Friday’s five: 30 March

Only one day late…here are highlights of my reading list of the past week. Ethics in journalism, island marketing, a self proclaimed complete wanker and communicating the value of IT are all highlighted.
1. The Press Gazette is reporting that Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, has ‘expressed regret’ at having published pictures of Prince William’s girlfriend Kate Middleton. I’ve never heard a less sincere apology in my life. Clearly he’s sorry that there has been a formal complaint filed with the Press Complaints Commission. He’s sorry that he’s had to spend a day with his lawyers. And he’s sorry about the time wasted on dealing with the matter. Is he sorry that his paper has upset Ms Middleton? Doubtful.

Island2. I read Rohit Bhargava’s post on 5 things to learn from island marketing with interest since I live and work on an island. It turns out he should have called it 5 things to learn from marketing in tourist destinations. Still, it’s an interesting summary.

3. Peter Himler’s blog has a good debate going about a recent 60 Minutes interview by Katie Couric in which she asked Senator Edwards how commited he could remain to his campaign given his wife’s serious illness. Is she a ruthless bully or just doing her job? Journalists that have worked with Katie Couric have told me that they have nothing but respect for her talents and professionalism. IMHO journalists have a duty to ask the questions that are on the audience’s mind.

4. Heather Yaxley highlighted how a London lawyer used his reputation as a “complete wanker” among his colleagues to his advantage. Very clever. Well it made me smile anyway.

5. Nathan Pledger recently wrote about the BCS’s Communicating the value of IT session held in the Isle of Man last autumn. He attended the session and put some of the learning points into practice at work. I was interested to see the feedback six months down the line.

2 Responses to “Friday’s five: 30 March”

  1. Thanks for the link - and also the note on the Mirror apology. I believe there is an art in insincere communications - and relish it like the back-handed compliment, stylish insult and faint praise. This is almost a lost art, probably because it takes more wit than the bully-boy approaches that are more common today.

    Is the direct, open approach always better - can’t more often be conveyed through what isn’t actually said?

    Maybe the media could try that old “I love you means never having to say you’re sorry”

  2. I agree. How about profits mean saying sorry when your lawyer tells you that you have to.

Leave a Reply