farmer from Kansas to talk about everything from feed additives to global food markets to rodeo clowns.

That's also why I've written so much about the single greatest threat to the human race - homophily. It's why I follow smart-but-not-famous thinkers like Ethan Zuckerman and  Alice Marwick.  It's why I think it's so important for a liberal Bostonian PR flack like me to talk with and listen to moms, scientists, political activists of all stripes, environmentalists, and farmers.

So yeah, Trent may look and act the part and he may spout the typical right-wing talking points from time to time.  But there's no doubt in my mind that he's sincere about solving problems and about preserving and protecting a way of life that has served him and the generations before him very well.  More importantly, there are very few people today who actively seek out perspectives they don't share with the intent of having an honest, substantive discussion. In my experience at least, Trent is one of those people.

Tell you what, though - if he ever disses the Red Sox on his show I'm gone.

Global business has a huge gay problem

The organizers of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi have good news for makers of packaged dairy products - they're looking for a corporate partnership. It's an opportunity to associate a brand with an event that celebrates the highest ideals of the human condition - excellence, respect, friendship - and gain instant and overwhelming brand exposure on a global scale.  

As is often the case with international sporting events, however, the laws or behavior of the host country have raised serious concerns.  This time, it's a new law in Russia that outlaws spreading "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations."  There is another new law that can send you to jail for three years for "offending religious feelings." In effect, you can be arrested in Russia for appearing in public with your gay partner, giving a public display of affection, wearing a rainbow flag pin, or simply speaking your mind on this issue.   President Obama criticized the law recently on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

My longtime friend John Aravosis has been all over this issue for some time now.  He's pointed out that the Russian Sports Minister has said athletes who violate this law will be arrested and he's helped lead an effective PR campaign against Russian brands in response.  He's documented violence against gay people in Russia since the law was passed and he's highlighted the plight of gay olympic athletes in the Games next year.

But here's the thing - athletes are actually a small minority of the people who go to the Olympic Games in an official capacity.  They're vastly outnumbered by staff, media, and sponsor representatives.  Prominent athletes such as Johnny Weir are actually protected by their celebrity.  He's not going to be carried away in handcuffs for kissing his partner after winning a medal.

But that young, unknown  foreigner working in a sponsor's hospitality booth might. And that arrest may be captured on a cell phone video, and shared worldwide.  And that person's employer will have a lot of difficult questions to answer.

Now that the Russian law is getting more attention and the Russian Sports Minister's comments are on the record, any "packaged dairy products" company that partners with the Games will clearly be making a judgement call on the merits of brand exposure versus human rights.  Good luck with that.

The companies that have already announced partnerships with the 2014 Games may have a little bit of an "out" from a reputation perspective - they can say they're already locked into an agreement, that they oppose the law, they have a track record on human rights, and so on.  But even they will have to provide employees with some information or messaging that will run counter to their professed values.

People who attend the Olympics on behalf of a sponsor will get the typical "here's how you stay safe in a foreign country" handbook and the "you're here to represent the brand, not make a political statement" lecture.  But companies are going to have to tell their employees who work at the Games things like "if you're gay, please be discreet."  They will have to advise against the kinds of words and actions that straight people take for granted. They may even suggest that gay employees not take part.  That's not going to sit well with employees or many consumers.

If a sponsor's employee is arrested under the new law, it's going to create a new, unique set of challenges for that company.  There's an obvious and important need to follow the laws of the countries where you operate. But legal compliance and reputation defense aren't always aligned.  So here are some things companies can do ahead of time to mitigate a crisis:

• Review company anti-discrimination policies and other rules that affect GLBT employees. If you're leaving someone out, you better have a good reason for it.  John Aravosis and his colleagues will be taking a look, and he will be telling your customers.
• Have your code of conduct for the Games reviewed by general counsel AND by your communications staff.  These internal messages are bound to get noticed by people outside the company.  Make sure you're not saying anything that could get misconstrued. 
• Let your employees and customers voice their concerns.  Have a personal presence in the company and online to make sure people know who you are and that you care. Give direct, specific and personalized answers to direct, specific and personalized questions. 
• Most importantly, BUILD RELATIONSHIPS NOW. Know the legal system in Russia, the security apparatus for the Games, the appropriate staff at the relevant embassies and consulates.  Make sure if there's a legal issue you're ready to deal with it.  Furthermore, get to know the leading voices in the mainstream, GLBT, and digital media on these issues.  Ask to talk with them to share what you're about.  Don't introduce yourself to an opinion leader by asking for something or trying to explain yourself.  

Right now is the time to act.  Not next year.  Right now.

Informed opinions: surplus to requirements?

How Americans view climate scientists

My brilliant pal Jamie Vernon alerted me to a column written by Tamsin Edwards, a climate scientist at the University of Bristol entitled "Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies." I really don't mean to insult someone who has clearly done so much to help educate people on this critical issue, but I just can't endorse her approach to policy.

I hope you read the entire piece because I don't want to be accused of taking quotes out of context, but here are some of the "high" points.  Dr. Edwards writes:

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence...

Even scientists who are experts – such as those studying the interactions between climate, economy and politics, with "integrated assessment models" – cannot speak for us because political decisions necessarily depend on values...

To me, then, it is simple: scientists misuse their authority if they publicise their preferred policy options. 

To be fair, I can't tell if Dr. Edwards is only applying this argument to climate scientists.  I don't know where she stands on the American Academy of Pediatrics' advocacy for mandatory vaccines to enter public schools, or the National Science Teachers Association's public position on teaching evolution and not creationism in public schools, or even Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson's public opposition to cuts in NASA's budget.  Maybe she thinks these specific policy issues aren't multifaceted or don't require "values" to debate.

