In those days, martinis at The Library Bar were made stirred, not shaken, and generously served in glass pitchers. My martini arrived arctic-cold with no discernible taste save for its slight hint of dryness. It burned soooooo good. I felt like a grown up.

I’ve lived in New York for two decades now and in all that time – and despite the city’s reputation for having the best of everything – I have yet to find a place that serves one that rivals the mastery and flair of The Library Bar. Gotham is sadly lacking on the quality bartender front. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than randomly finding a bartender who knows how, or will take the time, to serve a properly dry martini. Even some of the best and most expensive restaurants employ rank amateurs.

Fortunately, there are some notable exceptions. And one of them is Abdul Tabini, a longtime bartender at The Odeon who is beloved by Tribeca locals not only for his significant mixology talents, but also for his warmth, charm, and unbridled discretion. I suspect James Bond, a character known for his impeccable taste for the best of everything, particularly his martinis, would be most appreciative of Tabini’s handiwork with a bottle of gin or vodka, a few olives, and a splash of vermouth (although Bond would no doubt disapprove that Tabini also believes a good martini is stirred, not shaken).

The Odeon is, of course, the landmark New York restaurant that flashes in the opening credits of “Saturday Night Live” and was featured on the cover of Jay McInerney’s novel “Bright Lights, Big City.” From the day it opened nearly 30 years ago, the restaurant has always managed to attract a trendy crowd of artists and bold-faced names without making mere mortals like me feel somehow out of our element. Despite its impressive pedigree, The Odeon lacks pretension, which I suspect is one reason for its continued success. For at least the last 14 years, martini-master Tabini was another.

In the mid-nineties, 22-year-old Tabini left his native Morocco for the States with no more than a few dollars in his pocket and a handful of English phrases in his vocabulary. He quickly found work at The Odeon as a barback (essentially a bartender’s assistant), where he thrived. He kept his eyes and ears open, quickly learning both the language and the art of bartending. Tabini was promoted to bartender within eight months; I am proud to be counted among his first customers.

To describe Tabini as being a bartender would be tantamount to describing Alfred Hitchcock or Steven Spielberg as mere film directors. He does not simply pour drinks by rote following recipes long-ago locked in his head. There is exceptional art and pride to what he does, approaching each empty glass much like a sculptor must approach an unmolded piece of clay – as an opportunity to create a uniquely wonderful “wow” moment.

In addition to his sheer flair for making a great drink, I also very much admire Tabini’s inimitable warmth. He has a remarkable memory for details and always seems genuinely interested in how things are going for me and my friends, especially “Chuck” who was one of the regulars many years ago before work obligations took him out of the neighborhood. Tabini also is incredibly discreet: I’ve yet to hear him say anything about anybody to anyone. Whatever happens in front of Tabini stays with Tabini. The guy is a real class act.

This Saturday night will be Tabini’s last shift at The Odeon, a day that the regulars have looked toward with mixed emotions. While we hate to see him abandon his cocktail shaker and swizzle sticks and wave goodbye, he leaves to start Ward III, a 46-seat restaurant and bar he’s opening with two former colleagues around the corner at the site formerly occupied by QDT at 111 Reade Street.

Although Tabini’s myriad regulars earnestly pledge they will frequent his new joint, many also admit they will miss seeing him at The Odeon. “He’s like family,” confided Tommy, a local producer and director. “It’s devastating,” chimed his friend Patricia (before reminding me again to be sure to mention in this blog post that he makes the best martinis).

It takes real guts to leave a secure job to open a restaurant at the best of times, and even more so in the midst of a major economic downturn. Tabini says he isn’t afraid. “You can’t give up just because it’s a bad economy,” he says. “We believe in ourselves.”

Having enjoyed his company and his drinks for the last innumerable years, I must say I believe in them, too.

Tomorrow we drink to your continued success, Abdul. Bottoms up!

Share This Post

I attended several of DePalo’s performances and was always mesmerized by the graceful ease at which she mastered the complexities of her craft, making complicated dance steps and sequences seem effortless. Each performance left me wondering how choreographers do what they do. Where does one even start when conceiving a dance piece? It took nearly a decade but thanks to our newfound friends at modern dance company Jennifer Muller/The Works, I am beginning to find out.

A few months ago, S&A client and friend Gary Hayes asked if we’d consider getting involved with Jennifer Muller/The Works. The company, which he supported on a personal level, was planning a gala to celebrate its 35^th anniversary. Like so many other cultural institutions, they were feeling the financial pinch of an economy turned south and were seeking additional patrons.

For the uninitiated, Jennifer Muller is a living legend in the modern dance world. She has created more than 90 dance pieces and created and restaged countless others for more than 20 international repertory companies across nine countries. She has collaborated with prominent artists such as Keith Haring, Sandro Chia, Keith Jarrett, and Yoko Ono. Underscoring her accomplishment, Muller was one of only 30 artists chosen in 2003 as a founding member of the World Arts Council in Valencia, Spain.

Although there are a few New York City dance companies that have been around longer than Muller’s, virtually all of them were founded in the 1960s when grants and corporate funding for the arts were more readily available. Founding a dance company in the mid-seventies was an ambitious and formidable challenge and keeping it alive through multiple recessions is testimony to her business acumen.

Given my personal interest in dance and our team’s collective excitement to provide the dance troupe support, we leapt at the opportunity to get involved. Truth be told, they had me as soon as I learned I’d be able to attend a rehearsal of the works being staged later in the season! Finally, I had my chance to peek behind the curtain and watch a celebrated choreographer at work.

I’m hard-pressed to accurately explain the emotional reaction of watching Muller at the helm of a rehearsal. As a team leader myself, I was impressed with how she can be so remarkably demanding and nurturing at the same time. She has clearly earned the admiration, respect, and loyalty of her dancers, each one delivering the extra something required to meet and then exceed her passionate demands to achieve perfection. In corporate-speak, we’d say that her dancers are fully engaged in the mission. They live for their art, they have great confidence in their leader, they trust in her vision, and execute it brilliantly not for the mere sake of recognition or tangible reward, but rather because not delivering the goods would be too great a personal disappointment.

