Meet My Whippet

So I think I'm going to start blogging again. I don't understand the new Facebook so I think this will be a great way to express my random thoughts.

Random thought for the day: everyone should own atLEAST one whippet. Seriously. They're amazing. I didn't even know what a whippet was until Kyle (aka my boyfriend) introduced me to them. And then we got Flash. And now he's the love of my life :)

(Meet Flash. He doesn't really have a problem with invading personal space.)

Whippets are awesome. They love you unconditionally without any judgement. They cuddle constantly. They're loyal and have amazing personalities. They're a little sensitive (ok, they're freakishly sensitive), some people think they're too skinny and bony but that doesn't stop them from wanted to crawl in your lap every chance they get. They're graceful (when they're running), they're fast, athletic, can turn on a dime. And did I mention that they're unbelievably adorable? It's true.

(Flash after he won the "Turtle Award". For the uninitiated, thats the award for the slowest dog in whippet racing. He loves his turtle so much)

It's great when we take Flash to the dog park. People always say, "oh look at the skinny dog" or "it's a greyhound puppy" (wrong!). I feel like an ambassador for the breed when we're out and about. Whippets are from the same family as Greyhounds, part of the Sighthound group. That means long nose, muscular body, great eyesight and hearing, and a will to chase anything furry (which is a problem since we know lots of people with cats.)

So if you ever get the chance, you should definitely get one. Because they're awesome. And on tough days, some whippet cuddle time is exactly what I need :) Thanks Flash <3

The Last One!

So today was my last official day of class for my undergrad career! No more tests, no more presentations, and no more weekly trips up to Denton (yay!). I’m so excited I can’t even think straight, but this high will only last through the Christmas holidays, and then it’s back to work and hoping that all my hard work as a contractor will pay off in the form of a salary job.

So how do I plan to apply of my hard earn lessons into real life? I don’t.

Ha! Just kidding! Of course I do, and it’ll be easy doing it. Everything that I’ve learned up to this point in my school career has been to act with my head, and don’t do anything stupid. Take my capstone ethics class. We’ve been taught to think ethically, and to understand the processes that we have available to do so.

When I’m in the office, I’m constantly fighting ethical dilemmas. Take for example the Facebook page that this program I help manage has, called Passionately Pink for the Cure. I’m constantly tempted to go onto the page and post positive comments like “I love Passionately Pink for the Cure, and you should too. Check it out today!” Well, if I didn’t let people know that I was an employee with Komen and associated with Passionately Pink, ethically that would be wrong, because people would assume that I’m just another fan of the page.

Other ethical dilemma’s I know I’ll face are dealing with a boss who wants me to do something I’m not comfortable with, or dealing with coworkers who I know are not acting in the companies best interest.

However, the biggest problem I already know I’ll deal with is maintaining my identify and being true to who I am while being successful in my job and not just being another desk.

My ethics course has really taught me to concretely understand my values and my ethics, because they will be tested, and I need to know where I stand in order to make a the best decision for myself.

For now though, I’m just looking forward to fact that I’ll actually have the chance to meet these dilemmas.

Why am I NOT freaking out?

Graduation is right around the corner (literally, at this point it’s less than 15 days away) and I feel like I should be more nervous. I mean, I’ve had f our years of school and training, and it all adds up to what? Bragging rights and piece of paper? What a letdown. I thought maybe I’d have this sense of achievement or I’d have this big epiphany about life, but it still hasn’t hit me.

If anything, I’m terrified I’m somehow going to completely screw things up (which isn’t going to happen just FYI) and not graduate. But then again I kind of do over-think things sometimes.

Take for example this ethic’s class I’ve been in. I had a complete meltdown at the beginning of the semester when I learned that I was going to be in an ethics class which has primarily been a capstone course for PR majors (that’s public relations to the uninitiated). I thought, “That’s it. I’m done. Goodbye graduation.”