I do agree with Dr. Edwards about something: trust in science has been diminished in the debate over climate.  But it's for two specific reasons.  First, too many climate scientists are actually taking Dr. Edwards' advice and sitting out the difficult conversations where leaders hash out actual, specific solutions.  Second, the "advocacy" from many climate scientists has just plain sucked.  A disorganized group of people with little to no experience in communications or politics have prioritized mediocre tactics and scattershot messaging over a coherent and well-executed campaign strategy. In my experience as a communications professional, I think you lose virtually all your credibility not by having a "skin in the game" or an interest to disclose, but by outlining a problem without suggesting a solution.

Meanwhile, climate science's opponents have virtually no credible analysis on their side, yet they continue to just plain crush this community through a multi-faceted campaign of mass communication, obfuscation, intimidation, and lobbying.

Sadly, I think essays like the one written by Dr. Edwards is just the latest example of climate scientists being figuratively beaten into submission. Standing up for your beliefs is a courageous thing to do, and we need those who have the most knowledge on this topic to stand with us.

Reporting abuse on Twitter and owning your words

I guess Jane Austen gets some fellas all rapey.

At least that's what Caroline Criado-Perez learned when she led an online campaign to put Austen's likeness on the back of a 10-pound banknote in the UK.  Her successful online petition to put Austen on the note got her more than 50,000 signatures - and about 50 rape threats an hour via Twitter for two days.  One man has been arrested so far.  It's as if some guys took a look at the countless stories in the Everyday Sexism project and decided to prove it could always be worse.

As angry as Ms. Criado-Perez is at the men who sent threats, she was even more upset with Twitter - because the social network's "report abuse" function is cumbersome and the overwhelming volume of harassment basically forced her off the platform.   So Twitter is responding by adding a "report abuse" button on all its platforms (the iPhone client already has this feature).

Of course, as the Daily Dot points out in this excellent piece, this idea has pros and cons. Trolls already use this feature on other social networks to their advantage, inundating their targets with hundreds of false reports. Trolls who see their accounts blocked simply create new ones. Twitter will quickly find itself inundated with requests to review thousands of tweets in dozens of languages every day.

Ultimately I think we will all be hurt by this. We are so caught up in the information age of the 21st Century that we've forgotten what Daniel Webster said in 1847: "Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint."

First, we will likely see another attempt to hold these chuckleheads accountable by outing them - like what Adrian Chen did to "violentacrez" or the Predditors idea or the occasional "racists on Twitter" piece at Jezebel. I'm waiting for someone to publicize an outing and shaming site with users on LinkedIn, where it will probably have the greatest effect. Imagine being a recruiter with this kind of resource - suddenly able to cross-reference anyone who applies for an opening with the creepy photos he took or the sexist rants he launched on Facebook or Twitter.  I already ask a question to every person I interview for a job at my company - "is there anything on any of your social media profiles that you wouldn't want a client to see?" (I don't ask for passwords or anything like that.) This may become part of a standard background check.

Of course, there will be another backlash to this.  Some will say, rightfully or not, "it wasn't me."  Worse, we will again see the DDoS attacks and other hacks that can bring down the sites of entire companies - like what happened to SendGrid, the company that used to employ Adria Richards until she tweeted a picture of two guys at a professional conference who were being less than professional back in March. One of those guys lost his job, and the men's rights hacker collective demanded an eye for an eye.  Richards may be seeking legal recourse with the company, but I haven't seen her say anything online since.

Ultimately, we will lose more of what's left of our online privacy.  We already (often unwittingly) surrender our location, political affiliation, shopping preferences, religious beliefs, financial information, and even our health history to any number of companies.   It's not that hard to find even more information, even if you don't use your real name online - just as Jezebel did.   More people will learn how to employ these tactics, leading to more "outings" over more perceived transgressions.

There is, of course, a possible way out.  I always think of Liz Gumbinner when I mention it, though Kristen Chase, Julie Marsh and Susan Getgood deserve credit as well.

Own your words.

That's the mantra of the project they started years ago called Blog With Integrity.  I suppose it's the online equivalent of "I'm David Wescott and I approve this message."

The next time you see someone making a threat or an overtly sexist or racist remark online - even if it's not directed toward you - just ask them to share their real name and where you might follow up on the discussion.  Ask them if it's so important to rape someone would they share who they really are. Maybe share something about themselves so we can understand their perspective, like where they go to school or where they work or live. Ask them to have the courage of their convictions.  Ask them if they're willing to have a civil discussion in an open forum with people who may or may not think the way they do. If their ideas are valid and reasoned, perhaps they could enlighten the rest of us.

Just ask them, and see what they say.  After all, everyone knows what Caroline Criado-Perez thinks, and she's willing to put her reputation on the line for her ideas. Do her critics hold themselves to that standard?

Perhaps I'm being naive.  I'd love to know what others think.

Personal accountability, crisis communication and the Patriots

Is there more to it than rings?

UPDATE: Consensus from the media is that Belichick did a very good job and put a lot of questions to rest.  I doubt the questions will stop, and the organization still has some work to do with internal communications and community relations.  But it seems as though there's been a turning point.

A lot of people think the coach of the New England Patriots has some explaining to do.  He will have his chance this Wednesday at 2pm when he meets the media a couple of days before training camp starts for the New England Patriots.

Many Americans and most American sports fans are aware of the horrific crimes that authorities allege former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez committed earlier this year. However it's not the only challenge to confront this team in the offseason. The so-called "Patriots Way" of obtaining talented players with questionable backgrounds at a discounted price has backfired in the worst possible fashion. So once again we have a crisis communications case study from the world of sports unfolding before us.