Most people don’t realize that the life of a modern dancer isn’t easy or glorious, even for those talented and fortunate enough to make it into a top-tier New York City company. Muller’s dancers spend seven hours a day studying and performing, and the majority need to hold secondary jobs to make ends meet (you definitely don’t choose a career in modern dance for the money). In addition to teaching at various gyms around the city, company dancer Rosie Lani Fiedelman, for example, performs at least eight times a week as an ensemble cast member in the acclaimed Broadway play “In the Heights” (for which she received a 2007 Drama Desk Award). Her dance company colleague Elizabeth (Beth) Disharoon is an energy analyst at a Wall Street firm that, fortunately for her, genuinely supports the outside pursuits of its employees. Needless to say, time management is obviously a requisite skill for being a professional modern dancer.

From June 9-14, Jennifer Muller/The Works will be performing at New York’s Joyce Theater, one of the premier dance venues in New York City. Having already seen multiple Muller performances, I can say with considerable authority that this is an event that modern dance enthusiasts will not want to miss. Starkman & Associates is extremely proud to be a corporate sponsor of a talented dance company that reflects our own values, and hopes you’ll join us at the Joyce Theater next week. We’ll be easy to spot – just look for the group standing proud and clapping the loudest.

Share This Post

Far be it for me to defend the wrongdoings of the PR industry, but journalists stand on a rather unsteady soapbox when it comes to passing judgment on the collective ethics of public relations professionals. Plagiarism, fabrication, and other forms of dishonesty are as common in journalism as steroids in professional sports. Janet Cooke, Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Patricia Smith, Mike Barnicle, Mitch Albom – it doesn’t take much thought to quickly recall the names of those who broke the cardinal rules of journalism and helped tarnish the industry’s once well-regarded reputation for fairness and integrity. Sadly, media plagiarism is so rampant that even journalism professors have been caught doing it.

For every reporter who gets caught, there’s no doubt countless others holding their breath hoping their inappropriate editorial shortcuts aren’t in the limelight next. We know of a few journalists who deserve to be worried. In one instance, a well-known reporter at a major magazine a few years ago lifted entire passages from a bylined article written by one of my clients. We chose not to expose the incident for fear there would be a media backlash against our client for bringing down a respected reporter. In another incident, a reporter at a competing magazine lifted wording and misinformation from an obscure publication without citing the source. The magazine in question had to run a lengthy clarification that was, of course, very carefully crafted to obscure any suggestion that plagiarism occurred.

Maureen Dowd, a popular columnist with The New York Times, and Barney Gimbel, a writer at Fortune, are among the most recent journalists caught lifting or citing information without attribution. And their responses, and those of their media brethren, provide considerable insight into the murkiness of mainstream media’s ethics.

Dowd lifted virtually verbatim a passage of more than 40 words from blogger Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo. Dowd claims she never read Marshall’s work, but got the wording from an email exchange with a friend who didn’t identify the source of the information. Dowd cites the fact she credited two other bloggers as evidence she wasn’t attempting to plagiarize. She hasn’t faced any disciplinary action, and as best I can tell, has yet to concede any wrongdoing.

Gimbel, a young and amiable reporter, in February was caught using some passages from a New York Times Magazine article published five years earlier. Although he didn’t reprint the work verbatim like Dowd, Gimbel didn’t seek to defend himself by arguing that lifting passages here and there is a widespread journalism practice. Feeling deeply ashamed and fearing that he had irreparably betrayed the trust of his colleagues and readers, he voluntarily resigned thinking that was the right and honorable thing to do. He was under no pressure to do so. (Full Disclosure: At the request of a friend, I met and offered some advice to Gimbel after he resigned; I didn’t ask for compensation, but Gimbel did insist on taking me to dinner).

The media’s response to the Dowd and Gimbel incidents is quite telling. Gawker maligns Gimbel for putting “very little thought into concealing his apparent crime,” but gives him no credit for acting honorably when his wrongdoing was exposed. As for Dowd, Gawker sniffs that she “will get off penalty-free for (she says) accidentally plagiarizing” which they are fine with providing the Times finally stops weeping and wailing about how undisciplined online news outlets are ripping them off. Media critic Howard Kurtz defends Dowd with the argument that she wouldn’t deliberately plagiarize because the likelihood of getting caught was just too great. If that’s true, then how would Kurtz explain Gimbel’s transgression? Surely The New York Times Magazine is no obscure publication and the risk of getting caught, accordingly, equally strong.

The Internet is generally blamed for the declining influence of mainstream journalism, but that argument is as simplistic as blaming Japanese and German automakers for the declines of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Foreign automakers taught us that automobiles can be reliable and well-designed; the Big Three automakers never rose to the challenge. Similarly, mainstream journalists simply cannot withstand the real-time scrutiny of bloggers, many of whom are extremely insightful, well-connected and justifiably fed up with “old school” media’s hypocrisy. Even if you buy Dowd’s defense, the fact remains she has been exposed for serving warmed-over thoughts already articulated in cyberspace. Once upon a time, The New York Times op-ed columnists were renowned for the breadth of their experience, the skill of their wordsmithing, and the originality of their commentary.

Most tragic of all is that there isn’t one mainstream media outlet today that can be legitimately cited for impeccable institutional integrity. With regard to The New York Times, I know several reporters whose ethics and professionalism are beyond reproach and whose modus operandi is unfailingly the honest pursuit of truth. But the Times, to its discredit, also publicly countenances the deceptions and misrepresentations of reporters like Alex Berenson and Edmund Andrews, who erroneously believe the ends justify the means and if a little dishonesty will get you there, so be it.

Sadly, there are far too many people in the public relations industry who believe the same thing. Those reporters and PR people are two sides of the same coin – one that’s not worth a dime to either profession’s credibility.