After the first day’s “All things PR” test, I freaked out. I thought that this class would be based on years of knowledge that my PR classmates had been blessed enough to previously know, and that I would be completely screwed and playing catch-up all semester. Yes, I’ll admit I overreacted (but shhh don’t tell anyone I said that!) but the course ended up being quite the opposite of what I had expected. I was slightly lost in the beginning, with references to the PRSA Codes of Ethics (had never read them before, or really any code of ethics) and references to previous non-AD classes. I thought I was just going to sit in the back, smile, nod, and pray to just pass.

My “ah ha!” moment came during a lesson about this decision-making model called a Potter’s Box, which is basically a way for a person to decide how they should act, according to their personal set of ethics and beliefs. I never really thought of ethics as something that you could diagram out. I mean, it makes perfect sense, but it just clicked like “oh, I do that everyday, I just do it in summarized states of mind”.

It seems that in most of my classes, we’re taught to learn rules, phrases, facts, random names, and lots of other completely pointless information, and expected to somehow figure out how to mold that into something that we’ll apply to real life. This ethics class though was less about the names and the numbers, but more about “how you operate every day, just broken down in ways you’ve never thought of”.

Now I’m like, “Oh, yes this applies to me and wow I actually understand everything now”. Hmm, life is funny like that right? I might have been slow to start, but it looks like everything is finally falling into place. This class has surprised me in so many ways, like the fact that it’s relevant to life, yes- the real world (gasp! What a concept!).

Now all I have to do is pass my classes… and not trip as I walk across the stage.

P&G’s Big Promotion “Bombs” in Brazil

People today are a little too jumpy for their own good. It doesn’t help that we’ve got “privacy” scanners and crazy color-coded terrorists threats (how do they pick the most threatening color anyway?) I mean, I can understand the craziness when we’re being taught by the media to fear everything and everyone. Think about the last time you were at the airport, how many times did you hear the announcement that alert security to any abandoned bags or boxes? So when P&G started up a new promotion this past week that entailed leaving large wooden locked crates in the middle of public areas, people (and the police) didn’t respond too kindly.

According to AdAge, “The suspect crates were intended to be a teaser promotion for P&G's biggest-ever sweepstakes in Brazil, called ‘P&G Faustão's Airplane.’” (Article Link) As part of the promotion, prizes were described to fill up an airplane, so the promotion team though the image of air-dropped crates would help the public connect the boxes with the promotion.

Well, it didn’t work. The bomb squad was called in to two different locked crates, opened both crates and announced that nothing was in the boxes.

Maybe if the boxes had a parachute attached to them somewhere nearby (like a real air-dropped package) or if there was a P&G logo somewhere. Or maybe they could have contacted the right people to give the authorities a heads up.

That’s where P&G’s promotions team made a big boo-boo. Apparently there were multiple promotion teams hired to carry out this event. One of the teams, NewStyle even tried to get a permit, but guess what, they were denied. Imagine that! Can’t imagine why a lone, locked-wooden box would invoke the fear of thousands of people?

Not that it stopped the team, they went ahead with the promotion anyway. Forget any ethical codes code of honesty, integrity, and “do no harm”.

I just love how some people don’t take the time to think something through, and the impact that it can have. When you start the process of planning an ad, or a promotion, or even a press release, you’ve got to keep in mind current events that can impact your campaign (like in this case freaking everyone out).

Update: P&G has pulled the locked-box stunt for now, maybe next time they’ll think a little longer about and won’t have their promotions mistaken for a terrorist device.

Copying vs. Copyrighted

 Wouldn’t it be great if we could all just make up our own rules? No, I will not eat ice cream with a spoon, I’m eating it with fork! Take that Miss Manners!  Sounds silly right? Well what about this Cook’s Source nightmare? I mean I understand that the world of blogging is kind of blurry when it comes to legal precedence and black and white rules, but anyone with half a brain knows that you don’t just “lift” words and assume that you can have your way with them. Hello! Ever heard of a copyright or plagiarism?

