Some Not So Random Thoughts

Here’s a headline of a press release you wouldn’t want to send out if you ran a company:

“Ski Helmets Recalled by Swix Sport USA Due to Head Injury Hazard.”

Though the release stated there were no reported incidents or injuries, it clearly was not the best PR for a company that sells $99 helmets.

Every day scores of press releases come through my email account via PR Newswire for Journalists. I scan the headlines to see if any are unusual or otherwise worthy of further investigation. Here’s one from earlier this week that piqued my interest:

“Do You Know Your Vagina? Summer's Eve® Challenges Women Nationwide to ‘ID the V(TM)’”

Now, I was quite taken by the frankness of this message, so I clicked on the link, only to get the following note: “There seems to be a problem displaying the page you requested.”

Now that really piqued my interest. Okay, someone had the good sense to filter out potentially offensive messages. But I was still curious, so I googled Summer’s Eve and discovered the feminine hygiene company has embarked on an advertising campaign that is raising hackles. I’m not going to weigh in on this controversy, but as a public service, here’s a link to a story with links to the three ads in question. You be the judge: http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/summers-eve-talking-vagina-ads-arent-racist-says-agency-133588 ((if the ads don't load, go directly to the company's Web site, http://summerseve.com).


The outside thermometer registered 100.2 degrees at 2:18 this afternoon (100.9 at 3:06). I know all of you are devout conservationists who willingly heed the call to raise your air conditioner thermostats to conserve energy. But if you have any feelings for me at all, you’d ignore those responsible impulses and power up the a/c. You see, years ago my parents gave me some Con Ed stock. So go ahead, cool down. It’ll do me good. It might even make you a little more comfortable as well.


I am all for full disclosure, but sometimes intelligent discretion is more appropriate. Case in point: In the June 26 Sunday NY Times Magazine (yes, I am woefully behind in my reading), the editors chose to include survey results for the following question from their Facebook page—"What’s your most memorable Disney-related experience?”

A rather ordinary poll. What fascinated me was the response level and the decision by The Times to print the data. Just 246 people chose to participate in the survey (107 had a positive Disney experience, 91 had a negative one and 48 “commented with an unrelated response”).

What could have possessed The Times to print such paltry feedback results? Rather than show interest, it shows disinterest or apathy bordering on disdain. Sometimes, it’s better not to print results when your sample size is so embarrassingly small and, worse, statistically not representative of the public at large.


Here’s another editorial decision that confounded me: A cartoon in the current issue of The Jewish Week shows two hackers “as the progressive media presents them.” One hacker above the title “Murdoch’s Media” is portrayed as a frowning devil. The other, a smiling angel, is described as “The WikiLeaks Guy.”

Really, people, are we so blind we can’t see the difference between a journalistic abomination and a self-righteous organization?

WikiLeaks is no angel, but its purpose is to expose evil and wrongdoing by governments and businesses. Its goal is transparency, so that the public can make informed decisions about foreign and domestic policies and corporate actions. Murdoch’s Media, on the other hand, hacked private accounts for salacious purposes. Are any national and international interests advanced by knowing the private messages of a murdered girl? Or the musings of Hugh Grant or other celebrities?


Sign of The Times: From one of my professional Internet business networks, here’s an inquiry to sum up the state of our economy—”Can anyone recommend a good debt collection agency?”