Share This Post

The banking industry’s public response to the current headline-making credit card legislation underscores how far America’s bankers truly are removed from reality. Public loathing of America’s banks has become so profound that even Congress can no longer acquiesce to the industry’s demands – despite the best efforts of a powerful lobby – hence the expected passage of legislation requiring credit card issuers to cease practices that are both unfair and unscrupulous. Rather than take the offensive and ostensibly embrace the inevitable legislation with campaigns touting “We Want to Help Restore America’s Economic Vitality”, the banking industry has effectively responded with “Paybacks are Hell.” Consumers, even those with unblemished credit histories, are told to expect new or higher annual fees, less affinity benefits, and a further tightening of available credit. Bankers just can’t help themselves.

The credit card business doesn’t have to be inherently anti-consumer. Nordstrom Bank, which is wholly owned by the retailer of the same name, is a case in point. I opened a credit card with them last year and have been impressed with how well it maintains Nordstrom’s vaunted reputation for exceptional customer service. Its approach is in stark contrast to those of the major card issuers with which I’d previously dealt.

Let’s start with its call centers. When I first called the 800-number to activate my card, I resigned myself to getting an automated response. Instead, a friendly representative who, it turned out, was incredibly knowledgeable about the card’s benefits, answered my call within 60 seconds and quickly helped me activate my card. Thinking it unlikely Nordstrom had built the call center capability from the ground up, I assumed she worked at an outsourcing company. The woman assured me she was a full-time employee of Nordstrom Bank.

As one who firmly believes that consumer-focused companies that truly care about the customer experience would never outsource the customer service function, I contacted Nordstrom CEO Blake Nordstrom to see if he shared my view. In a reply to my e-mail (how many other Fortune 500 CEOs respond to e-mails from ordinary customers?) he said:

We are one of only three retailers that I know of that still own their credit business. Everyone else has sold it and outsourced it. As merchants, we don’t profess to be bankers. We do feel strongly, though, that we work one on one with our customers and not have a third party in between to potentially jeopardize our relationship. We do have two call centers: one in Denver, the other in Southern California that are staffed 24/7 with Nordstrom employees.

Nordstrom Bank has further earned my admiration for its acts of graciousness. When I called the bank after realizing my first payment would not reach them by its due date, the phone rep waived the accrued late charge and interest penalty without any prompting from me. The bank also did not charge me a fee to make an electronic payment over the phone, an atypical practice that the rest of the industry will now have to adopt, as mandated in the current credit card bill. Since then, I’ve called the bank a number of times, and without exception I was speaking to a customer rep in less than a minute because once you are “in the system” you can simply hit zero and a real person comes on the line. Such respect for customers’ time and connectivity preferences, coupled with an affinity program that is honest and transparent, has earned them my appreciation and loyalty.

Interestingly, Nordstrom doesn’t have a slogan or even a logo, and it doesn’t spend a great deal of money on advertising buys, yet the company is one of the country’s best known retailers. Nordstrom preserves its enviable brand reputation the same way it established it: by giving shoppers impeccable service, great selection, competitive prices, and no-nonsense sales practices. And that’s what consumers want from their banks. Vernon Hill, the banking maverick who turned Commerce Bancorp into a retailing powerhouse in the mid-Atlantic region, was one of the few bankers who understood and embraced this reality.

Banks and the executives who lead them would do well to remember that the responsibility for reputation management does not begin nor end with the folks in the marketing and public relations department. It truly is a shared obligation that touches on every aspect of banking operations. Banks that fail to quickly grasp this fact will continue to find themselves a day late and more than a dollar short. They better heed this reality because they have no more political currency left to support yet another taxpayer-funded bailout.

Share This Post

The omission is, regrettably, one of the compromises journalists must make to remain viable in today’s scoop-centric news industry. Given a choice between preserving future access to corporate sources with exclusive information or risk having that spigot turned off as the result of a negative merger-gone-bust story that fingers their sources for the blame, most reporters will opt for the former. By not holding Wall Street accountable for orchestrating mergers that are doomed to failure, the media becomes an unwitting accomplice to the investment bankers who continue to pocket tens of millions of dollars in fees while eroding – and in some cases destroying – healthy corporations. Rare indeed is the reporter who is willing to go out on a limb and say “these are the dealmakers who screwed up.”

That’s why I read with incredible interest Andrew Ross Sorkin’s especially passionate “Dealbook” commentary today in The New York Times. Mr. Sorkin, who to his credit has written more critical articles about the M&A industry than his competitors, is seemingly outraged that Tribune Company has filed for bankruptcy just one year after real estate magnate Sam Zell acquired it for some $8 billion and then saddled it with a staggering $13.2 billion in debt. (As an aside, Aaron Elstein at Crain’s New York Business takes a similarly critical and compelling look this week at Apollo Management and its missteps with soon-to-disappear Linens ‘n Things.)

What sticks most in Mr. Sorkin’s craw is the cast of characters that earned millions in fees for making the Tribune deal happen, and he is not afraid to name names. He reports that Citigroup and Merrill Lynch earned $35.8 million and $37 million, respectfully, for advising the Tribune board and then scooped up millions more on top of that in financing fees. Other companies dining at the trough were Morgan Stanley, which earned $7.5 million writing a “fairness opinion” as well as a $2.5 million “advisory fee”, and Valuation Research Corporation, which was paid $1 million to give a “solvency opinion”.

Some perspective is in order. A failed M&A deal is a dog-bites-man story, and the $8 billion Tribune deal is rather puny by today’s standards. Contrast Mr. Sorkin’s column to the Times‘ and other media outlets’ coverage of the $29.5 billion writedown Sprint Nextel announced earlier this year stemming from the ineffectual post-merger integration of Sprint and Nextel. Despite being significantly larger than the Tribune transaction, there is not even a passing mention in the news coverage of the masterminds behind this M&A debacle who got it so wrong.

The Tribune Company owns various media properties, including the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, and its bankruptcy filing certainly doesn’t auger well for employees at any of them. And while the plight of fellow journalists is seemingly what has Mr. Sorkin most in a dither, the message of today’s column could have easily and more aptly been written months ago – years even – about countless other dealmakers and companies who, at the end of the day, failed shareholders and employees alike by trying to integrate oil and water.