Apparently the editor at Cook’s Source hasn’t, and what’s even more entertaining is that she deems herself the Queen of Online Law.  Long story short, this magazine lifted a story from another blogger, Monica Gaudio (known as illadore), changed up a few words, and printed the revised story in their magazine without the consent or even the knowledge of the writer.

When confronted about their obviously lack of know-how, they said “But honestly Monica, the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it!” (illadore’s blog) Wow. That’s high class right there. Looks to me like the editor here is going with the sheep logic, as in, well everything is doing it so we’re joining the pack of other ignoramus out there.

So to Cook’s Source credit, is the internet “public domain”? That one is up for debate, but blogs and the Internet are not the same thing, and since blogs can be viewed as literary works, then yes they are copyrighted and not public domain. So hmm, sorry Cook’s Source, you blew that one.

All I know is that if I tried to pull that in my journalism classes, I’d probably have to start looking for a new major, because I’d definitely be kicked out for violating copyright laws and being an idiot.

However, in the end it looks like Cook’s Source figured out that if you upset enough people, eventually you have to do the right thing. On the home page of their website cooksource.com, the magazine apparently tries to make itself look like the victim, but ultimately they did apologize to Monica.

Ultimately though, the responsibility of attributing sources and giving credit where credit is due is the writer’s. Always check your work. Always correctly attribute a source. Even if you feel the need to making something “better”, if the idea isn’t yours, then give credit.

Let's "Agree" to Disagree

So finally the dust is starting to settle on this Chevron fake ad campaign fiasco, but I must say that I’ve really enjoyed this one. For those who’ve been living under a rock (or watching Fox news… ouch! sorry), Chevron’s new advertising campaign was recently hijacked by a watchdog group called the Yes Men, who did a bang up job of not only fooling the public (which really isn’t hard to do) but they fooled the media (which is slightly more impressive).  Quick note on the Yes Men, I personally view them as social revolutionaries, but I realize that the word “boundaries” isn’t in their vocabulary.  

Now while I’m a big fan of upsets, I can’t help but wonder how these guys are getting away with completely slamming Chevron.  Also as a journalism major, the first amendment is pretty much tattooed on the inside of my eyeballs, so it got me wondering how they’re skirting the law on this one. So after checking into this, it turns out the Yes Men don’t have completely legal tactics. The big word that comes to mind is libel, which is according to dictionary.com is “defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.” Basically this means you write something is isn’t true and pisses someone off, you’re in trouble. Libel law gets really fuzzy when it comes to commercial speech, and the fact that there is a ridiculous amount of disagreement over the scope of protection for the first amendment, when it comes to commercial libel it’s really a case by case basis. To prove libel you need things like intention, publication of the message, was it fraudulent, actual malice, and were there any losses (tangible or intangible). Individuals can sue before they die, corporations can sue as long as they can prove a loss, and it varies but just about everyone else can do it too.  Defending libel is supposed to be a little easier, with defenses like truth and using the first amendment.

So let’s take a look at what went down. Chevron starts production on a new campaign, information about the campaign gets out, and thanks to the internet, this information gets into the hands of some very sneaky, very anti-giant corporation people who aren’t big fans of Chevron. So do they just post anti-Chevron comments on their Facebook’s? No! These people actually created a fake campaign that was so brilliantly executed it fooled just about everyone and their dog. Except for Chevron, who knew, and wasn’t too thrilled. So did Yes-Men fraudulently claim to be Chevron? Uh, yes. Did Yes-Men mean for people to read these ads, turn into instant Chevron-hating zombies and never buy their products again effectively affecting their bottom line? Double yes. So let’s see, that’s intention to cause harm and malice right there. But wait, this is where it gets tricky. Did Chevron lie? Did they say anything that wasn’t based on factual evidence? Are the Yes-Men and similar groups using the first amendment as a shield to hide behind? Hmm, let’s see what the court room of public opinion thinks.

