I checked Facebook and there are indeed about 10 groups formed around the issue, one of which has 80,000+ members.

But I was more interested in one of the other groups. It has been created by a marketing company that says it specializes in youth marketing. It’s asking people to join its group in order to support their idea to develop a young drivers education campaign for the Government . They’re trying to get 15,000 members.

So in other words, it’s not a Facebook group to protest the new legislation. It’s a Facebook group to try to get this company a piece of new business.

It would indeed be impressive to walk in to a prospective client and say, “We already have 15,000 young Ontario drivers connected to us who are engaged in this issue.” But it’s pretty clear from the comments on the site that the people joining the group don’t get that they’re being used for the purpose of trying to land this company some business.

So instead of being clever, it’s exploitive and misleading.

What about Canadian news? What will stand out to you? The October election or maybe the Hockey Night in Canada theme song scandal? Sad, very sad. Perhaps it was the detailed beheading in Manitoba on a Greyhound bus. I bet you can’t remember the accused or victim’s name but can regurgitate the horrific details.

So, here’s my beef. Was it really necessary? You decide:

“. . . decapitated and waved the severed head . . . walked back to the body to cut more . . .”

“. . . crazed attacker inside the bus with the mangled victim . . . ”

“. . . prevented the attacker from getting off the blood-soaked bus by threatening him . . .”

“. . . blood-curdling scream . . .”

All in the name of journalism? Unnecessary gory details? All I keep thinking about is the victim’s family hearing those particulars over and over.

Being in an industry that arms media with the information necessary to write stories, we have a responsibility. Do newspapers and websites have the same obligation? I think the public needs to evaluate what they have “a right” to know. The public was thirsty for gory details and bought the papers, watched the news clips and logged-on to read more and more and more. Where do you draw the line to what is necessary in news coverage?

By the way, the victim’s name was Tim McLean.

By the end of the day my brain ached.  Not because of the complexity of the information being presented, but the multitude of communications options now available to our profession. I was forced to question some of the tried-and-true approaches that our industry uses everyday - which is a good thing I suppose, but frightening as well (with all new methods come new risks, right?). As the digital sphere opens up new communications options, and as consumers start to adopt these methods, our approaches will have to change if we plan to connect with them. In short: it’s up to us whether we want to remain relevant or not.

Take mobile digital usage, for example. Imagine that you are shopping and you want to compare prices using the web browser on your phone. Just as uploading a brochure to a webpage doesn’t constitute a website, accessing a traditional website from these small units isn’t creating a pleasing interactive experience for the end user; you’re likely to give up before you even get where you’re going. Now, imagine if instead of accessing a website, you’re accessing a .mobi site (in other words, a website that was formatted to be viewed best on your cell phone browser). Yowza! Suddenly you’re able to navigate without issue, find what you’re looking for, and make an educated purchase decision.

Now, let’s take this one step further (and I fully stole this example from Tim Armstrong, from Google Inc. when I heard him speak): imagine that as you navigate on your phone you are served a coupon for the store you are already standing in. You are about to leave Sephora for Mac when, Bam! A coupon appears on your browser: “one day only, 25% off all mascara.” Hey, wait a minute, I was looking at mascara on the Mac website . . . okay, fine, well with 25% off, I’ll buy it here . . .”

Orwell might say that’s a step too far. But regardless of whether you like where we’re going or not, it seems that’s where we’re headed. 

This year, we went to the Westin Trillium Hotel in Collingwood, Ontario, in late October. The service from staff during the event was fine. But unlike every previous hotel, not one staff member acknowledged me or thanked me for bringing our team to the property. When I checked out, the desk clerk did not ask me how my stay was or say anything about our conference experience.

The same applies to our company’s conference manager who handled the booking and logistics with the hotel. No one said thank you for choosing the Westin. Furthermore, it is the first time in 14 years that the venue hasn’t contacted us post-event to ask about the experience. We did get a generic survey from the Starwood Resorts Group (they own and manage the Westin).

It is a serious problem when a client that spends almost $60,000 is essentially ignored and it is even more egregious in a period of economic downturn. This experience may highlight a training problem, but also a fundamental relationship management issue.

The world is full of choices and clients have more access to travel destinations thanks to the Internet. A hotel chain that has grown so insensitive that conference clients are virtually ignored will not earn loyalty or repeat business.

Service excellence has always been a fundamental part of our business. We also go out of our way to thank clients for their business and ask for their feedback - good or bad. It is much better to hear criticism from a client and respond with solutions than to find out they have decided to leave. As it stands, the Westin organization has no idea what I think.

