1. The setup—Say, for argument's sake, that Obama did order an expensive, custom-made ring to thank his wife for her help in the campaign. Would the chosen designer of that ring run out and immediately tell the press all about it? Not just the press, but the Daily Mail, a sleazeball London tabloid? No, because that designer would subsequently be destroyed by Barack Obama, the president of the US.

2. The story itself—What's the sourcing for this big story? Did Obama sheepishly acknowledge his gift with a smile once it broke? No. The sole source is a "spokesman" for the "designer" of the ring. Who also gave this ridonkulous quote:

'For obvious privacy reasons I cannot reveal the cost of the ring but bearing in mind it is made from rhodium or black gold and encrusted with diamonds you can be sure it will cost thousands of pounds.'

Mmm hmm. Classy. It's also painfully clear that the story is filled out by fun facts about rhodium pulled off some press release. Did you know that "rhodium was chosen as the material for the disc presented to Beatle Paul McCartney for being history's all-time best-selling songwriter and recording artist"? Barack Obama obviously did, which is why he insisted on ordering this here ring!

3. The designer—Supposedly Obama has ordered this ring to be specially made by Giovanni Bosco, an "A-list" Italian designer. Really? If he's so A-list, why has his name never—never!—appeared in Nexis, the database of all things media? If he's so A-list, why does his website look so D-list? And why does the "Press" section seem to be full mostly of his own ads? Decidedly non-Presidential.

So the worldwide media has bitten big-time on a story that was almost certainly planted by this jewelry designer himself, or a very enterprising flack. And everybody wins ("everybody" meaning "Right wing media outlets" and "Giovanni Bosco")! Good show, Giovanni Bosco. Thanks to all this press you will probably be able to sell some rings that are real. [Pic via]

[UPDATE: And the Obama camp just denied it.]

[UPDATE 2, via Politico: Tommy Christopher at AOL got a head-scratching statement from the spokesman for the jeweler in question, who also denies the story as reported:

I regret to inform you that because of reports so wrong and clearly different from the reality of our statements, we decided to not issue statement on this matter.

Unfortunately, we were negatively affected by read on national and foreign media news stories that have no basement[sic], and in excess of the objective reality.

I inform you that we have no intention to disseminate more information about this story.

The Us story, the AP notes, "does not address whether they obtained a marriage license or took part in a separate civil ceremony, which is required by Mexican law to make the union binding. A couple can register their marriage up to 10 days after a ceremony, but California does not recognize marriage ceremonies outside the United States."

Could it have even happened in under an hour, like Speidi claimed? "Americans who wish to get married in Mexico must first go through a process that takes about five days, according to Mexico's foreign relations department Web site. They must obtain a health certificate, including blood test results from a local doctor; and provide official translations of legal documents, such as birth certificates."

In a statement issued via Us (wtf?) the allegedly happy couple came pretty close to acknowledging that they hadn't done any of that, saying "like other elopements that happen outside the country, we'll take care of the legal details when we get home." Their publicist was all know-nothing about it, adding, " "If there was a wedding I wasn't invited ... Sorry!"

We're sure the meticulously-documented event had nothing whatsoever to do with the next season of The Hills—even though MTV also just happened to be there, filming their vacation. They'd never exploit such a loving, personal moment.

The whole reason that people got upset about Abrams' business plan in the first place is that he says he's going to offer the consulting services of current, not former, media people. Former journalists work for damn near every PR firm in America. That's nothing new. Here's Abrams' offended quote today:

“There’s something a little bit offensive to me—as all these media organizations are cutting back so significantly on personnel—that people are out there saying, ‘Well, Dan Abrams shouldn’t be trying to help them find any work,’” said Mr. Abrams. “You know, give them a break.”

Dude, give us a break. You sound like a flack already. Has anybody ever said that Abrams—or anyone else—should not hire laid off journalists? No. What everyone has pointed out is the ethical untenability of hiring current journalists to do this work. And Abrams clearly has current journalists who are planning to be on his payroll—including Dave Zinczenko of Men's Health, Peter Greenberg of NBC, and, he says, "on-air network news personalities, who I would describe as household names."

Daily Intel's Jessica Pressler already confirmed that neither the NYT nor the WSJ, the standard bearers of journalism ethics, would allow their editorial employees to participate in something like this. So it's pretty simple: either Dan Abrams is hiring former media people, in which case he's just another PR firm; or he's hiring current ones, in which case those people all have automatic conflicts of interest that preclude them from claiming impartiality as journalists. Easy. [NYO; pic via]

They did have five company planes. Now they're cutting down to just three. Tightening the belt!

General Motors, the embattled US carmaker, buffeted by criticism for sending its chief executive on a private jet to plead for government aid, vowed today to stop leasing two of its five company planes.