So far I think the team's reaction to the crisis has been pretty good, though not perfect.  They took quick and decisive action at an appropriate time, even though they would take a larger "salary cap" hit by doing so, making them a bit less competitive on the field.  They made a (largely symbolic) act of contrition by holding an event where fans could trade in their Aaron Hernandez jerseys for the jerseys of other team members.  Most importantly, the CEO made a public statement that was sincere and candid, acknowledging shortcomings and promising changes.

Where they've fallen short, however, is in the area of transparency. Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, who everyone knows makes the decisions on personnel, has had nothing to say about the Hernandez case (or about the other player with serious legal troubles, cornerback Alfonso Dennard). The team also came very close to signing another player with an, ahem, gun problem before backing out at the last minute.  They haven't said why. 

So I think it's smart to have the coach talk to the media about this ahead of camp, address the issues now, and eliminate the distraction as much as possible. However, Belichick isn't known for his warmth and grace at the podium or on the field. He's earned a reputation as someone who refuses to share information and stonewalls the media as much as possible. 

I think Belichick needs to strike a careful balance here. He has a lot of audiences to worry about. Players want to see a man who won't sell them out if they get into trouble. Fans want to see wins, but the community at large wants to know the coach understands he made a huge mistake here.  Further, the team could still get sued for any number of reasons. The team wants to draw a line between what they should have known and not just what they shouldn't but what they couldn't.

If the coach does what he's typically done on controversial topics - basically evade the question with a throwaway phrase like "I can only talk about the players that are here" - his reputation will rightfully get crushed.  This one is different. Someone is dead. If the coach begs off like that, the media will immediately go to the victim's family for a reaction. I think the coach will acknowledge the situation and express his sympathies for the victim's family.  I think he may acknowledge that he messed up, and he may echo what his boss said about re-evaluating how they evaluate players,  though I doubt he will get into detail.  I'm not convinced that's enough, but we will see.   Specifically, I think someone will ask him about how he holds himself accountable, and I think Belichick will defer to his boss. 

Finally, I'm very curious to know how the team has handled internal communication - not just to players but to all the employees.  Hernandez may be the player with the worst offense, but he's certainly not the first player on the team with a troubled history of violence. Employees deserve to know that they work in a safe environment, and that the leadership of the team isn't looking the other way with a maniac just because he can catch a football. I'm a bit surprised this hasn't come up.

We will see what happens Wednesday...

I'm a sucker for a good story.

And David put his hand in his bag, and thence took a stone...

Always have been.

One of my favorite stories is, obviously, the story of the 2004 Boston Red Sox. Specifically, the American League Championship Series, starting late in game 4.  The Yankees had just beaten the Red Sox in three straight games - none of them terribly close - and they were poised to win their decisive fourth game and move on to the World Series. The Yankees had the lead in the ninth inning, and brought on their closer, Mariano Rivera, possibly the greatest relief pitcher to ever play the game.  Mighty Goliath stood on the mound, but an overmatched Kevin Millar somehow managed to draw a walk.  Then speedy David Roberts replaced Millar as a pinch runner, and off Roberts went, stealing second as if he had just been shot from a sling. The story continues with an improbable run of four straight wins by the Red Sox, complete with examples of heroism and symbolism and colorful characters and the good guys winning and lessons on perseverance and tenacity and good humor and all that.

The best part of the story, of course - it actually happened.  It's all verifiable. If it weren't true, well, it wouldn't be much of a story.

Virginia Heffernan has a favorite story too, arguably even better than the 2004 Red Sox.  It's one of the greatest stories ever written. It's so good it's been around in one form or another for thousands of years. It's so good that we use characters and vignettes from it as our metaphors and everyone knows what we're talking about.  People cite the story when they're building hospitals or volunteering in homeless shelters or growing the food we all eat or searching for a cure for AIDS.  The story provides some answers for all the big questions like how we got here and why. And, apparently, Ms. Heffernan thinks that stories this amazing, stories like this that have stood the test of time, really have to be at least somewhat true - at least this story, anyway.  Even if you really can't prove that any of the specific details actually happened.  Plenty of very smart people basically think the same thing.

Heffernan is exceptionally smart - especially when it comes to knowing a good story.  You can't fake your way to a Harvard Ph.D. in anything. She has an accomplished career as a critic.  She writes good stories, too - both fact (the script of a documentary about Matthew Shepard) and fiction (The Underminer).  I think Heffernan is smart enough to understand that while a good story is typically better when it's true, not all great stories have to be.  Further, I think Heffernan understands the problems she creates for herself when we discount things that are verifiable because we like the better story.

George Zimmerman believed a compelling story too, one he heard for years.  He believed the story that says there are good guys and bad guys - and bad guys act a certain way and maybe even look a certain way. He bought totally into that narrative, and he thought of himself as one of the good guys. He believed the story that says people have to stand up for their communities against people who don't belong there.  I'd even bet that some of the characters or metaphors in Heffernan's favorite story show up from time to time in Zimmerman's story.

He believed that story so much that he had to be the "hero" and ignore instructions from the police to stay in his car.  He believed that story so much that a jury just determined that he legitimately feared for his life when he encountered a teenager armed only with an iced tea and some skittles, and shot him in the chest. Zimmerman's "heart was in the right place," according to a juror.  After all, this is the power of a good story too.

Heffernan isn't Zimmerman, I know.  But Zimmerman is a salient, tragic example of what can happen when we don't try to verify facts, when we simply buy into the compelling narrative, and we act on those beliefs. After all, that same story Heffernan and so many of us love so much has been cited to justify all sorts of unspeakable crimes as well.