Many PR professionals I know found McCain’s candor refreshing. He was forthcoming and free with taking responsibility, making apologies and accepting personal blame for whatever his company may have done wrong. Some people rushed to compare Maple Leaf’s handling of the crisis with the management of the 1982 Tylenol crisis, which is today heralded by many as the all-time greatest example of effective crisis management.

Any public relations professional who has worked with a publicly traded company knows that the balance between open communication and legal responsibility can be precarious. In times of crisis, the PR professional generally wants to be as publicly honest and open as possible, while the legal department often would rather say nothing. Saying a lot and accepting blame where it is due is often considered ethical and responsible, whereas saying nothing may reduce the chances of being found guilty in any future court proceedings.

So it’s understandable that McCain’s unusual frankness won the hearts and minds of PR professionals, because his outspokenness won the hearts and minds of the general public - those who were affected by the listeriosis outbreak and those, of course, who purchase Maple Leaf’s products.

But now McCain’s candor and forthright honesty may come back to bite him and his company. The Toronto Star has uncovered a series of internal e-mails and memos written by McCain that further support McCain’s penchant for admirable-but-potentially-legally-risky frankness. In the messages clearly - and perhaps naively - intended only for Maple Leaf employees, McCain shows his disdain for the general public, lawyers, consultants in general, the elderly and frail, and the media.

“It is amazing how - even when one thinks they know the subject cold - how a reporter can drive a person to say unwanted, or inappropriate, things. A news reporter is more interested in a headline, than the accuracy of the story,” McCain is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying to employees.

Reading the Star’s story, it appears that McCain was saying one thing to the media and quite another to his employees via e-mail messages that, remarkably, he must have thought would not be leaked.

When it comes to crisis communications, those of Maple Leaf and Tylenol are not entirely comparable. The Tylenol problem was caused by forces outside of the company; Maple Leaf’s listeriosis occurred within Maple Leaf’s operations. Tylenol had adhered to standards and procedures for packaging in place at the time; it is not yet known how listeriosis-tainted products left the Maple Leaf factory. Tylenol worked quickly to improve the tamper-resistance of its products; Maple Leaf so far has not revealed how it will guarantee in the future that its packaged food will be safe from potentially deadly bacteria.

The Tylenol case will continue to be held up as an example of dealing perfectly with a company-threatening crisis.

Unfortunately, with class-action suits pending, the Maple Leaf example of remarkable openness and honesty could eventually be highlighted in PR school as a case of when it might have been better to listen to the lawyers.

Earlier this week, the women of The View brought up that question, wondering what will fill the show’s daily (and often heated) Hot Topics segment - as well as the pages and airwaves of the more traditional news media - after the two-year marathon presidential campaign came to a close. As a PR professional, I couldn’t help but think, “Hey journalists - look at me! I have many clients with great stories to tell. Let me fill your airtime, newsprint and web pages!”

Now, truth be told, the media frenzy is far from over. The historic nature of the election and the impact of an Obama presidency will be analyzed and debated for weeks to come. And, of course, in addition to Cabinet selection and first orders of business, the American public must know what Malia and Sasha choose to name their new puppy.

I’m sure Whoopi and her crew will find something to discuss. But their comments do highlight how focused the media can become on one important topic - and how challenging it can be for an organization to deliver its own news when something as big as an election or financial crisis is consuming the nation’s attention.

While launching a new product on November 3rd is not likely to garner much coverage for your company, a savvy PR practitioner doesn’t have to hide behind her desk and wait for the frenzy to subside. Instead, think about framing your pitch in terms of the newsmaker event.

Last month, Sylvan Learning wanted to talk about education and its downloadable Math Activity Booklet, but the global economic crisis was dominating headlines. By putting out a release about how parents can use the economic upheaval to teach kids math skills, the company was able to garner coverage in several print and online outlets across the country.

In the wake of the election, there are many similar opportunities. Changes in leadership mean changes across many industries - finance, healthcare, education, science, technology, and so on. Calling on the experts within your organization to discuss the future of these industries in the context of a new administration is a great way to provide helpful information to journalists and communicate your company’s or association’s message.

And remember, the election excitement will calm down eventually - and in no time something else will completely consume our attention.

Before the start of a football game, Sargent interviewed Mike Singletary, new head coach of the 49ers. Sargent asked the head coach the following question: “I heard that your mentor Bill Walsh was one of the first phone calls that you made when you found out that you had the job. What does it mean to you to be the head coach of the 49ers?”