I found this great video called “Chevron thinks we’re stupid”, which I find very entertaining, but from the get go, they make it very clear that it’s satirical. Now check out this “Chevron” ad from Yes-Men’s campaign “We Agree”. If you didn’t already know that it was a fake, how would you react to it? Would you think, “wow Chevron’s really stepping out there?”

Not wanting to miss out on a piece of the action, Ad Age posted an article online that was aimed at companies for things they should keep in mind should they be “Yes-Men’d”, like having a back-up plan, monitoring for “anti-you” information, and  not overacting but acting quickly. But you’ll notice that “have ethical business practices so you don’t get caught” isn’t listed on there. While Chevron may in fact be slowly killing our planet, the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove that their statements are true, and that their speech is worth protecting. So will Chevron sue Yes-Men? If it weren’t the Yes-Men, they’d probably SLAPP the libelers first, (not physically, but I’m sure they’d like to do that too), which is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. This is basically when a corporation bullies someone into a corner and buries them under 300 years’ worth of paperwork, so that they either can’t defend themselves or they call it quits. This scare tactic usually works, but for the Yes-Men, I don’t think it’ll do any good.

Ultimately I believe that the Yes-Men’s choice to publish these ads was premeditated, thought out, well planned, and brilliantly executed. It was also fraudulent, sneaky, and in the end doesn’t really do a whole lot for the notion of free speech. The hijacked “We Agree” campaign was executed in a completely unethical way, but the thing is, I really don’t think the Yes-Men care if their decisions are ethical. I think the whole point of their actions was to stir things up and get people talking about big issues, I just think that they stirred the pot a little too much and ended up with some questions they might not want to answer.

What do you think?

Football: It's way more interesting than Baseball

           As I watched the rangers lose tonight, I couldn't help but remember why I'm watching this game in the first place. And then I remember why: because football is better. It's just that simple. The game, the rituals, the drama- it's all just so much more interesting.

           O the glory days of fall- the smell of sausages roasting on the grill, the crackle of leaves under foot as you make your way from the backyard inside to watch the pre-game. I really don’t know why they call baseball “America’s past-time”, because from my viewpoint, football is king.  When I have kids, and if I have a son, I’m envisioning small helmets running through my house, minus the muddy footprints.

            So you’ve heard about the Coach Leach and ESPN drama right? Here we have this dilemma with a football player, his coach, and an ESPN announcer who, oh yeah, is the football players dad.  The story goes that Coach Leach locked up this player in a dark room during practice because he claimed he had a concussion. The dad of the player (aka ESPN announcer) then makes a comment during his son’s football game (which he is one of the announcers for). From there, ESPN has a formal investigation of the allegations, which ultimately ended in the release of Coach Leach.

            Now I’m all for parents rights to support their children, whether that means yelling at the referee in the stands, or in this case announcing their game on national television.  Where I start to have a problem is when parents take advantage of a situation (like being an ESPN announcer) and using that platform for their own personal drama (issue that happened between the coach and the player).

            Some of the questions that come to mind are, do parents of players have enough self control to be unbiased during a game do they announce? Where does ESPN draw the line on investigating a story when it comes to one of their own?  During the investigation, both sides claimed that the other side was at fault. So was ESPN unbiased during their investigation? What about the school? After the fallout of Coach Leach, it would be hard to argue that potential recruits would think twice before going to team where you’re locked up like prisoner for health issues.

            Here, the reputation of Leach was impacted negatively, and the credibility of ESPN’s investigation team was comprised. In the end, ESPN should put more thought in the scheduling of announcers when it comes to relations, for the protection of all parties against unintentional bias, and the school should probably put all of its coaches through anger management training.

            So lessons learned: a wrong action can impact not just yourself, but every circle that you are apart of. And football is much more interesting than baseball.