When Heffernan "outed" herself as a creationist of sorts, she got the extra helping of snarky indignation and hyper-analysis from the science community you'd expect. Scientists and their advocates were, in my view, justifiably angry.  I understand the frustration but honestly I thought it wasn't constructive. Because the backlash to the backlash started up just as quickly, and here we go again.  It reminded me of the time the Miss USA pageant contestants were asked about teaching evolution in schools and then they got mocked. It wasn't until some friends and I got together to provide an actual, alternative answer from some pretty incredible women that anyone did anything constructive about it.   And even then, that pageant video has been viewed more than a million times and the snarky response more than 2 million times.  Our thoughtful response has been viewed only 45,000 times.

So since it's now in fashion to spout controversial beliefs that some people won't like, here's mine.

Science needs Virginia Heffernan.

Seriously, it does. Science needs better storytellers.  Sure, we have some people who tell great stories - folks like Maryn McKenna, Ed Yong, and Deborah Blum. We have plenty of people who can tell those smaller-scale stories like why a curveball curves or how a chameleon changes colors. But Heffernan understands the elements of a great narrative.  She understands the impact of a story on a society, on a culture. She knows how to push people's buttons. She has relationships with top-tier media people. She's smart. She's credible with people scientists don't always reach.  She can help us craft the stories we need to craft to inspire young people, improve the quality of life of people everywhere, and even save lives.

The stakes are as high as they've ever been.  Right now, parents aren't vaccinating their kids because they like the story that actress spins about autism. School-age girls are getting pregnant because our "comprehensive" sex education isn't all that comprehensive - thanks in no small part to the people who take Ms. Heffernan's favorite story really seriously.  People are investing in buildings right on the coastline even though we know the coastline will be further inland in a matter of years. And yes, we're failing our children by not giving them the education they need to succeed in high-skill, high-wage life science jobs.

I think science has all the necessary elements of an overwhelming, awe-inspiring narrative. It has characters millions of people don't know about but should.  It has history, conflict, heroes and villains, miracles, and everything else a great story needs.

Plus it's true. And we can prove it. We need someone as smart and talented as Virginia Heffernan to help us tell the story.

There, I said it.

Saying 'I'm sorry' is the first step...

He should charge $350 an hour

There sure have been some interesting apologies in the news lately - some good, some mediocre, some really bad.  They're all case studies in crisis communications - a discipline that can be rather lucrative for PR folks like me.

As these stories have played out we've also seen a lot of analysis  of just how well the bad actors have apologized.  As someone who provides counsel in this niche of communications from time to time, I'm often surprised at just how often people mess this up. More specifically, I'm surprised at how often people overthink it.

If you have a preschool-age kid you're probably familiar with Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood - the cartoon evolution of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood from PBS.  They use anecdotes and catchy little songs to help teach our little ones some basic life lessons and strategies.

My personal favorite Daniel Tiger song: "Saying I'm sorry is the first step - then how can I help?"

For brands, individuals, and organizations, crisis communications is really that simple.  The biggest pitfalls in crisis communications happen when people complicate things beyond what you tell 4-year-olds.

Of course I realize lawyers get involved, and there can be a lot of money at stake.  Of course people may think the whole story isn't out there, or even that they did nothing wrong.

In each of these examples, though, someone did or said something clearly wrong.  Kickstarter apologized, changed its policies, and made a more-than-symbolic gesture of contrition. They actually gained esteem as a result.

Ron Lindsay sincerely apologized but did nothing more.  The response has basically been "ok, let's move on," but those offended by his comments have actually suggested a way he could help - supporting a future conference - and I don't know that we've heard anything from Lindsay on that.

Paula Deen used the words "I'm sorry" - but somewhat less than convincingly, and she's clearly not interested in finding out how she can help.  If anything, she seems to think she's the one owed an apology, describing those who have made claims against her as "evil." And she continues to lose esteem - and money.

Seriously, Daniel Tiger's on to something.

Female Role Models X

Forgive me for not writing this sooner - I was in Ireland doing very important things like learning how they make Guinness.

So some double-chinned right-wing political hack whined about more women earning more money and times were so much better when June fetched Ward's slippers and brandy each night and things are so much worse now because of women with hairy armpits or something.  I'm honestly not that worked up about it because I've seen this guy before and he's basically had nothing useful to say about anything ever.

But then the Internet exploded and this guy got all kinds of facetime on TV and was a focal point on all the very serious political magazines - and of course all that did was reinforce the idea that the more stupid you sound, the more attention you get.

So it's time once again to respond to this garbage in the way I think we all should - celebrate some female role models you may not know right now but hopefully will soon.  This is the tenth installment of this series, but to refresh your memory here's the very vague criteria I use:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

If you want to see all the role models I've featured you can check out the blog page or my FMR pinboard.   This edition's role models include:

Emily Finke.  The first thing you may notice about Emily is she kinda looks like Bat Girl.  Or maybe someone out of a Steampunk novel. But even if you aren't awed by her mad cosplay skilz, talking with Emily you quickly realize this forensic anthropologist/science communicator/feminist is really smart and always doing something to improve the lives of others. She challenges people to think of new and different things in new and different ways.

Carrie Mess.  People need to know more about where their food comes from.  That's where Dairy Carrie comes in.  She's a dairy farmer and a prolific blogger.  Dairy farming today isn't just waking up to sit on a stool and milk the cows. There is a TON of science and logistics and business and even politics involved.  It's long, hard work.  I met Carrie at the Alltech Symposium and I was struck not only by her friendly demeanor but by how accessible she makes the complicated subject of dairy farming.  She's a great ambassador for her industry.  My science communication friends could learn a lot from her.

Heather Barmore. I must really admire Heather because I rarely say nice things about Yankees fans.  She's an education lobbyist who shuttles between Albany and New York.  She's built a sizeable following on political issues and she's quite partisan - but because she runs with the BlogHer crowd more than the Netroots crowd she has great pals across the political spectrum.  That's a hard thing to pull off these days.  Her blog isn't just political rants, either - her writing displays more thoughtfulness, productive introspection, and courage than you typically find in personal/political blogs.