Mr. Sorkin and his colleagues would do readers a great service by continuing today’s naming names approach in their future reporting of M&A dealshitting the skids. Holding investment bankers publicly accountable for their misguided advice and pricey opinions would be a far greater public service than publishing league tables that simply note which ones are involved in the most deals destined to fail.

Share This Post

But there is a discernible trend suggesting that reporters, perhaps inadvertently, are helping to promulgate government wrongdoing rather than expose it. The latest egregious example is a page-one “exposé” in the (Albany, NY) Times Union last summer alleging that former New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno misused state aircraft. According to a report released last week by the Commission on Public Integrity, the story closely tracked – verbatim at points – a memo written by Darren Dopp, who had led former governor Eliot Spitzer’s communications function. Mr. Dopp and four other Spitzer administration officials have been rebuked for orchestrating their “Dirty Tricks” plot to discredit Mr. Bruno.

The Times Union was not, however, the only media outlet to serve as the Spitzer administration’s errant pipeline for pumping dirty water to its constituents. During his days as Attorney General, Mr. Spitzer instigated a malicious campaign to disparage former New York Stock Exchange chairman and CEO Richard Grasso. As Mr. Grasso’s PR advisor following his disgraceful firing from the NYSE, I had a front row seat to what was unquestionably one of the most irresponsible periods in modern business journalism. The biased reporting of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (news side, not editorial) come most clearly to mind.

Journalists from the Times and the Journal zealously reported a steady stream of misinformation and innuendoes spoon-fed to them by Messrs. Spitzer and Dopp to pressure Mr. Grasso into settling. Much of this misinformation received prominent page-one placement and virtually all of the stories have since been discredited. All the charges Mr. Spitzer filed against Mr. Grasso have been dismissed, which wasn’t a surprise to anyone who understood the facts of the case.

Also of note is USA Today’s reporting concerning what turned out to be a government smear campaign against former Army bioterrorism researcher Steven J. Hatfill. Back in 2002, the newspaper prominently and repeatedly reported that Dr. Hatfill was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. Judge Reggie B. Walton has since ruled “there is not a scintilla of evidence” (emphasis mine) implicating Dr. Hatfill to the anthrax attacks. The Justice department recently agreed to pay $4.6 million to settle Dr. Hatfill’s defamation lawsuit.

Dr. Steven Hatfill was first publicly accused by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, which should have raised eyebrows among responsible reporters since an investigation was still underway and no charges were even close to being filed. Some of the most accusatory stories were written by former USA Today reporter Toni Locy. As she herself reported, there were other government officials who doubted the evidence against Dr. Hatfill yet she wrote the damning stories anyway, seemingly placing a higher value on getting the proverbial scoop than on safeguarding a potentially innocent man’s reputation and career from irreversible damage.

Shockingly, the mainstream media is neither embarrassed nor chastened by the Bruno, Grasso, and Hatfill reporting debacles, just as it wasn’t particularly contrite following the shameful pack-mentality reporting on Richard Jewell, the security guard in Atlanta who years ago was erroneously fingered and subsequently vilified as the Olympic park bomber.

The truth is that reporters today are driven by their editors to deliver tersely written “scoops” usually whispered to them by individuals with political or self-serving agendas who refuse to be identified. Reporters defend this malignant journalism by arguing the leaks are in themselves “news”. Compounding the problem is most newspapers no longer value experience and have forced their older and most knowledgeable reporters to take buyouts. As a result, most newspapers lack editors who can readily identify a bogus story. To wit: a story earlier this year in the Los Angeles Times, a newspaper that has undergone massive layoffs, about associates of Sean Combs attacking rap artist Tupac Shakur with the former’s knowledge was almost instantly debunked by three experienced journalists at The Smoking Gun. Similarly, it took a seasoned reporter at the New York Post to ultimately expose the Spitzer administration’s Bruno smear campaign for what it was.

Those in favor of a Shield Law for reporters argue that protecting the media from revealing their sources is in keeping with the notion of the press as the Fourth Estate, a part of the checks and balances built into our system of government to prevent abuse of power. But the harsh reality is that such a shield will mostly serve to protect political hatchetmen like Darren Dopp and some of the still-unidentified dubious characters who leaked erroneous information about Dr. Hatfill to Ms. Locy. Reporters are rarely sued or pressured to reveal their sources when they get their facts correct.

Today’s media environment is nothing like it was in the late 1700s when the Fourth Estate concept took root. People do not have to rely on pamphleteers and underground newspapers to get an uncensored perspective on notable events in their homeland. This legacy of transparency and a free press is, without question, to America’s great credit and benefit.

But accountability is the price that the media should be required to pay for press freedom. It is the best protection we have against reporters who abandon their professional obligations and ethical responsibilities. Passing a Shield Law will only serve to cripple that defense.

Share This Post

Given the high performance bar that these employees set, S&A can be a rather daunting place to work, especially for a college junior. Our exacting internal standards coupled with the sophisticated client projects we undertake and the mach speed at which we often work can tax the most ambitious college student. Understandably, we don’t expect our interns to keep up with the pace. We simply expect that they truly partner with us to make their internship a meaningful learning experience.

As I’ve written before, we participate in an internship program by Holy Cross that has been an incredible experience for us. We learned of Holy Cross’ internship program through one of their graduates that we had hired. It’s a rather novel approach – we provide the learning opportunity and, as long as there is a Holy Cross grad on staff, the school’s alumni organization takes care of paying the intern’s seasonal stipend. Every Holy Cross student and graduate that has walked through our door has vastly exceeded our expectations. This summer was no exception.

We had the distinct pleasure to work this summer with Kaitlyn Curley, who became a critical member of our team almost from the moment she arrived. Kaitlyn doesn’t just seek to perform tasks – she strives to understand the rationale behind them, to identify trends, to spot parallels. Her analytical skills are quite impressive. As a result, Ms. Curley took on considerably more responsibility than we anticipated with amazingly little direction.

Kaitlyn has a great work ethic. She always arrived on time and often worked well beyond her designated departure time to finish her projects, even when they weren’t due for another day or two. When given assignments, she would take copious notes and ask insightful questions to ensure she had what she needed to complete the task with exceptional speed, accuracy, and proficiency. We never saw Kaitlyn websurfing, talking to friends, or working on personal matters while on “company time.”