To any sports fan there are two immediate red flags. The first is that Walsh was never a mentor of Singletary’s, and second, Walsh died in July 2007. Ouch.

The look on coach Singletary’s face was priceless. Trying to answer this awkward question, you can see the reporter holding her earpiece and saying: “I’m sorry. Oh. I’m sorry. What, what did I . . . what was wrong?” Clearly the control room was informing her of her error. Fox producers, understandably mortified, didn’t air that portion of the interview. However, someone was able to upload the open feed and posted the link on YouTube. It was inevitable. It has since been removed as it is unauthorized footage. I saw it before it was removed - trust me it was embarrassing.

Speaking afterwards to the LA Times, Sargent says she was nervous and meant to ask Singletary about a conversation he had with Walsh a few years ago when he was considering getting into coaching. Sargent has been in hot water before; while working for ESPNews in 2006, she cursed on air, thinking her microphone was off (that video has not been removed and can be seen by clicking here - discretion advised).

What’s that saying? One, Two, Three strikes you’re out? Oh wait, that’s baseball . . .

I’m not sure what her handlers were thinking when they approved her Weekend Update skit. I’m not saying that political hopefuls shouldn’t appear on SNL. Hilary Clinton appeared earlier this year and showed that she could laugh at herself and give due respect to Amy Poehler for a well-done impression. But the main difference between Ms. Clinton and Ms. Palin, among many others, is this: Hilary didn’t sit back and allow the cast to openly berate her campaign.

In this weekend’s past skit Little Miss Alaska raises the roof behind the Weekend Update desk, while Amy Poehler mimics her and raps lines such as, “Don’t let McCain creep you out when he tries to smile,” and, “From my porch I can see Russia and stuff.” Near the end of the song, a person in a moose costume crosses the set and Amy shoots him glock-style with an invisible handgun.

Insulting the Presidential candidate you’re running with? Reminding voters how little foreign relations experience you have? Killing large furry animals? Now, if this kooky display doesn’t build credibility for an already faltering campaign, I don’t know what does.

So what can we learn from this as PR professionals? It’s a reminder as to the importance of context. While SNL is a very popular program and it reaches a demographic that Palin would likely want to sway, the context that she was presented in was unprofessional, disrespectful and ill-advised.

Let us remember that before you send your clients into media opportunities, do all you can to make sure that the final piece reflects your original communications objectives.

And, if they aren’t going to do that, respectfully decline.

My research with almost 20 new colleagues at Environics confirms that green practices can be a recruitment and retention strategy for HR planners. We were the first North American public relations agency to become carbon neutral and our commitment to sustainable practices is well entrenched.

One person in the audience in Calgary asked me if the economic recession we are entering will be a set-back for environmental sustainability. I answered that it would not, because there is too much momentum now and too many corporations and governments are already committed to change. A year or two of slowdown will not be easy for people, but this environmental train has left the station.

Furthermore, I believe the adoption of green practices offers solid profit potential for many businesses, either as a way to mitigate risks or as a way to create new products for sale. You can see this with more and more companies, from General Electric to The Home Depot and others. Circumstances are finally making it profitable to be green, and that is one of the most powerful incentives the environmental movement has ever enjoyed.

It’s generally a bad idea for a spokesperson to speak negatively, which is easy to do when a negative question is asked. For instance, a reporter may ask something like, “Is it true you don’t wear underwear?”

Western world speaking habits entice us to respond automatically by negating the negative question, e.g., “No, it is not true that I don’t wear underwear.” By doing this a reporter might legitimately isolate this quote, thus introducing the possibility that, yes, you don’t wear underwear. The better answer, obviously, is “Of course I wear underwear!”

But - stay with me here - what happens when a spokesperson actually wants to introduce a negative idea, without even saying it outright? Over the years I have noticed an interesting technique (used most frequently by athletes and politicians) that I call the “interrogative answer.” This is when the person being interviewed willfully introduces a negative concept, usually about the competition, by asking him/herself a negative question. For example:

“Do I think that my opponent is a weasel? No I do not.”

“Do I think that the Chicago Cubs are destined to choke? Of course not!”

Introducing negative verbiage into interviews this way is subtle and insidious - and surprisingly effective. I would never advise any spokesperson to use the interrogative answer, but I find it very entertaining as an unattached audience-member when I hear it.

On the other hand, if you’re not asked the reasonable question you want to answer, why not just ask it and answer it yourself?

“Is ABC Company pleased with our results? Yes, we are pleased with our results.”

“Did I buy underwear last week? Why, yes, I am proud to say that I did.”

The interrogative answer: listen for it the next time you watch the news.