Cecily Kellogg. The Uppercase Woman is smart, outspoken, and fearless.  When she's not giving you excellent tips on how to improve your writing online or demonstrating that she's already figured out the online marketing tools you'll read about in the tech press next week, Cecily is taking on really tough issues and sharing all of the facets of family life.  You know Cecily is influential and important because she has critics who don't like her outspoken nature, they let her know about it, and yet she keeps doing her thing. Oh, and she has pink hair.

Yes, she really had to die.

An artist's interpretation of a crisis.  Sorry, Betty.

This week I led a mini-crisis simulation at the Alltech 29th Annual International Symposium panel on crisis management.  On the panel were three people who had outstanding reputations in this area - Gavin Megaw, Liz Kynoch, and Pat Wall.

If you're not familiar with a crisis simulation, it's typically when you get a bunch of people who are responsible for leading an organization and you walk them through a fictional catastrophe to see how they'd react and hopefully discover weaknesses in your organization that you can shore up.  Most companies basically think of a crisis that involves a plant fire or something - typically they set up a phone tree, call 911, and let the authorities take over.

That's a terrible situation, but in my mind that's not a crisis.  I crisis is really a loss of control. Terrible things happen.  Sometimes people die.

So I wanted to think of something horrific at the introduction of the scenario - something that would get the audience's attention, and something that would have an instant and enormous impact online.

So I killed Betty White.  A few people actually chuckled, but if you know the Internet you know what this would do to Twitter.

Then I killed 32 people who were residents of a US-based nursing home chain.

Then another 45 in Brazil.

Then dozens more in the UK.

Of course, just before the slaughter of innocent grandparents, I got a volunteer to serve as the CEO of "Big Mama Foods," the company who made the food that killed them all.  Immediately after selecting the CEO, the audience went out for a coffee break - and the CEO was ambushed by a camera crew.  When the audience returned, they were treated to a video of a "breaking news" story - that dozens of people had been killed by food linked to Big Mama - and there was the CEO, who just moments ago was chatting and joking with everyone there, up on the screen trying to explain why Betty White and hundreds more just died.

The whole thing went from Betty to Television in about 7 minutes.

From there it got worse - recalls, lawsuits, boycotts, global trade embargoes.  Even Nancy Grace announced tonight's top story on Twitter - "Who Killed Betty White?"

By then, no one was laughing.  And I kept reminding people that something like this can really happen - because each segment of my scenario was based on something similar that actually did.

The good news is our CEO had a great board of advisors in Gavin, Liz and Pat - explaining what is happening at every stage of a very real and very public crisis. They talked about their roles as communicators, operations leaders, regulators, and scientists. They talked about all the people you have to keep informed - key customers, shareholders, regulators, the media, employees, and so on.

Gavin provided people with a great checklist, and the people at Alltech provided their own crisis management plans for everyone to look at.  Liz and Pat provided their leadership perspectives and advice.  I just really wanted to convey one thing - in the digital age, a crisis moves at breakneck speed.

The next day, I spoke with Trent Loos at Rural Route Radio about it in great detail. A crisis is a lot of things.  But to me, more than anything else a crisis is a chance to show the world your mettle. If you're prepared, the world will know.  If you're not, the world will know that too.

iCrisis, version 2.0

Three years ago I predicted the coming armageddon for brands by discussing databases and  highlighting the Good Guide mobile app.  If you haven't heard of it, that's the app where you scan the barcode of a box of cereal in a store with your smartphone and the app tells you that the cereal manufacturer "violated the Clean Water Act" or has some controversial ingredient in it. It also offers any number of "higher rated" substitute products that more closely meet the app founder's standards.  Back then I tried it and then I wrote:

And then I realized it's just a matter of time before I'm going to learn if a company discriminates against gay people, or is a union buster, or has a CEO that denies climate change, or has a political action committee that gives only to Republicans, or has a slew of OSHA violations, or doesn't pay any taxes, or has another product that's being recalled - ALL AT THE POINT OF SALE.

The good news about Good Guide is the database is responsibly curated - while the owners of the database are of the west-coast, granola-crunchy variety, they are at least open to discussion with people from other points of view or agendas.

That's all changed.  Welcome to Buycott, the new wild west of social activism.

This is the app brands should have spent the past three years preparing to address.  It's the app that has the best chance to politicize purchasing decisions more than we've ever seen.   It's deep enough to offer tools that sophisticated activists want, like a corporate "family tree" that lets you identify corporate partners and parent companies. It's open enough to let users crowd-source the database and it's social enough to let people start or join causes and specific boycotts.  And it's audacious enough to get good press.

So now when mom walks into a store, she has an entire social movement or two on her phone.  And she has so much more data at her fingertips than just three years ago.  The advice I gave three years ago, however, still applies:

So there are a few things companies should be doing YESTERDAY to protect their reputations and their brands:

• Upgrade your social media monitoring efforts to see what's written about you in all these mobile-accessed databases. Good Guide is a start. Make sure the info is accurate. Contact them if it's not. 

• Build relationships with the folks who make these databases and these apps. Understand their motivation, work with them to make sure you're presented in the best possible light. 

• Partner with credible organizations to build your own databases and applications. Support some of these groups by underwriting some of the cost, providing technical support, and letting them know they can work with you. 

•  Promote responsible efforts to give consumers all the information they want and need to make smart decisions. Consumers reward the companies that advocate for them. 

Or, sit back and wonder why people stopped buying your stuff.

Now it's a bit harder to build those relationships, but at least we know where to look.