To say that Kaitlyn is quiet is an understatement. She is one of those people who you never know quite what they are thinking and, like my colleagues Jackie and Jeff, can keep her opinions and emotions VERY close to the proverbial vest. I also know that she plays lacrosse, as I caught her one night trying to quietly sneak past my door in her field attire. Although Kaitlyn is slight of build, I strongly suspect she is a terror with a lacrosse stick. You know what they say about the quiet ones – they’re always the ones you have to watch out for!

Today is Kaitlyn’s last day with us, and we are all noticeably disappointed for it. We will miss her spirit, her great work, her strong ideas, her fresh enthusiasm, and her company. Good luck in school this year, Kaitlyn, and don’t forget to call us first when looking for your first full-time job. It would be our great honor to have you back on board.

I’ve often wondered if Holy Cross makes its students great or if it simply has a knack for attracting great students. Regardless, I’m impressed how everyone I’ve met from this well-respected institution is intellectually well-rounded and inculcated with enviable values and discipline. If anyone knows of a Holy Cross graduate interested in initiating or continuing their career in public relations, please send them our way.

Let’s just say that résumés with Holy Cross on them tend to move to the top of the pile at S&A.

Share This Post

So I was understandably taken aback to read Don Hewitt, a veteran broadcaster and the director and producer of the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, actually defending Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos. Mr. Hewitt told The New York Times that a debate entails “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience”.

“When you’re in television, that’s your job,” he is quoted as saying.

Fair enough. But given that presidential candidates now make the rounds on entertainment talk shows, appear on “Saturday Night Live”, and even do videos for World-Wide Wrestling Entertainment, why bother with the debates if their sole purpose is to simply create some more “show biz”? We get enough of that from them already.

Alternatively, if the debates are merely entertainment, perhaps the networks should consider asking comedians Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien to serve as moderators. Not only would the ratings go up, my guess is so would the level of discourse.

Share This Post

Reporter: “How can the company justify paying 300 times book value to acquire a failing company owned by the CEO’s son-in-law?”

Spokesperson: “NEWCO is proud of its corporate governance practices and its commitment to increasing shareholder value. We look forward to expanding the NEWCO brand through this merger of equals.”

Ok, so maybe I’ve crafted more than a few statements in PR-speak myself.

That said, how incredibly liberating to come across a corporate comment in the newspaper that not only speaks directly to the issue, but does so with real gusto…a statement that puts the inquiring reporter in his place and publicly questions his news judgment….a statement where the spokesperson stops being a shiny, happy person for a millisecond to say what he or she is really thinking.

Surprisingly, such a statement was issued by none other than CBS News. In response to a question about the embattled Katie Couric possibly – but not definitely – but, let’s face it, increasingly likely – “barring a change” – possibility of quitting as the anchor of “CBS Evening News”, CBS issued the following statement to the New York Post:

“We think readers are extraordinarily bored with this infantile and nasty pilling on… and will continue to focus not on baseless rumor and conjecture, but on the quality and depth of the broadcast – which is second to none.”

Wow – that’s a big change from the more traditional “we’re very proud of…” and “we have no plans for any changes regarding…” statements reportedly issued earlier.

Alas, the Post didn’t report whether a name was attached to the more recent statement, so I don’t know the identity of the verbal sharpshooter. But whoever you are, I applaud your courage and candor. I’d be delighted to buy you a drink.

Something tells me you could use one.

Share This Post

My lunch companion was not the first respected journalist to privately share concerns about the decline of the journalism profession and fellow reporters’ ability to fairly and correctly present facts. Regret the Error, a website that “reports on media corrections, retractions, apologies, clarifications, and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the press” serves as an ongoing reminder how far journalism standards have plummeted.

More so than ever, the media business has become just that – a business. Daily newspapers have fallen most precipitously – they are now for the most part being run by profit-seeking, non-journalist executives looking to generate profits rather than play the historic noble role of Fourth Estate. While that may not necessarily be a bad thing in theory, it certainly is when the intense bottom line focus leads to the wholesale firings of seasoned reporters and editors with invaluable experience and irreplaceable institutional knowledge. That’s how you wind up with bogus stories like the one The Los Angeles Times had to retract about associates of Sean Combs attacking rap artist Tupac Shakur with the former’s knowledge. Three veteran journalists from The Smoking Gun immediately realized the story “did not pass the smell test” and quickly debunked it. As the saying goes, there is no substitute for experience.

While many seasoned reporters are at least privately acknowledging that the profession needs to collectively run a tighter ship, there are others who suggest that it needs even greater latitude. Among them is Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP), an organization founded in 1970 by the sorts of journalism heavyweights that have no modern day counterparts, including J. Anthony Lukas, Ben Bradlee, Eileen Shanahan, and Tom Wicker. The organization focuses its efforts largely on First Amendment and freedom of information issues.

Ms. Dalglish is the person reporters invariably call when the news-gathering process becomes the news itself. A very recent example would be the shamefully errant reporting in several publications that repeatedly linked Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army bioterrorism expert, to the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. However, according to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, “there’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do” with the anthrax attacks. Click here for an earlier post with the details.

Dr. Hatfill is seeking legal retribution for having his reputation unfairly and probably forever tarnished. He also reasonably wants to know who provided the damaging misinformation about him to Toni Locy, the USA Today reporter who wrote the stories that maligned him. Ms. Locy has so far refused to divulge the information and Judge Walton has not only held her in contempt, he has ordered that she, and not USA Today, be charged hefty punitive fines as a result.

Ms. Dalglish and the RCFP are valiantly trying to leverage Ms. Locy’s plight to pressure Congress to pass a federal shield law that would protect reporters from ever having to disclose their sources. Ms. Dalglish has publicly portrayed Ms. Locy as a First Amendment crusader and her profession’s latest Joan of Arc.

