We now live in world where instant comments get instantly recycled and attract instant criticism. Take England's very own little Jack Wilshere and the mini-media storm he created with his - "only English people should play for England" and "living here for five years doesn't make you English" remarks.
Of course, Little Jack got a whole bunch of Little Englander criticism, the oh-so self righteous Mr Kevin Pietersen leading the way. That in turn caused others to spring to his support but if he's not careful, he could also find himself being used as a potential poster boy for some of the unpleasant elements of national pride.
The truth here, is that to expect a 21-year footballer to speak rationally, coherently and intelligently off-the-cuff to a journalist on a topic that is highly emotive and complex - and is fraught with problems for even an experienced politician - is simply asking too much. He should not be put in the position and the FA should have seen this one coming.
Manager Roy Hodgson was on Match on the Day the proceeding Saturday and was gently asked about the same issue after the starring performance of Man Utd's talented young Albanian born, Belgian-raised, potentially England qualified Adnan Januzaj. Roy's response was measured - ruling nothing in and nothing out. Roy's answer was something along the lines of - "we'd have to look at it if the situation were to arise, but it would be a big decision to go down the residency route and we'd need to consider that carefully before doing it".
Roy didn't get many headlines, other than to say he did not rule out selecting young Adnan; but Roy wasn't looking for headlines - he was looking for a way out, and found it. Little Jack wasn't after headlines either, but he got them and it was all so predictable.
Maybe the FA did give Jack some advice on how to answer what was an obvious question, but it didn't seem like it and three or four days later the management were still trying to deal with the fall-out from an honest but ill-thought through response to something that was easy to see coming and relatively easy to deflect.
In the run-up to a couple of absolutely vital World Cup fixtures; I would have thought that the FA could have done without the distraction. I'm sure Jack Wilshere could have done without the attention - and the FA's PR team should have ensured that was the case.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Friday, October 04, 2013
Enough cobblers - let's get working
As the old saying goes: cobblers children always have the worst shoes. The idea being that if the customers come first, the kids therefore must have come last - and what's more, Daddy didn't like to take his work home with him so to speak.
The same can be said of PR. For a group of professional people in the business of reputation, we have a pretty poor reputation.
As representative organisations of the profession, the CIPR and the PRCA are at least partly responsible for addressing that poor reputation; and there are plenty of people (I would be one of them) who would argue that - in the past - neither organisation has done enough.
Of course, given that I had my turn in the leadership chair at the CIPR, plenty of people would also argue that I must be prepared to shoulder some of the responsibility for that failure to address the profession's reputation. Fair point.
But as I have argued elsewhere, and in my 2103 election candidate statement, my intention to campaign on our reputation during my Presidency was hi-jacked by the financial and managerial issues that arose shortly after I took up the chair. There's no point going over all that again. And the truth is, we were not ready in any case.
What I will say again however, is that the CIPR is better placed than ever-before to tackle this issue. Financially strong and stable, and with a recent track record of leadership in social and digital media, the Institute is in good health. What's more, in Stephen Waddington, we also have an incoming President who has a leadership voice that reaches beyond the Institute's normal heartland - Stephen has some 11,000 Twitter followers, and that's more than the number of voting members of the Institute.
There's more good news too. Some 15 people have thrown their hat into the ring to win one of seven seats on the CIPR Council. That's 15 individuals who want to support and help the profession. If you read their statements the passion to get involved is both apparent and admirable.
So, I want to be part of a new and concerted drive to promote our profession, our skills, our value and -above all else - to improve our reputation. We will not do it in Stephen's one year; we will not do it in the three-year term I hope to have on the Council; but we must make a fresh and invigorated start and now is the time.
It's time to fix up our shoes - and give them a bloody good polish. Vote for me, and I promise to work hard and do my bit on your behalf to improve our professional standing.
The same can be said of PR. For a group of professional people in the business of reputation, we have a pretty poor reputation.
As representative organisations of the profession, the CIPR and the PRCA are at least partly responsible for addressing that poor reputation; and there are plenty of people (I would be one of them) who would argue that - in the past - neither organisation has done enough.
Of course, given that I had my turn in the leadership chair at the CIPR, plenty of people would also argue that I must be prepared to shoulder some of the responsibility for that failure to address the profession's reputation. Fair point.
But as I have argued elsewhere, and in my 2103 election candidate statement, my intention to campaign on our reputation during my Presidency was hi-jacked by the financial and managerial issues that arose shortly after I took up the chair. There's no point going over all that again. And the truth is, we were not ready in any case.
What I will say again however, is that the CIPR is better placed than ever-before to tackle this issue. Financially strong and stable, and with a recent track record of leadership in social and digital media, the Institute is in good health. What's more, in Stephen Waddington, we also have an incoming President who has a leadership voice that reaches beyond the Institute's normal heartland - Stephen has some 11,000 Twitter followers, and that's more than the number of voting members of the Institute.
There's more good news too. Some 15 people have thrown their hat into the ring to win one of seven seats on the CIPR Council. That's 15 individuals who want to support and help the profession. If you read their statements the passion to get involved is both apparent and admirable.
So, I want to be part of a new and concerted drive to promote our profession, our skills, our value and -above all else - to improve our reputation. We will not do it in Stephen's one year; we will not do it in the three-year term I hope to have on the Council; but we must make a fresh and invigorated start and now is the time.
It's time to fix up our shoes - and give them a bloody good polish. Vote for me, and I promise to work hard and do my bit on your behalf to improve our professional standing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)