GM is "very sensitive" to "the symbolic issue of people showing up in Washington in corporate jets", spokesman Tom Wilkinson said, promising more cuts to come at the company.

Now you know that spokesman was probably desperately searching Craigslist job ads at the time of this quote and didn't give it much thought, so cut him some slack. Because let's face it, GM is going broke broke. [Guardian via Clusterstock]

It's true, according to the vice president of Colombia!

"Santos said many middle-class Britons who used cocaine were unaware of its environmental impact. 'For somebody who drives a hybrid, who recycles, who is worried about global warming - to tell him that that night of partying will destroy 4m square of rainforest might lead him to make another decision.'"

So stop it, all of Hollywood! [Guardian]

COULD A BEDSIDE SHOTGUN RACK HAVE SAVED JENNIFER HUDSON’S FAMILY FROM TRAGIC DEATH?

Chicago, IL (MMD Newswire) October 28, 2008 — Tragedy strikes in a Chicago home leaving 3 people dead and an Oscar winner forced to identify the bodies of her family.

Jennifer Hudson’s mother and brother were gunned down in their home Friday. Could an invaluable device have saved their lives?

No. [MMD Newswire]

We asked Liz Rosenberg about this discrepancy between what she said earlier, and what's happening now. Her answer: "there was no pending divorce earlier this year."

So, we asked, does that mean that, for example, the Sun's report that Madonna "initially planned to move back to the US with their three children in July" is false? "yes," Rosenberg replied.

Well, how credible is Liz Rosenberg? She told the world in 2006 that Madonna was not adopting a baby in Malawi. Although, of course, Madonna did adopt a baby in Malawi.

What else do we know about Rosenberg?

• According to CityFile, she's "best known for having served as Madonna's flack for more than 20 years. Other clients have included the Pretenders, Cher, Josh Groban, Stevie Nicks, Seal, k.d. Lang, and Liza Minnelli."
• She does a good job of staying friendly with celebrity magazine editors, naturally—she's allegedly been showering the editor of People with free Madonna tickets for a decade or more.
• She knows how to play hardball—she reportedly managed to silence a good deal of potential press coverage of Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone's book last summer, which portrayed the singer negatively.

So Rosenberg does her job. Regardless, no matter how much wheedling, pleading, bargaining, threats, or doubletalk a flack uses, they're not supposed to flat-out lie. But Rosenberg has quite a reputation for lying. Look! Some of the most vehement "Rosenberg is a liar" voices are the most fervent Madonna fans, like commenters on AbsoluteMadonna.com. It might be advantageous to court them, from a PR point of view!

Celebrity flacks are probably the only remaining category of PR people who can get away with bald-faced lies, and continue to be effective in their jobs. Corporate flacks run the risk of pissing off business reporters (or even the SEC), which would make them liabilities. Media flacks? Lord, they have to be friends with reporters. To lie is to die. Despite the vague public perception that all flacks are liars, they really can't be if they want to have a long-term career.

Unless they have a client like Madonna! Because the celebrity media will want to cover Madonna for the rest of her natural life no matter what she or her flack does. So Liz Rosenberg, yes, probably finds it expedient to just lie and now and then, without any real consequences.

But that also means you shouldn't necessarily believe anything she says.

[pic via Celebrity Wonder]

Among the reasons that NBC has to be pissed at Silverman: he hasn't resurrected the network's ratings; the upcoming season of shows has no clear breakout hit; he's a party boy who stays out all night and doesn't come into the office till 11; and he tapped his old friends for important positions they weren't qualified for, which resulted in NBC doing things like paying his deputy's boyfriend $1.75 million to take his stupid show pitch and go away.

At a normal job, this would result in your boss hating you. But NBC chief Jeff Zucker couldn't be happier about how things are going!

"Ben has done a fantastic job. So far he's exceeded all of our expectations and the financial targets that we've set," said his boss, NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker. "We're talking about him being with us for a long time to come."

Words like "fantastic" are as common in corporate statements as words like "the." If you read press releases, you'll notice that every company is "delighted" about everything that happens. Therefore it means nothing. The fact that NBC is "talking about" Silverman being there a long time is not as reassuring as, for example, this alternative: "He will be here a long time."

"The shows that we have for this season are more commercial than any programs that we've had in the past four years," Zucker said.

Silverman's shows may suck, but they get a lot of product placements. Point in his favor.

"From our perspective there are no questions about Ben Silverman's job security. From our perspective he has done everything we've asked and more. We're incredibly happy with the job he's done, and hope that he'll be with us for a long time to come."

Disregard "incredibly," obviously. The inclusion of "from our perspective" and "hope" are bad signs. Consider that Zucker could have said: "There are no questions about Ben Silverman's job security. He has done everything we asked and more. We're happy with the job he's done, and he'll be with us for a long time."

Maybe they'll just dump him when his contract is up. Incredibly fantastic and delightful!