Personally, I view Ms. Locy’s reporting and the subsequent stories that led to her self-created predicament as the best argument against passage of a federal shield law. No matter how I look at it, I cannot see how the public good is best served by giving reporters carte blanche freedom to publish poorly sourced – or worse, wholly unsourced – and inaccurate stories without the possibility of legal ramifications. Journalists are fed false information every day by parties with hidden agendas. This misinformation is often innocuous, but other times the results are far more dire with the reporter serving as a mere pawn in someone’s propaganda game.

Keeping journalists subject to possible court-mandated source disclosures for erroneous stories compels them to be a lot more selective about the sources they rely on and are willing to go to the proverbial mat for. The U.S. press is free to publish anything it wants, but like any other business, it should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Rest assured, if Congress doesn’t pass a shield law, Ms. Dalglish will have no shortage of journalists whose erroneous reporting she will be called on to defend.

Share This Post

Or ask someone in private equity. That sector is most often associated with the likes of Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, who has reaped billions of dollars by buying healthy companies, crippling them with debt and massive layoffs, and then selling them at a huge profit. Although there are countless private equity firms who have contributed mightily to the economy and the public good, the average Joe or Jane steadfastly identifies the industry with greedy individuals who pillage companies and feast on $40 crab claws.

The PR profession certainly isn’t immune to public misperceptions either, which is more than a tad ironic. Indeed, we are the proverbial shoemaker’s children when it comes to our own reputation management. Our public credibility gap has, sadly, only widened lately thanks to the headline-generating missteps, blunders, and ethical breaches of some high-profile practitioners. While these individuals may occupy corner offices, I am loathe to use the term “industry leader” to describe any of them for they have shown via their actions, words, or values that they do not represent the trail-blazing people in the PR industry who truly deserve professional respect and admiration.

Mark Penn, the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, is the industry’s embarrassment du jour. While the mainstream media has been highly critical of Senator Hillary Clinton’s decision to allow Mr. Penn to keep his day job while serving as a key advisor on her presidential campaign, Burson-Marsteller has largely been given a free pass on its equally problematic decision to allow Mr. Penn to continue on as its CEO.

As someone who has generated a significant amount of new business through referrals from people with whom we work, I appreciate the value of having a CEO who is so connected as to have the ear of someone who could very well be the next president. But one of the cardinal rules of reputation management is that you should never act behind the scenes in a way that would prove to be embarrassing or detrimental if it was covered on the front page of the newspaper.

Mr. Penn’s decision to meet with officials from Colombia, which hired Burson no doubt in part because of Mr. Penn’s connection to Senator Clinton, and subsequent apology after his meeting became public, was an insult to the firm’s employees who dutifully uphold the firm’s published commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest and to all the clients who were taken in by the firm’s grandstanding about its ethical approach to business. It also demonstrated that Mr. Penn’s greater loyalty is to the Clinton campaign rather than to Burson’s clients.

But the Colombia incident isn’t the only instance of ethical malfeasance at Burson under Mr. Penn’s leadership. The Wall Street Journal in September reported that Burson was aggressively waging a campaign advocating against Google’s planned acquisition of DoubleClick. But in its outreach to reporters, Burson representatives failed to disclose to reporters that it was working for Microsoft, a major Google competitor. According to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), such subterfuge is wholly improper and a significant ethical breach.

Harold Burson, an industry luminary and the co-founder of the firm that employs Mr. Penn, also has ethical problems with PR firms not disclosing their vested interests. “I’m totally opposed to front organizations that do not disclose where their funding comes from and to my knowledge – we’re a big company – we have never started or organized a group where the funding sponsorship was unknown,” Mr. Burson said in a 1999 interview that was first cited by PR blogger Mark Rose. Things have clearly changed at Burson since Mr. Penn assumed the leadership.

Further, Mr. Penn reportedly has been actively involved in Burson’s representation of troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. For an inside look at one of the most dubious reputation management campaigns ever waged, this article in the Wall Street Journal and this one in Salon is must reading.

Regrettably, Burson isn’t the only global PR firm causing the industry considerable embarrassment. It was reported on Gawker, a media-focused website, that Edelman, which also made pledges about its ethical approach to business and commitment to honesty, tells clients that it is okay to lie to the media. CEO Richard Edelman denies the story, of course.

I’ve met Richard Edelman and even once entertained thoughts of joining his firm (heck, we once cheekily considered calling this blog “5:45 a.m.” as opposed to his own “6 a.m.” blog to suggest we were at work before the Big Boys of the industry). My take from afar? Mr. Edelman is decidedly one of the most decent, personable, trusting, and gracious senior executives in the PR business. But his trust has repeatedly been misplaced. In recent years he has increasingly chosen to surround himself with political operatives, including Leslie Dach, who worked at Edelman for nearly two decades, albeit with some sabbaticals to work on various political campaigns.

Mr. Dach, the subject of an extremely damning profile in The New Yorker, formerly oversaw Edelman’s Wal-Mart account and he has since joined the giant retailer. During Dach’s leadership, Edelman initiated the “Wal-Marting Across America” blog, supposedly penned by a couple of customer enthusiasts who turned out to have been bought and paid for by the PR firm. That campaign was one of the most egregious communications frauds in recent memory. Edelman still retains the Wal-Mart account, which suggests the controversial retailer wasn’t too chagrined after being outed for the deception.

Then there is the issue of Ronn Torossian, the CEO of 5WPR, which claims to be one of the fastest growing PR firms in the industry. Mr. Torossian has a penchant for threatening litigation (see Strumpette’s Torossian Lawsuit countdown clock), a brash style, and a rather skewed perception of where he fits in the pecking order of industry giants (To wit, he reportedly said this a few years ago with respect to legendary PR man Howard Rubenstein: “5WPR are the new kids on the block to challenge him as the leading PR person in NYC.”). I will let the folks at Gawker fill you in on a major reason why Mr. Torossian comes to mind while writing this particular post.

Finally, there is Michael “The-Flack-When-You-Are-Under-Attack” Sitrick. As I’ve noted before, I admire Mr. Sitrick’s willingness to rough up reporters who write negative stories about his clients (although some of the reporters he has taken on are among the smartest and fairest in the business) and I salute Mr. Sitrick for his ability to dupe 60 Minutes into doing an uncritically sympathetic story about his controversial client Biovail being an unjustified victim of short sellers. Yet his outrages and messianic attacks on short sellers for their dubious activities loses some of its steam when you read that his firm has apparently engaged in some highly questionable practices itself.