My Old Kentucky Home

Fresh off my presentation at the Animal Agriculture Alliance and a quick stop in Chicago for an IPR/Page Society talk, I'm looking forward to heading back to Lexington, Kentucky next week for the Alltech 29th Annual International Symposium. I lived and worked in Lexington for five years and it will be great to catch up with some friends, clients, and colleagues.

The Symposium is interesting because it brings together companies from every link in the food supply and distribution chain, and you're just as likely to meet a lifelong farmer as you are a celebrated biochemist.  Of course, I wouldn't know the first thing to do on a farm or in a laboratory, but there's a place for me here too - the people who attend Symposium want people to understand the value of what they do, so communication plays an important role here.

I'm excited to serve on a pair of panels for the symposium - one on food marketing and branding, the other on crisis communications.  I confess I'm a little intimidated by the impressive reputations accomplishments of the other panelists (The crisis panel alone features Gavin Megaw, Liz Kynoch, and Patrick Wall), but I see my role on each panel as challenging convention a little bit. Without giving too much away, I want to bring the people at Symposium into direct, unfiltered contact with the people and the experiences I think they should care about most.   It's a bit of a gamble but the organizers and other panelists have indulged me so I'm very grateful.  

Of course, if the ideas flop everyone knows it's my fault, so I guess there's no pressure on them.  Stay tuned.

Sausages and laws and what's really important

I totally want a hat like that

There's a quote, typically attributed to Otto von Bismarck but likely not really his: "Laws are like sausages. It's better to not see them being made."

Tomorrow I'm speaking to the Animal Agriculture Alliance at their annual stakeholders event, this year headlined "Activists at the Door: Protecting Animals, Farms, Food and Consumer Confidence."  There has been a lot of talk lately about the new wave of "Ag-gag" laws in several states - laws designed to prevent "undercover" video of farming operations. I expect that's at least part of the reason for the title of the event.  But farms face all sorts of regulatory challenges - GMO labeling, cages, antibiotics, waste runoff, and so on.

I'm not really there to talk about any of that.  I'm going to talk about the issue they really need to fear - isolation.  There's a tendency in all communities that feel under siege from "outsiders" (in this case, animal rights activists and some public health advocates) to close ranks and talk only with each other.   As I've written before, doing so only radicalizes your own positions and makes you seem more extreme to the rest of us. Social media, for all its technological magnificence, has a tendency to make online communities even more insular.

I think a better way to address controversy is to reach out - to be even more transparent, more forthcoming of one's shortcomings and more committed to listening and responding with respect and relevance.  Not necessarily with activists who will never afford them the same courtesy (though that's not such a bad idea either), but with their true stakeholders - consumers.

That's why I'll be there with two really smart people who truly understand the perspective and priorities of smart consumers - Joanne Bamberger and Sarah Braesch.  Both are brilliant, entrepreneurial and dynamic.  They're effective speakers and more importantly, they're bridge figures - they understand the concerns of companies and brands and they have the credibility to convey those concerns effectively.

I've been doing online outreach for a number of years now and there aren't many people I've seen who do this better than Joanne and Sarah.  I'm really looking forward to the discussion, and I'll share more details when I can.

Time for another blogger ethics panel

It's been a long day, but I couldn't ignore what was a tough day on many levels:

sigh
— Columbia Jrn Review (@CJR) April 17, 2013

Earlier today CNN reported an arrest related to the Boston Marathon bombing.  Hours later they had to essentially retract their reporting.  Their big mistake - apparently they didn't ask the authorities on the record if there was any arrest before they broadcast their report.

These are the types of events I point to (the initial reports on the Supreme Court's Affordable Care Act ruling is another example) whenever I see people criticize social media channels as rumor mills.  The simple truth: Twitter has become the best breaking news tool humanity has ever seen. When Boston's hometown newspaper reported on the bombings at the marathon they simply converted their website to a Twitter stream.  But the most popular comment today on Twitter's value as a news tool appears to be this:

Twitter does its best work in the first five minutes after a disaster, and its worst in the twelve hours after that.
— Matt Roller (@rolldiggity) April 15, 2013

And yet the next day there was CNN rolling out a former Homeland Security Advisor and one of its signature journalists with ties to Boston getting the story completely wrong.  Obviously the stakes are much higher for a news network than a random guy with a twitter handle. So clearly CNN followed a process, got the requisite number of sources, and went ahead with their story.  But the great thing about Twitter today - if you have a question, you can just ask, just as the authorities will ask you for help.  Even the Boston Police Department gets this.

Rape threats and DDoS attacks: welcome to the new normal

After reading about what happened to Adria Richards last week, I was struck by a couple of things.

First, I wish we could spend even half as much time educating men on the etiquette of telling really stupid penis jokes in mixed company at professional conferences as, say, the time we spend sending death threats and rape threats to the woman who called out some guys for telling really stupid penis jokes in mixed company at a professional conference.

But that's just me.

Second, what happened to Adria Richards is the new normal.  And our profession is completely unprepared for it.

Cultural conflict has always been a part of business, and social media has intensified some conflicts. Most people in PR have a story about a client who offended a customer and the issue blow up on Twitter or Facebook.  But we're well beyond an angry tweet or a viral video now.  We're at the point where a 15-year-old kid with some basic computer skills and a little audacity can cripple a company or destroy a person's life.

A small group of even amateur hackers (or sometimes a single hacker) can bring down an industry's entire commerce platform for an indefinite time, or steal and share a company's trade secrets, or even publish a person's most private and sensitive information.

So while big companies can afford sophisticated defense systems, the same idiot-proofed digital technology that helps mid-sized and small companies compete on a global scale allows hackers to attack them.  And since startup companies don't have the resources to invest in hacker-proof systems (not that such a thing exists), they're easier targets.  Even tech companies, like, say, SendGrid.