[LAT, Jossip, Mixed Media]

• June 25, 1998: Michael Bloomberg is deposed for a sexual harassment suit by an employee who says she was raped at work. He gives kind of asshole answers.
• September 27, 2007: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announces it will sue Bloomberg for cutting the pay of or demoting women on maternity leave.
• October 2, 2007: A New York Post story calls the company "a cesspool of discrimination" towards women.
• October 4, 2007: Mayor Bloomberg himself is accused of fostering and condoning the sexual discrimination in his company. Also of secretly running it himself.
• October 5, 2007: Mayor recalls that yes, he does talk to the head of his company all the time.
• May 2, 2008: Number of ladies suing Bloomberg is up to 58. That was not the ceiling obviously.

Now, there are 72 women on the suit—a suit that the company initially called a "publicity stunt," New York mag points out. They always knew pregnant ladies were unstable, what with the hormones and all. Stop suing, ladies—stress is bad for your figure! Amirite Mike? Play on, playa!

"The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's ridiculous," Edwards said when confronted with the first Enquirer story on his affair. Then, when he admitted the affair this month, he explained that that wasn't actually a lie: "When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough." As others have noted, that math does not make very much sense.

But Edwards is helped in his crusade to be 99% honest by the fact that flaky Rielle Hunter seems unreliable and prone to flights of fancy. So her affair with Edwards actually happened, yes, but how many of the details as she recounts them are accurate? How many of the stories she told her friends are based on reality and not fantasy? Sources close to Hunter can only reveal what Hunter told them, which is hardly concrete proof of anything.

So is this story true? Did the affair start up again? In Edwards' confession, he said: "But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then." That misconduct. Leaving himself room to not admit to a further, separate misconduct that happened later. See what he did there?

Being a C.O. still counts as hustling. Own that shit, man!

[via TSG]

Advice on "Chatting with Foreign Guests":

Don’t ask about income or expenses, don’t ask about age, don’t ask about love life or marriage, don’t ask about health, don’t ask about someone’s home or address, don’t ask about personal experience, don’t ask about religious beliefs or political views, don’t ask what someone does.

Advice on "Interacting With Handicapped Athletes":

1. You should use polite and standard forms of address for handicapped athletes.
2. Try to keep as light as you can with handicapped overtones.
3. Pay attention to how you congratulate handicapped athletes.

Pay attention to avoiding taboo subjects, quit using bad platitudes, and do not use insulting or discriminatory contemptuous or derogatory terms to address the disabled. Say things such as, “You are amazing,” or “You are really great.” When chatting with the visually impaired, do not say things like “It’s up ahead,” or “It’s over there.” When chatting with athletes who are paraplectic in their upper body, do not say things like “It’s behind you.”

And finally, how to walk when the foreigners are around:

When men and women are walking together, men should generally walk on the outside, and the person carrying things should normally walk on the right. Men should help women carry things, but must not help women carry their handbags. When three people are walking side-by-side, elderly should walk in the middle. Where there are many cars around, men should walk on the side of the sidewalk closer to the street. When four people are walking together, it is best to walk two-by-two.

Yes, it's just like New York!

[Peaceful Rise via Coudal]

• "[In] 2002 Nestlé produced a training manual aimed at waiters called 'Pour on the Tips'. Converting guests to pricey bottled water, it said, could boost their monthly earnings by $100 or more."
• "[One] executive promised a gathering of Wall Street analysts in 2000 that tap water would eventually be used only for showers and washing dishes."
• “[The] total energy required for every bottle’s production, transport and disposal is equivalent, on average, to filling that bottle a quarter of the way with oil.”
• "It costs between 250 and 10,000 times more than tap water and in blind tastings people cannot usually separate the fancy beverage from the ordinary stuff."

Of course,author Elizabeth Royte also point out that normal tap water is, in many areas, full of pollutants. So we're screwed either way. But at least drinking from the tap will save us all some money on the way to the apocalypse.

[Economist, NYT; pic via Brett Weinstein]

From an associate of Rupert Murdoch:

Smeared Timesman Tim Arango is a "class act." News Corp. has no animus towards him; in fact, Murdoch likes him. What Fox News did to Arango was "pretty reprehensible."

Some with firsthand experience working alongside Briganti weighed in:

[Even] though Irena is the she-devil, try [her boss] Brian Lewis. Irena is his hatchet woman...Brian trained Irena. She started as his media relations coordinator and after 10 years of hatchet woman work has managed to land the VP position. Either way, their offices are right across eachother and whatever goes on, Brian is right behind it.