(Full Disclosure: I briefly was retained by an attorney to assist in a matter involving Spyro Contogouris, a hedge fund researcher who was a prime target of Mr. Sitrick’s attacks)

Over the years I have been frequently criticized by PR people for being “extremely naïve about PR” and “thinking too much like a reporter.” I’ve been told that PR is an inherently dirty business that often requires the use of dishonesty and deception to get the job done. But I don’t buy that, nor do the people who work here. At the end of the day, our reputation for integrity and transparency is our most cherished corporate asset, and no client, project, award, or piece of business is worth its sacrifice. These values have served us well.

The PR industry has no shortage of practitioners who are quick to advise others how to manage their reputations. It’s high time we did something about our own.

Share This Post

I just don’t “get” technology. I barely passed computer science in seventh grade and it’s been an uphill battle ever since. When something goes wrong with my computer or iPod or whatever, there’s never an easy fix. My colleagues, friends, and probably Dell and Mac’s combined support staffs have learned to dread my phone calls begging for help.

But it seems there’s hope for me yet.

Six months ago I reluctantly leased a BMW. I say “reluctantly” because I actually wanted to lease another Acura, the car I previously leased for a blissful trouble-free 39 months. Heck, I would have been happy to buy my old Acura, but the buyout payment was ridiculously prohibitive, especially considering an unbelievable offer a local BMW dealership gave me. Even the Acura salesman agreed the BMW deal was just too good to pass up. So, despite a panic-attack-inducing dashboard full of high-tech bells and whistles, I went with the BMW.

I’m glad I did. Anyone who knows cars knows that BMWs are legendary for their handling. Having spent some time in the driver’s seat, I can confirm that the reputation is well deserved. I haven’t enjoyed driving this much since I first got my driver’s license! Forget “The Ultimate Driving Machine”, BMW’s marketing folks should call it what it really is – “The Ultimate Driving Technology“.

Whereas some people may pride themselves on having a BMW parked in their driveway, I’m not one for “status symbols” so the car means nothing to me on that level. The pride I derive from the car is being able to triumphantly say, believe it or not, that I have mastered its myriad technology operating functions and amenities. I’ve actually figured out how to use all the “extras” on my dashboard. I can listen to my iPod, use the GPS, or talk hands-free on my cellphone without breaking out the driver’s manual or calling my salesman. Remember, I was essentially a Luddite when it came to embracing new technologies so this is a really big deal for me.

There once was a time when I was equally in awe of Apple Computers’ ability to make user-friendly and reliable technologies. Mac computers were once considerably more intuitive and reliable than those of its PC-based rivals, and the company’s tech support staff was equally accessible. Sadly, those days seem resigned to the history books.

I recently was staying away from home for a while in a corporate apartment. The cable Internet connection wasn’t working with my G4 laptop, so I called Apple, thinking that its tech people would be trained to quickly and easily help me with such a basic function. Guess again.

After waiting a good 30 minutes in the Apple tech support queue, I connected with a technician and told him my dilemma. Imagine my shock to be told dismissively that Apple doesn’t support products that are more than three years old (Excuse me? Yeah, that’s a whole other blog post waiting to happen.). After I begged and pleaded, he said Apple would support me “this one time.” I’m sure there was some significant eye-rolling at the other end of the line.

To make a long and rather unpleasant story short, it took the Mac “genius” more than an hour to troubleshoot my problem. Regrettably, he managed to create a host of other problems along the way that he wasn’t able or willing to correct, including disabling the functionality of my Verizon Wireless card. Fortunately, someone at Verizon Wireless was able to get me back up and running within minutes. As Verizon Wireless doesn’t officially support Apple products, the assistance was twice as much appreciated.

My growing disenchantment with Apple isn’t tied to that one incident. About a year ago, the company redesigned its mac.com email program, for which I paid about $100 a year to use. The upgrade was fraught with major hiccups and glitches, including system outages where the site itself would be down, denying users access to their messages. And if you did log on, it would frequently log you off as you were drafting an email, losing whatever you’d written thus far. Emails you thought were sent never went through to the recipient. It was frustrating to say the least.

Other Mac users, including talk show host Rush Limbaugh, report having other problems. Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh recently appealed on air to Apple CEO Steve Jobs for help with a computer problem after failing to get an issue resolved via the company’s tech support desk. Apple’s response? They dispatched an engineer to go work with him. If only the rest of us could get such high-touch, personal customer service.

There is also a broader concern about reliability. Dao, our former creative director who left us to join the Peace Corps, convinced me that she needed an iMac to do her job. Well, guess what? Less than a year later we had to send back the computer because its internal workings were “fried”. Even the new MacBook Dao eventually took with her to Macedonia was infected with gremlins. I believe the tech term would be “Random Shutdown Syndrome.” According to BusinessWeek, problem-plagued Macs are clearly not limited to my little private circle.

Yet Apple continues to enjoy a cult-like following simply because of the lack of formidable competition when it comes to functionality and design. Even I can readily appreciate the superiority of the Mac operating system. And while Apple’s standards for reliability have declined significantly over the past few years, it has never introduced a product as flawed as Microsoft’s Vista operating system, which is so problem-plagued that even Microsoft’s own senior executives have issues with it.

Still, it seems Mr. Jobs is increasingly willing to compromise on the reliability of Apple products in the rush to be first to market. His tolerance of launching “almost good enough” technology is a common mindset in Silicon Valley and the focus of a highly insightful commentary by Stephen Baker in BusinessWeek last September. Technophiles don’t seem to mind the shortcomings and compromises; Dao steadfastly remains a devoted Mac user and sees nothing wrong with needing a software upgrade immediately after buying her laptop. Her successor, Jake, is another devout iPhone-carrying Apple head. (When I told Jake that Apple will no longer support my laptop, he unabashedly replied, “Well you know it is more than three years old.” UGH!!!!!)

