Jerry’s Two Cents’ Worth

If you stand naked in front of your window, do you have a right to complain if people look?

In effect, that’s what you’re doing every time you put “private” or “personal” information in an e-mail or on the Internet.

You may be in your own private living room when you stand naked in front of that window.  But the rest of us can see in.  And at least some of us will look.

I often advise clients not to put anything inflammatory or damaging into an email or any document circulated widely enough that it could end up in print or on the air as part of a news story.  That goes double for private or personal information you put on the Internet – on Facebook, Linked-In, MySpace, YouTube or Twitter, for example.

Bartender Brian Pietrylo is learning that lesson the hard way.  He created a MySpace page that fellow employees at a Houston’s restaurant in Hackensack, N.J., used to poke fun at the restaurant’s managers, customers and décor.

Pietrylo and girlfriend/waitress Doreen Marino were fired after mangers logged into the by-invitation-only, password-protected site using another employee’s password.

Pietrylo says the company violated the privacy of the employees by logging into a private site that employees accessed on their own time.  The argument’s headed to court next month.

I don’t how the court case will come out.  The Wall Street Journal quoted one lawyer as saying the employees might have a right to privacy in their non-work-created communications with one another, which I suppose means he thinks Pietrylo might win in court.   I’m skeptical about that.

But it doesn’t matter.  Pietrylo and his girlfriend have lost their jobs and any potential employer who Googles his name for a long time to come will find references to this story.  Would you hire a bartender with a history of creating a Web site where other employees could make fun of you and your customers?

Pietrylo says Houston’s violated his privacy and the privacy of other employees who used the MySpace site to air their grievances. But what about the customers who were ridiculed?  Do they have a legal case against Pietrylo and the other employees if they’re defamed by having what was said about them become public?

I often tell media training clients that anything said to or within earshot of a reporter is fodder for a story – whether you say it to the reporter or even that s/he’s present.

Ditto for anything that gets posted on the Internet or put into an email or a document circulated widely enough that someone could leak it to the media.

I don’t have any sympathy for Pietrylo and his girlfriend.  Private or not, the MySpace site was a place to foment dissension and discontent within the restaurant where they worked.  It was only a matter of time before the bosses found out.

Don’t make the same mistake.

That’s my two cents’ worth.  What’s yours?

There’s an AP story out of Iowa about Chelsea Clinton turning down an interview request from a nine-year-old “kid reporter” for Scholastic News.

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately,” Chelsea’s quoted as saying. “Even though I think you’re cute.”

AP reporter Beth Fouhy appears to disagree with Chelsea’s choice. “It’s one thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign to turn down interview requests for the candidate’s daughter, Chelsea,” Fouhy says in her lead. “But can’t a 9-year-old reporter catch a break?”

Fouhy also says Cedar Rapids fourth grader Sydney Rieckhoff has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential candidates as they campaigned in Iowa.

But I say good for Chelsea. While I’m sure Sydney’s “cute,” Chelsea made the right choice if she’s been told to stay away from reporters. Nine-year-olds can ask some tough questions — as any parent, grandparent or teacher knows first-hand. And anything Chelsea had been quoted as saying to the “kid reporter” would have been fair game for other reporters once it appeared in print.

There are a few candidate spouses and other “friends” of the candidates who would do well to exercise Chelsea’s discipline.

That’s my two cents’ worth. What’s yours?

It’s important to stay on message, even if you’re a former president.

Bill Clinton’s been playing the role lately of loose spouse on deck. Clinton said last week his wife’s first act as president would be to send him and former President  George H. W. Bush on a world tour to undo the damage done to America’s reputation by the elder Bush’s son during his two terms in the White House.

It was one of those comments you know is a mistake as soon as you hear it.  H.W. promptly announced no such tour was needed and we wouldn’t be participating.

What was Clinton thinking? He had to know senior Bush would defend his son and dismiss the idea he’d join Clinton on a world tour to fix problems caused by his son.

The idea that a President Hillary Clinton would send emissaries, including her husband, on a world tour to begin fixing problems caused by Bush 43 makes sense.  Where Bill Clinton crossed the line was in saying Bush 41 would be part of the effort.  It  was an open invitation, which the elder Bush promptly accepted, to dismiss Clinton’s comment.  What could have been a strong comment about how badly Bush 43 has messed things up instead became a gaffe.

Similarly, Mr. Clinton  created headlines a few weeks ago by telling a campaign audience he had opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning.”  Two problems with that.  Reporters and bloggers pointed out Mr. Clinton had made comments early in the war supporting Bush 43’s decision to attack Iraq.  And, worse politically, it was a reminder of one of Hillary’s problem issues — the accusation it took her too long to recognize the war in Iraq as a mistake.

Mr. Clinton’s not the only candidate spouse to speak out of turn.  And he won’t be the last.  Elizabeth Edwards made news several months ago by disagreeing publicly with her husband on several issues and by calling in  to MSNBC’s Hardball to confront Ann Coulter. With rare exceptions, candidate spouses shouldn’t make news.

I’ve never had to contend with candidate spouse getting off message. But I have had experience with executive spouses getting off message, sometimes in the media and sometimes by the way they treated employees of the companies their spouses worked for.

It’s a tough issue.  You don’t have any control over the spouse.  And telling the executive involved their spouse is causing problems can be tricky– at best.