I can confirm that she is crazier than a bitch on crack...As you may have noticed, Fox will always— always— use the "disgruntled employee" defense when a former staffer comes out against the company. It's predictable. They work hard to build a trail of disgruntlement...
[For a good example of an ex-Fox New PR staffer being slammed, look up what happened to former Fox News publicist Paul Schur after he left the network—he paid the price for speaking out, rightfully or not]

More on the Ailes- Briganti quote pipeline:

many, most or all of the witty zingers that pour out of the Fox News disinformation operation come from Roger himself. Look at all the zingers over the years: they're all stylistically of a piece, whether Brian gave them before his promotion, whether they come from Irina, or anybody else over there permitted to speak with outsiders. No coincidence. They're all Ailesisms, right from his mouth. The "PR" team doesn't free lance. They follow directives.

Members of the media who have experienced the trademark Briganti charm:

Let me give you some information about that cunt. She would give us a few tips. If you didn't you use the story, she'd call up and yell. Why the fuck didn't you use the story? She badmouthed Keith Kelly to everyone. Called him decrepit, an asshole. Why? She's disturbingly insane, out of whack. I can't be attached to this in any shape or form. Or she'll get me.

she has this really offputtingly sweet little-girl voice. from hearing it alone, I'd think she'd be a cute, petite sorority-looking girl of about 23...I haven't heard her really lose her cool. that's part of her style — her way is more to act exasperated with you, like "I could care less about you and your stupid blog, but just so you know, if you write that story, everyone's going to see what a dipshit you are."

We deal with many many publicists as you can imagine, and her behavior still stands out as one of the absolute craziest...her name is always preceded by crazy as in it's "crazy irena briganti" again.

From a prominent business journalist:

[You're] completely right about irena thing at fox. mad, hostile, aggressive, always tries to go above the heads of reporters etc. an unexplored angle is how much the news corp people such as gary ginsberg hate her too. but because she comes under roger ailes she is inviolable

We also heard that Fox News had its own vendetta against a New York tabloid: "Apparently [Briganti] and/or brian lewis froze out the Daily News for like three years. wouldn't return a call from anyone there." A source at the Daily News confirms it:

Yes, we were on their shit list for a while. Not certain of the details. But I remember they basically wouldn't send us any of their "scoops" to hype, not that we did a lot of that to begin with.

I've had some run ins with them in the past. Bill O'Reilly's flak tried to make my life hell because I did something dastardly like refer to him as a "conservative." Apparently he prefers to be known as an "independent."

Even juicier, though, we hear that the Daily News is not the only tabloid Briganti has gone up against. One would think that the New York Post would have a News Corp-mandated friendship with Fox News, but it's not necessarily so. Earlier this year, the Post ran a small item about Bill O'Reilly's cameras ambushing Rosie O'Donnell at a book signing event. When the piece ran, the whole room overheard Briganti making call after call to Post gossip writers and editors, "screaming" about the negative O'Reilly coverage and demanding that someone be fired (no one was). So Briganti's bad reputation now extends even into the corridor's of the single friendliest newspaper in America towards Fox News.

THE BRIGANTI DEFENDERS:

I was Brian Lewis' assistant in the Fox News Media Relations department for a full year. While I was there I witnessed an aggressive, exciting, and successful public relations strategy that kept Fox News on top despite all of its crises, "talent," and attacks. Throughout my time there, my direct supervisors were Brian, Irena, and Erica. Since all of this has dealt mainly with Irena, I will simply say that she is by far one of the best bosses I have ever had. Not only is Irena great at what she does (and who doesn't want their boss to be competent?) but she is efficient, smart, and funny.

I went to Columbia with Irena Briganti (MS in Strategic Communications). I did at least one class project with her and always found her to be polite, professional and with none of the snarkiness you attribute to her. I am guessing she is just reflecting the wishes of her bosses and is doing it exceptionally well. Good for her.

You Don't Understand PR
An ad-hominem attack against anyone* who truthfully reports bad things about you is never inappropriate nor unprofessional.
* beat that accidental alliteration, bitch**
** like, in the nice way of saying "bitch"
Fox News Rocks!!!

Early on, Ailes tried (unsuccessfully) to get two newspapers to retract negative coverage of him. In today's environment, the gambit might have succeeded. You have to admire his balls, considering his suggested correction:

When Ailes was helping former president George Bush prep for his debates, he slipped him a sure applause line: attack the liberal media messenger, Dan Rather:

1. Liz Rosenberg: Lied about a poor African child, of all things. If she turns out to have lied about the divorce as well, she will only solidify her top spot here.

2. Stephen Huvane: Kirsten Dunst's rep assured everyone that Dunst was "fine," shortly before the actress checked into rehab. Then assured everyone that Dunst "is not being treated for cocaine or any drug." Yea.

3. Rob Shuter: A serial manipulator who invented a relationship between client Jessica Simpson and crooner John Mayer, which then blew up in his face. Now edits OK! magazine, appropriately.

4. Rachna Shah: The Interview magazine flack scolded us for printing a scurrilous rumor that editor Ingrid Sischy would be leaving the magazine. A rumor that turned out to be true. A conscious lie, or just internal miscommunication? Either way, we were right.