The larger problem, however, is the cultural phenomenon that this same technology has accelerated - homophily. (I've written about homophily before.)

Digital technology has prompted consumers to curate their own news streams and collect the information that fits their interest and their world view.  People organize into groups that reflect those interests and world views - like Facebook groups, boards on Reddit or 4chan, and so on.  When people do this, they form very tight-knit communities that share deep and rich experiences with each other.  The more time they spend with each other and not with anyone else, they also develop skewed perspectives of reality, and they grow more strident in those views, especially when challenged.

Professor Alice Marwick put it really well as she examined the recent controversy: "When people with likeminded beliefs congregate together, they collectively move to a more extreme position."

What's more, online forums often provide a modicum of anonymity to the people who gather there.  Anonymity can certainly provide a safe haven for a whistleblower or a victim - but it also provides an easy out for those who want to avoid accountability. When you don't own your words, you can say anything you want - and push that community to that more extreme position.

And so we get an anonymous comment to Dr. Marwick's piece, calling her an "attention-seeking drama queen with an agenda" and another saying she's an "overly sensitive publicity seeker." Yet somehow techies with aggressively-cultivated personal brands like Robert Scoble, David Winer, CC Chapman, Dave Taylor, Jason Falls, Jason Calcanis, Michael Arrington, or Leo Laporte can make any number of provocative statements or public "call-outs" on "minor" things without receiving a single rape threat.  Tell a woman that they should keep things quiet and polite and many will tell you - without hiding behind a sophomoric pseudonym like "A Canned Ham" - that it doesn't work.

So as people with homophily-enhanced anger issues and reasonable technical skills decide to attack our clients (remember, SendGrid got attacked in this fiasco as well), PR firms and professionals have a lot of work to do.

First, we have to add strong security expertise to our firms and our professional offerings, or at least to our networks, to fight off the basic attacks we can easily predict.  Most of us aren't anywhere close to where we need to be.  We need people who can effectively translate security concepts and practices to the worlds of PR, strategic communications, and marketing.  I think the list starts with Jennifer Leggio, and there are others.

Second, we have to provide the right kind of training for PR professionals to help recognize and address these issues - recognizing that the companies most at risk are the small/mid-sized startup types who, if they have outside PR help at all, tend to use a sole practitioner or a small firm. I can see someone like  Kellye Crane working with experts on this and providing this kind of training to solo PR's as well as big firms.

Third, we have to revolutionize our social media monitoring.  Keyword searches that give you yesterday's Twitter mentions don't cut it.  We need digital explorers who have no fear of joining new and unfamiliar communities to learn what's really happening - so they can provide subjective, predictive counsel to a client and the rest of the team.  I'm not talking about a covert operation here, posing as an activist or lurking in a chat room.  I'm talking about transparent entry with sincere gestures of goodwill and even advocacy when appropriate. (OK, that's pretty much what I like to do.)

Finally - and this is the long-term, big picture, probably-impossible-but-we-still-have-to-try thing - we must work with people like Dr. Marwick to develop strategies that overcome the negative impacts of homophily. We will never resolve certain conflicts and we will have tribalism as long as we have tribes. But if PR firms can't figure out a way to more effectively take what we know about "third party validators"or business diplomacy and apply it to the most provincial online communities, if we can't prod our clients to get out of the bunker when things get tough, if we decide writing off entire communities is less expensive than building allies and understanding, then we've failed our clients and we've failed ourselves.

World Kidney Day

In honor of a brilliant colleague who has been a long-time advocate for kidney health, I'm pleased to recognize World Kidney Day by sharing an infographic from our client, AMAG Pharmaceuticals.  She's been working on a campaign to help educate people with Chronic Kidney Disease on how to recognize the symptoms of iron deficiency anemia and what you can do about it.

I don't typically share items like this on the blog here, but I'll make an exception in this case because the infographic is very well done and I know my friend and colleague would want me to.  Here's hoping everyone can make informed health decisions.

This above all: to thine own self be true

A science communicator friend of mine teaches a class at NC State and asked me to talk with them next week.  His students are a mix of undergrads in different majors - journalism, PR, and so on. He asked me to talk about how the skills or principles we use in PR can translate into other careers.  Here's an outline of what I plan to say.  And yes, this may be on the final exam or something.

It's probably important to explain what Public Relations is - not that my definition of it is any more useful than anyone else's. The Public Relations Society of America says it's "a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."   I tend to think of it in less fancy terms - PR is how we bridge the gaps between what we say, what we mean, and what we do. 

To me, the first rule in PR - or in any facet of communication, for that matter - is know your audience.  Learn their goals, their preferences, their taboos, their language.  Show them the respect of investing your time into knowing a little bit about them. Discover what you have in common. Persuasion is often about finding shared perspectives and building trust.  Further, a little up-front research can help you avoid the really stupid mistakes. Of course, I think today the word "audience" should probably be replaced with the word "community" - because an audience tends to be more passive and receives information, while today technology helps people talk back. (There's a reason I call this blog It's Not a Lecture.) 

Second, and again, this is nearly universal - tell a good story. Not everybody does this well, and I'm not convinced there's a set formula for success. However, to me the best stories engage quickly, surprise you a bit, and contain an unmistakable element of truth. The more you do it, the better you get at it.  I think the more you know your audience the better chance your story will be good, but there is a creative skill set that goes along with storytelling. Some people have it, some people don't. 

Finally, and this is a bit more important to my field than to others - understand that when your job doesn't let you communicate in the way you'd prefer, you have to stay true to yourself.  