The few times I’ve faced the issue, I’ve tried to find a surrogate — someone respected by the executive and with enough standing to speak openly and clearly about what was happening.

That’s my two cents’ worth?  What’s yours?

Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff has some interesting comments about the media and the legislature in his latest newsletter. Here’s what he has to say:

“Lean and hungry, the Capitol press corps can’t find a lot of fresh meat at this time of year. So like bored housecats, many reporters have taken to playing with their food.

“To wit: Earlier this month, the minority party announced plans to introduce several health-care proposals. Here’s how the Denver Post described the announcement: ‘Republicans took their first jabs at major health care reform proposals Monday, setting up for a hot-blooded battle when the legislature convenes next month.’

“Not to be outdone, the Rocky Mountain News provided an equally breathless account of our response: ‘[The Republicans’] ideas immediately drew fire from Democrats, signaling a potential fight in the legislature over how to extend health insurance coverage and hold down costs.’ The Colorado Springs Gazette took the same tack, declaring that the GOP plan had been ‘criticized immediately by top Democrats.’

“Here’s what I actually said: ‘Reforming health care will be one of our top priorities in 2008. Coloradans want us to improve quality, reduce costs, and expand access – and they want us to work together to achieve those goals. That’s why we welcome our Republican colleagues to this debate – and why we pledge to give each of their proposals full consideration. Health-care reform doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. The quality of your idea should matter more than the color of your jersey.’

“Fortunately, the Denver Post’s editorial board was closer to the mark: ‘It’s a welcome dialogue and we were particularly happy to see the open spirit in which the GOP initiatives were greeted.’ The Democratic response was judged ‘both fair and wise.’

“The era of good feelings didn’t last long. Last week, a Post reporter called to ask whether the 2008 elections would make our legislative session especially contentious. No, I said. I expect that most of our major initiatives – including efforts to boost economic development, renewable energy, and early childhood education – will enjoy bipartisan support.

“The House minority leader apparently agreed. Rep. Mike May ’said he doesn’t believe election-year politics will increase the acrimony in the chambers.’

“But the Post was not deterred by our predictions. ‘Election year may put politics on boiler plate,’ the headline warned. ‘Now might be a good time for Colorado Capitol watchers to take their Dramamine.’ The article described a ‘wild ride,’ full of ‘hot-button issues’ and ‘roller coaster loop-de-loops.’ One political consultant exclaimed, ‘It should be some of the best free entertainment in town.’

“Now don’t get me wrong. Democrats and Republicans disagree on a number of important issues. And politics can be, like nature in Tennyson’s telling, ‘red in tooth and claw.’

“On most days, however, the Colorado Capitol is not quite so carnivorous. In 2007, every single priority on the Democratic agenda earned votes from the other side of the aisle. In fact, the most successful bills in the last three years were sponsored by a Democrat in one chamber and a Republican in the other. Many passed with near-unanimous support.

“You wouldn’t know it to read the newspaper. Bipartisan progress usually takes a back page to political intrigue.

“Why does that matter? In part because these ‘he screamed/she screamed’ stories drown out discussions of public policy. Take the presidential race … please. When’s the last time you read about the candidates’ positions on issues rather than their standing in the polls, their finance reports, or their most carping comments?

“The media’s focus on such conflicts feeds public cynicism. The more time politicians spend – or are portrayed as spending – at each other’s throats, the less confidence voters place in representative government.

“The press corps does not bear all or even most of the responsibility for this trend. Talk radio is a much louder culprit. To their credit, print journalists often pitch their editors on longer, more substantive stories – a tough sell for a medium whose competition is growing, market share is shrinking, and resources are drying up.

“Nor is the newspaper coverage wholly off-base. Indeed, what’s most damaging to public confidence is not the coverage but the content: the tenor of political campaigns, the constant toll of fundraising, the misconduct of some politicians themselves. And in public perception, national scandals stain us all.

“On the whole, our State Capitol is a remarkably peaceful and productive place. But relatively few citizens get the chance to see that, by attending legislative hearings or sitting in on our debates.”

—–

Time will tell whether Romanoff or the news stories he cites better reflect the tone of the 2008 legislative session .

But underlying his newsletter is a common complaint: Politicians and others who are quoted regularly by the media often feel their voice isn’t really reflected in the stories about them.

Fortunately for Romanoff and others like him, the Internet offers a way to speak unfiltered to our collective audiences — although often not with the same reach and visibility as the media has.

I encourage anyone who regularly — or even occasionally — speaks through the media to distribute your message as widely as you can through the unfiltered medium of the Internet. At least you know the people who see your message there will know exactly what you said.

That’s my two cents’ worth. What’s yours?

The adventure begins. I hope you’ll join me in the journey.

I’ve written and circulated the Monday Morning Media Minute by e-mail for five years. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. I’ve turned MMMM into a blog in hopes that will encourage more people to join the conversation by adding their comments and observations to mine. I envision Jerry’s Two Cents’ Worth as being similar to MMMM, but more frequent. And perhaps broader in its scope. Time will tell. If the two blogs develop distinct enough personalities to co-exist, I’ll keep both going. Otherwise. they may ultimately merge into . . . I’m not sure what.

So, let’s get started. And find out where the path leads.