5. Edelman: An anonymous media trainer at the mega-firm was outed by a tipster for telling clients, "Sometimes you just have to stand up there and lie." This brought an angry response from CEO Richard Edelman, who has himself lied on behalf of Wal-Mart.

6. Scott McClellan: Rotund former Bush lap doggie who wrote a book being sad about all the lying he did. Not that the PR industry cares or anything.

7. Danielle Perissi: Time Warner's fibbingest flack. Not a good person to call with questions about Time Warner, oddly enough. Now she's gone.

From JC Penney:

Regarding your post: Teen Sex Gains Mainstream Approval With JC Penney Ad…

JCPenney was deeply disappointed to learn that our name and logo were used in the creation and distribution of a commercial that was submitted to the 2008 International Advertising Festival at Cannes . No one at JCPenney was aware of the ad or participated in the creation of it in any way. The commercial was never broadcast, but rather was created by a former employee at JCPenney’s advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, solely as an award submission without JCPenney’s knowledge or prior approval.

JCPenney does not approve or condone its content, and we have asked Saatchi & Saatchi to remove the ad from online circulation and to apologize to our customers and our Associates for misrepresenting our Company in this manner.

From Saatchi & Saatchi, the ad agency:

“Saatchi & Saatchi has a long history of producing principled and respectful advertising for JCPenney and its entire client roster. The Speed Dressing TV commercial, which was submitted to the 2008 International Advertising Festival at Cannes, was created by a third party vendor without JCPenney's knowledge or consent. It was produced and released to the public without any knowledge or prior approval from JCPenney. Saatchi & Saatchi did not enter the spot and deeply regrets the message this ad presents. Saatchi & Saatchi apologizes to JCPenney, its associates and its customers. The commercial is being removed from public circulation.”

Tomorrow: "Horny Rogue Youth Couple Commandeered Video Camera, Acted Alone In Teen Sex Production."

[And don't worry, we have the ad whether it gets taken off YouTube or not!]

The Washington Post has a fantastic rundown of the failure of Al-Hurra, the most superfluous station on the Arab television dial. Despite an enormous budget, a succession of non-Arab bosses have succeeded in making it even less impactful than the average propaganda stations. Some highlights:

One news anchor greeted the station's predominantly Muslim audience on Easter by declaring, "Jesus is risen today!"...

In 2004, when an Israeli airstrike killed the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, virtually all Arabic news channels interrupted their regular programming. Al-Hurra continued with a cooking show.

Not to worry, though; surveys show Al-Hurra pulling down a solid 2% of the viewing audience, "tied with al-Manar — Hezbollah's satellite propaganda channel." Nice. Maybe because they hired a producer from Casey Kasem's radio show to run the place. Read the entire ridiculous saga at the WP. [UPDATE: Even more on the Al-Hurra fiasco, from ProPublica]

Golf's No. 1-ranked player and the world's top-earning athlete guarantees the biggest crowds and highest ratings. For TV executives, his absence will be hard to ignore - 40 percent of golf watchers actually turn off the television when Tiger's not playing, studies have shown.

Hmm, a mere 40% drop. Even the Golf Channel, with its hardcore fans, sees a 30% drop without Tiger. Over the last five years, tournaments without Tiger have seen 30% lower ratings that those with him—a difference of 2 million viewers per. Among the companies screwed the most: Buick and Deutsche Bank, both of whom had big ad campaigns tied into Tiger.

Tiger Woods himself: just chilling for a few months with his supermodel wife and mansions.

[NYP, NYT]

Mike Sitrick is in some ways an LA version of NYC uberflack Howard Rubenstein: as much a power broker as a publicist. But Sitrick's firm is heavily media-focused; he employs a laundry list of high profile ex-reporters, and keeps a tight control on his clients' access to the media. He's the go-to guy for Hollywood stars embroiled in scandals, and does a ton of corporate work as well. He's hated—and even feared—by many working reporters because of his clout. But he's also extremely intelligent about how the media works, and able to wrangle the best possible coverage for clients in seemingly intractable situations. A 2006 story in LA Magazine gave a good rundown of his famous tactics, like this:

One of Sitrick's favorite gambits is "the Lead Steer." He frequently uses it when clients are besieged by negative pack coverage. His thinking is that if he can turn a single respected writer around, he can reverse the trend and maybe even start a stampede in the other direction. "There's an impression among a lot of publicists," says Sitrick, "that you want to deal with lightweight journalists. That's okay on a one-off story, but on a big piece you want a Mike Wallace." When the publicist was representing the actress Kim Basinger during her 1993 bankruptcy case, he says he used Judy Brennan, of the Los Angeles Times, as his lead steer. "She did a sympathetic article, and her piece reversed the way people thought of Kim."