Organizations generally don't hire PR firms because they just can't find enough time to talk about puppies and sunshine. They may hire PR firms because they often do things that are hard to understand - they involve a lot of accounting lingo or policy wonkery or scientific terminology. They may hire PR firms because they actually did the things their critics accuse them of doing. They may hire PR firms because something very, very bad happened. 

If you're in crisis PR, as I sometimes am, a lot of what you do is defense. Sometimes you can't say a lot because there's an ongoing lawsuit or an investigation. Sometimes your client is "in the bunker" and is so risk averse they are hesitant to do anything and hope everything will just blow over.  Sometimes you learn information that you want to share - something that would land on the front page of a newspaper or move a stock price or maybe get someone in trouble - but you realize that sharing it has consequences too.

You have to be able to live with that. You have to be willing to serve the interests of your client. You have to manage your internal conflicts, and figure out a way to make sure you're giving the best advice you can.  

The good news is this - most of the time, the right thing to do is also the best PR move.  These include things like telling the truth, or making a mistreated employee or customer whole, or announcing that the product you made isn't completely safe and should be recalled. And most of the time, the client sees that too. 

For those rare times when the right thing to do isn't the best PR move, only you can decide what you do next. 

A war on moms is a war on evolution

The dude had a point

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

 - Charles Darwin

Some of the people I admire most on the interwebs have had a lot to say lately about how people have a hard time responding to change - specifically the evolution of gender roles, of family needs, and the economy.

Julie Marsh reminded Mashable that they should know better when it comes to talking about moms on Facebook. Doug French, Lance Somerfield, Charlie Capen and a slew of other men have been pushing advertisers to stop portraying fathers as idiots. Kristen Chase and Liz Gumbinner illustrated how the defenders of those unfunny jokes at the Oscars haven't had anything new to say in forever.

And Joanne Bamberger took two of America's top executives to the woodshed in one of the world's largest newspapers. She called their recent actions "the latest salvo in the war on moms." You should read it.

Joanne is brilliant.  She's an excellent writer. She's had personal and professional success. She's dedicated so much time and energy to fighting for the rights of women to have more choices in their life - choices over their own health care, over their own families, their own work.  So I know it was hard for her to criticize two champions of making those choices - Marissa Meyer and Sheryl Sandberg.  I'm sure she knew she'd be accused of "taking other women down."  If you know Joanne, you know that wasn't what she was doing at all.  Joanne is trying to lift women up.

Further, Joanne and the others are calling people out for denying our social and cultural evolution, or simply refusing to evolve.  Maybe moms were a little clueless to technology they hadn't seen before, but most aren't clueless now.  Maybe there was a time when dads were complete idiots when it came to parenting, but most are not now.  Maybe there was a time when boob jokes and rape jokes and using the c-word to describe an eight-year-old girl were funny to an adult, prime-time audience.

I "get" those jokes just fine.  They're stupid.  Get with the times, people.

Sheryl Sandberg represents all of the things I look for in a female role model - she's smart, she works hard, she overcomes challenges, she shatters stereotypes, and she strives to help others.  I haven't read her book so I won't presume to know what she says in it. I do know this, however - the next generation of Sheryl Sandbergs tend to believe there's a lot more to life than a career, and a lot more to a career than personal advancement.  Generation Y doesn't "lean in" to any one thing. They change jobs almost as quickly as they change underwear.  Businesses must evolve to reflect the values of the next generation of business leaders.  If companies like Facebook don't keep pace, they'll go the way of the dodo. I'd be very interested to know what Sandberg thinks about this and how she plans to address it.

When it comes to Marissa Meyer, here's an experiment.  Type "Marissa Meyer is" into your Google search bar, and let Google suggest how you'd finish that sentence/search.  Here's what I got:

Not "Marissa Meyer is an honors graduate of Stanford." Not "Marissa Meyer is the first female engineer Google ever hired." Not "Marissa Meyer is the CEO of a major tech company." Nope, she's either a sexual object or a moron. And a tardy moron at that. Thanks, Internet.

But Meyer really isn't an idiot.  She knew what would happen.  She didn't take her job to win any popularity contests - she did it to lead a company back to greatness. And she knew she'd have to make some very difficult choices to make it happen.  Given what's up against her, I hope she succeeds.

Meyer knows a heckuva lot more about Yahoo! than pretty much anyone else. But I definitely agree with Joanne that this decision to essentially bar telecommuting at the company is a mistake.  Business Insider has reported on some of the thinking behind the decision: previous leadership fostered a bloated payroll of stay-at-home slackers.  I haven't heard any new initiatives out of the company that increase accountability of employees wherever they are - but I have seen a new policy that eliminates employees based not on their ability or productivity but on their location.

To me this reflects a resistance to a constantly changing global economy and the evolving needs of working families. Many families can't get by with a sole breadwinner. The same technology that sparked Yahoo!'s success makes it possible for people to make meaningful contributions wherever they are.  I don't see how you make your company more competitive by limiting your workforce to those who are willing to live in one of the most expensive locations on the planet. What's more, I think the new policy sends a very clear message - "no parents of children with special needs need apply."  The simple truth for more people than you may think is this: if you can't work from home at least some of the time, you can't work.

It took longer than it should have for our society to understand that stereotypes from the 50's no longer apply, and that the people who make the boob/rape jokes are the jerks - not the people who don't find them funny. But we still have a long way to go.

It took longer than it should have to have a culture and a legal system that helps brilliant and hard-working women like Sandberg and Meyer succeed at the same pace as men. But we still have a long way to go.

It took longer than it should have for businesses to understand that workers value more than just their careers, and that workers can make contributions from virtually anywhere while still meeting the needs of their family.  But we still have a long way to go - and we all need brilliant leaders like Sandberg and Meyer to help.