And, more deviously, this tactic to push a story into oblivion:

When journalist Mim Udovitch was assigned by Radar to investigate whether the Kabbalah Center was a cult organization, Sitrick and Company inundated her with material. Indeed, the publicist contends that his staff kept her occupied so long that the firm can take credit for the article's appearance in the relative oblivion of the magazine's online edition instead of in print as originally planned.

So while Sitrick's most visible clients are celebrities, they don't nearly account for the bulk of his revenue. Calling Sitrick & Co. "Paris Hilton's PR firm" is as simplistic as saying "Barney's master invades Iraq." His firm has hundreds of clients, many of them smaller companies that want an experienced flack on hand in case the going gets rough. And that's exactly the role that Sitrick played for Pitcock's law firm: His agency helped to position the firm as the righteous ones, indignantly firing an employee who had gone astray (rather than letting them appear complicit in a harassment ordeal).

Was it worth it? In light of the $90 million suit, perhaps not. But if the aggrieved Pitcock walks away with nothing, it will only bolster Sitrick's own reputation for wizardry (not that he needs it). The lesson: Never be surprised to see Sitrick's name pop up anywhere. He is the scary unseen ninja of PR.

[NYT via NY Mag. Pic via Deadline Hollywood]

Shrill condemnations and embarrassing leaked documents are giving way to acknowledgments of progress — and, in the case of Wal-Mart Watch, free advice.

"It's fair to say we have been less in-your-face," said David Nassar, the executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, which had hammered the company in stinging newspaper advertisements and provocative reports with titles like "Shameless: How Wal-Mart Bullies Its Way Into Communities Across America."

The mellowing of the anti-Wal-Mart movement is an unexpected development for the retailer, whose public image and share price were bruised by the well-financed union campaigns. On Friday, when the chain holds its shareholder meeting in Arkansas, investors are likely to applaud Wal-Mart for fending off these detractors.

What we need now is an activist group that condemns Wal-Mart just for homogenizing the American landscape. The company can have no defense for that.

Until then, Wake Up Wal-Mart is still making propaganda videos like this, which will have to suffice:

[pic via Blizzmax]

Some PR people like to stick with very formal public statements; others prefer to pass around tips in whisper campaigns, as if they were your friend. But Strzalkowski's M.O. is to write his press releases in the format of a letter from this little-known celebrity's hugest fan, as if he was just so overcome with his admiration for their brilliance he couldn't help but to send out email blasts telling every last detail of their miserable careers. Clients be damned—Jim Strzalkowski just wants to see these talented artists succeed.

He first came to our attention with his ebullient letter about the fact that Paris Hilton impersonator Natalie Reid got a bit part in a Wayans Bros. movie. She had a trailer and fans and everything! He even sent us some pictures "for public display." Thanks, Jim!

Now, he's keeping gossip sites like us on the cutting edge of Brian Anthony's doomed attempt to work his way onto Madonna's tour, somehow. "As Reported at GENO'S WORLD." Let us at it! Hey Jim, don't get so excited about it that you go and put your own job in jeopardy—we need you!:

If you are a Madonna fan or a fan of dance music in general, you MUST visit Brian Anthony's MySpace page to check out his "Worked Up! Brian Anthony Vs. Madonna" megamix! What a treat! It's great to hear one of our favorite early Madge songs, "Everybody," sampled throughout. I made the mistake of bouncing to it at work and made a big scene dancing with my co-workers!

...

With this Latin lover's "mucho caliente" looks and his steamy lyrics you know the girls across the pond are salivating for him. Wait until Madonna gets her hands on this one!

We'll wait.

Jack Flack, posted at 9:15 p.m. on May 3:

Parsing Ballmer-to-Yang: See You Again Real Soon, Buddy...

Ballmer: Dear Jerry:

Translation: I'm pinning this on you personally. Not your board. Not Bill Miller. You!

Ballmer: After over three months, we have reached the conclusion of the process regarding a possible combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!.

Translation: This is the letter you've been waiting for. Try not to quiver.

Ballmer: I first want to convey my personal thanks to you, your management team, and Yahoo!'s Board of Directors for your consideration of our proposal.

Translation: I want to do a monkey dance on your neck, but instead I'm going to demonstrate civility. I want to come off as the rational one in this thing.

Etc.

WSJ's Deal Journal, posted May 3 at 9:41 p.m.:

Microsoft-Yahoo: Translating Ballmer's Letter...

And now the letter from Ballmer to Yang:

Dear Jerry:

Thanks for nothing, Jerry:

After over three months, we have reached the conclusion of the process regarding a possible combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!.

We really hope the market really thinks we're walking. Because we want to be able to cut a new deal in a few months when your stock price is still getting killed.

I first want to convey my personal thanks to you, your management team, and Yahoo!'s Board of Directors for your consideration of our proposal....

Thanks for nothing.

Etc.

Okay, they went up at close to the same time, so it's very possible the WSJ never even saw Jack Flack's piece before it put up its own. But the man has been "Parsing" the whole Microsoft-Yahoo thing in more than a dozen posts over three months. Give credit where credit is due!

[UPDATE: WSJ Deal Journal writer Dennis Berman emails to point out that he has done similar "Translating" posts before, such as this one from April 5, 2007. So it's likely he wasn't ripping off the idea from Portfolio.com. A fair point. I'm still in favor of giving Jack Flack the exclusive trademark on "Parsing." But we can say "Translating" will now belong to Deal Journal. Update your dictionaries accordingly.]

For me, it's a given that all organizations (including the US military) attempt to "spin" what the public sees and educate and influence spokespeople who appear in the media. It's not deception any more than the political candidates who are trained to respond in a certain way, nonprofit organizations that routinely use one set of statistics instead of another or CEOs who are media trained on a daily basis by their PR firms.

Agnostic!

It's not at all a surprise to me that the ex-military personnel in this article have ties to people and companies in the defense industry, and in fact, benefit from it financially. (How else would one retired from the military earn a living?)

I have no idea!

· The New York Times wrote of commentators "losing access" if they spoke negatively. While that sounds sinister, in reality, PR 101 would tell anyone to grant access to individuals more likely to speak positively. (Think Hillary Clinton or Obama is granting a lot of time to Commentary Magazine? Think the New York Yankees are allowing a Boston Globe sports reporter unfettered locker room access?)

Probably, yes!

In reality, reporters and PR people have a give-and-take relationship. It only makes sense that "unfriendly" interests won't be granted access. Why not grant access to someone more likely to say nice things? This is true in any business, and yes, war, government and politics is business.

Okay! How to sum up the argument?

This statement makes sense to me: "The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people," Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said. It was, Mr. Whitman added, "a bit incredible" to think retired military officers could be "wound up" and turned into "puppets of the Defense Department."

Spin, Spin, Spin.

October 2006: The Inevitable Hillary Avalanche Begins Rolling Down the Mountain of Victory Former Virginia Governor and, for a brief time, the Democratic Party's Great White Hope Mark Warner dropped out of the race before it even began. At the time rumors of a sex scandal briefly percolated, though he might've just had his hopes dashed by that notoriously terrible Times Magazine cover.

Guess what that meant! Hillary Clinton was now pretty much the "inevitable" nominee. But! "With Sen. Clinton likely to have the endorsement of most of the party liberal bigwigs, labor unions and activists, the expectation has been that one other Democrat will emerge as the anti-Hillary candidate in the presidential primaries." Another but! "Of course, politics abhors a vacuum, and someone will become the anti-Hillary candidate in the primaries. But given a lack of other Southern Democrats of Warner's stature, it is unlikely that candidate will have his potential to change the electoral map."

Also in that October (a year-and-a-half ago! Christ!), Senator Barack Obama said he'd consider a run for the presidency. Conventional wisdom was still divided on whether he was dumb enough to go through with it, but he was now the official anti-Hillary.

And in that same October the first Clinton-related OUTRAGE happened, with Elizabeth Edwards saying she'd had a happier life than Hillary Clinton, code for "better husband" and also "not a cuthroat ambitious bitch." At least that's how the Clintons spun it.

December 2006: Which Well-Spoken Fellows Will Decide to Lose To Hillary This Year? Obama's not-quite-campaign was the focus of most of the speculations. In a Tribune interview, Obama amusingly said that any match-up between him and McCain would be spun as "War hero against snot-nosed rookie." Well, we'll see.

It basically went on like that for another couple months—Clinton was still the inevitable candidate, John Edwards was someone you might have to watch out for in Iowa, and Obama was the anti-Hillary (unspoken: he'd end up like Howard Dean).

2007: Still Ridin' the Hillary Express, Next Stop The White House, Again Hillary was still inevitable, according to analyses linked by such guardians of blog conventional wisdom as Andrew Sullivan and Matt Yglesias. She had passionate reservoirs of support. The only people who didn't like her were the internet people who wanted Edwards or Richardson or maybe Obama (once again, shades of 2004 and Howard Dean).

Summer '07: Follow the Money! It Leads, For Some Reason, to Someone Other Than That Inevitable Gal! Then, in July of 2007, something odd happened! "Obama's money puts Clinton's 'inevitable' nomination in doubt" was how CNN put it. Obama's fundraising beat Clinton's throughout the "invisible primary" (the money race the year before any voting). BUT! "Howard Dean won the invisible primary in 2003, but was effectively finished a few weeks later after he came in third in Iowa." Silly internet candidates! Hill's inevitability was now "in doubt", but only pretend doubt.

But Obama kept raising more money, and gaining in the polls in Iowa, and then Hil "stumbled" in the October '07 debate.

Iowa: Hillary Loses Her First Thing Ever Then Obama won in Iowa and suddenly idiots were saying he was inevitable, especially since Clinton came in a miserable third place and surely Obama would go on to sweep New Hampshire.

Why Don't You Cry About It?

The inevitability argument didn't work! So Hillary moved on to "experienced" and also "human." Yes, she is human. She proved this with crying, which led to a lot of fairly offensive commentary and also a stunning New Hampshire victory that wasn't stunning because everyone had predicted it until Obama caught them off guard in Iowa. Then it was an open race! Where "open" means "between two people."

Then there was "I'm your girl" and the comeback narrative and things were swinging back toward Hillary's superior campaign machine and experience and Obama-as-Dean.

Well, That Scary Black Fellow Won Something Once Too, You Know

Obama came in second a couple more times in unimportant states, but then destroyed Hillary in South Carolina—Bill said something about Jesse Jackson and suddenly the campaign was about race! That was perhaps the strongest whiff so far of the "Hillary DESPERATE" narrative.

The Super Friends! But February's Super Duper Tuesday was supposed to end the campaign! For good! Specifically California and New York! It did no such thing. Obama "won" more states, but Clinton seemed to hold on to a delegate lead.

Wait, There's Math Involved? Except! Obama's campaign then did one of the smartest things they've ever done: they told every news outlet that, using "math," they calculated that they had more delegates than Clinton. And it turned out they probably did! This ended up on Drudge and has remained true ever since.

Oh My God Remember When Texas and Ohio Were Supposed to Finally End This Fucking Death March? When Hillary "won" Texas and Ohio a month later, the cable news chatterers all duly scored it in her column, but the next day's stories all pointed out once again that that nasty Obama delegate lead wouldn't go away.

It's Been Over For a Month-and-a-Half But It Would be Sexist to Tell Her On March 4, 2008, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter came out and said, explicitly, that Hillary could "win" every state yet to vote and she'd still never beat Obama's delegate lead. This was the official start of the "Hillary can't win, at all, and she's just in it for [insert conspiracy theory here]" narrative. The best the Clinton campaign could do to fight off that story was to try to woo superdelegates (underhanded! shadowy party bosses subverting democracy!) and try to make Obama melt down (Republican tactics! tearing the party apart!).

What You've Got You've Got to Give It To Obama Reverend Wright, Bittergate, and soft-on-crime-ness aside, Obama will survive tonight's Pennsylvania primary with his lead intact. Hillary may claim victory, depending on how large her margin is, but nothing short of a blowout will save her from having to resort to Superdelegate votes or a contested convention.

Which, obviously, is still within in the realm of possibility. And it might be amusing. But still—from inevitable to a spoiler in a year is a long way to fall.

(We blame Mark Penn.)

Editor's note: An earlier version of this post inadvertently appeared before being sexed up with occasional bold text and YouTube clips. We apologize for any confusion.

Steve Lewis: When I used to hire PR it was for damage control. At one point Chris Paciello, who was an operator out of Miami, and I were talking in my VIP room and he and I had a very sketchy past, so I was being nice and he was being himself. Anyway he asked me for a phone number, which I went and got the phone number, and when I came back my room was empty. It turned out that he had stabbed somebody in my club. This is a true story. I went outside; I knew there was going to be cops all over. My PR, with my staff, they handled it. The next day someone said did you pick up the paper? And there on Page Six it said there was an argument between a famous Russian photographer, who was sitting next to Miss Russia, and Chris Paciello, and an argument broke out, and Chris stabbed him with a caviar fork. And the brilliance of it was we never served caviar, I don't even know what a caviar fork is. They didn't hide the fact that something had happened, they created this whole image of these fabulous people having this argument, and this little toy thing happened.

[Good Night Mr. Lewis]

Expert #1 is Michael Robinson, an SVP at DC-based crisis specialist Levick Strategic Communications. He's an ex-NYT reporter who used to run communications for Nasdaq and the SEC, and has worked in the White House. "With regard to your question...about potential paths for Gov. Spitzer to follow, the only realistic outcome is for him to resign," he writes. Shucks!

I say this primarily because his "brand" was that of a squeaky clean politician and now it's just squeaky. It as if another famous Elliott - Elliott Ness - was in Al Capone's pocket all along. For somebody who built their entire image and reputation fight crime, his continued tenure in office just can't be sustained. As it turns out, the entire foundation of who he was (at least as far as the public is concerned) was built on sand.

Expert #2 is an exec and a respected media expert at a well known PR agency. Her take:

I think he is screwed without question no matter what he does. But, I would have absolutely told him to resign immediately out of respect for the office and out of respect for the great state of New York and his party. To prolong the inevitable is stupid, shallow and pointless

Eliot: That'll be $87,000.