Perhaps it’s a generational thing, but I refuse to go along with the “almost good enough” mentality and the constant – and sometimes immediate – need for upgrades after products are introduced. In a way, I blame BMW. My experience with them has taught me that technology can be made both simple and reliable, and explained at a level that even a technophobe can understand. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet seen the need to publish a “BMW for Dummies.”

Maybe I’m mistaken, but I suspect that if BMW decided to make computers, their engineers and designers would adhere to much higher performance and service standards than those currently demanded by Mr. Jobs. And the folks at BMW could no doubt give Mr. Jobs a hell-of-a-run on the marketing front. Ah yes, dare to dream…

The thought of BMW making computers might sound absurd today, but who would have thought just a few years ago that Mr. Jobs would one day be peddling music and cell phones. Suffice to say, Mr. Jobs had better hope that my dream never becomes his reality.

Okay, you die-hard Appleheads who blindly worship Mr. Jobs, give me your best shot.

Share This Post

When I was 12, my uncle Specs Howard (then the top-ranked morning man at WKYC in Cleveland) used to take me to work with him whenever I came to visit. I was in awe of him and his job, and soon dreamed of being a DJ myself at CKLW, a Detroit radio station well known to anyone living east of the Mississippi who came of age in the late 60s and owned a transistor radio. In those days, radio was fun and was dominated by zany and distinctly local personalities such as Cousin Brucie (New York), Larry Lujack (Chicago), Dick Purton (Detroit), “The Real” Don Steele (Los Angeles), and Brian Skinner (Toronto).

Regretfully, radio took a really bad turn some 20 years ago. The FCC relaxed restrictions on the number of radio stations that media companies could own in individual cities. That sparked a massive wave of consolidation and the advent of generic radio formats that plague the industry today. No matter where you live, chances are there is a “Lite” radio station on your FM dial that drones on just like the one we have here in New York.

It is no secret that radio has been suffering a decline in listeners over the last 20 years or so. Everything but the real culprit – vapid programming – has been blamed, from the advent of MTV and VH1 to personal cassette players, CD players, MP3 players, iPods, and even alternative personal entertainment devices like home-based video games. Personally, I point the accusatory finger at the bland, cookie-cutter approach to programming.

Thankfully, there remains one station that still harks back to the glory days of radio. It’s K-Earth 101 (ok, technically KRTH, 101.1 FM), a Los Angeles radio station that sounds as unique and vibrant today as it did 35 years ago when it debuted as Southern California’s “oldies” station.

Even if you’ve never left the East Coast, chances are strong that you’ve heard some of the stentorian voices that have crackled through the airwaves from that station over the years as many of them enjoyed nationally syndicated shows or did commercial voiceover work on the side. In addition to Mr. Steele, they included Charlie Van Dyke, whose God-sounding voice is quite fitting since he left full-time radio to become an ordained minister (and who also lived my dream of being the morning man at CKLW), Robert W. Morgan (”a good Morgan to you”), and Charlie Tuna. Sadly, Messrs. Steele and Morgan have since passed on to that great DJ booth in the sky, but Mr. Van Dyke still does K-Earth’s station identification spots and Mr. Tuna, who has a Star on the Walk of Fame, recently rejoined the station and sounds as great as ever.

I’ve been listening to K-Earth online for a while now. Some of the station’s personalities seem like family. I often fantasize about living in southern California and listening to an LA radio station allows me to live there vicariously. Admittedly, it can be frustrating to hear about their 70 degree temperatures as you bundle up to head out into NYC’s freezing cold, but then again, there is something to be said about listening to news of interminable freeway tie-ups knowing you won’t have to experience them.

One of my favorite personalities is Gary Bryan, a former bass player in a Seattle rock band who subsequently morphed into one of America’s top DJs. In addition to being quite funny with a Count Dracula-like laugh, Mr. Bryan strikes me as a modern-day Ward Cleaver: he frequently talks about his wife and three daughters, and judging by his comments, he’s quite the family man. Mr. Bryan also isn’t afraid to take on controversial issues – for weeks he waged a campaign lobbying for The Monkees to be inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Mr. Bryan’s sidekick is entertainment reporter Lisa Stanley, an effusive and quite likeable woman who sometimes comes across as the stereotypical bleach-bottle blonde. Whether it’s an act or not I don’t know, but either way, Mr. Bryan has great fun at her expense. Once, during a discussion about the incoming Santa Ana winds, Mr. Bryan suggested to Ms. Stanley that she stick her head out the window so she could get a refill. That’s the type of all-in-good-fun banter that goes on during their morning show.

Also accompanying Mr. Bryan is a seemingly soft-spoken producer named Samantha Stander, newscaster Bob Malik (who has a classic 60s news voice), and someone generally referred to as “Timmy the Cabana Boy”, who I assume is the show’s engineer. The ensemble works well together and they seem to genuinely like each other.

Although all the K-Earth announcers are quite talented and all have very distinctive personalities, my other favorites include “Shotgun” Tom Kelly, Dave Randall – unquestionably the hardest working all-night guy in the history of radio– and Christina Kelley, one of the top female personalities working in radio today.

Although oldies formats are fast disappearing round the country, KRTH does surprisingly well in the local ratings. According to K-Earth’s program director Jhani Kaye, the station ranks number four in the highly coveted 25-54 demographic, which underscores there is still a strong market for personality-driven radio.

So thank you Gary, Lisa, Bob, Charlie, Tom, Christina, and all your colleagues at K-Earth. In a world that sometimes moves too quick, is sometimes too impersonal, and is sometimes just too downright mean, it’s comforting to know there are still a few folks left in radio who are fun, civil, and a delight to listen to.

Share This Post

Eli Lilly announced yesterday that it has acquired the exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Transition Therapeutics’ gastrin-based diabetes therapies, which reportedly improve glycemic control in studies. One of these therapies is in early Phase II testing.

The acquisition should be good news for patients who take Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa drug, whose potential side effects apparently include obesity and diabetes. The drugmaker is currently being sued by about 10 states for not properly informing patients of these risks.

That said, Lilly getting the rights to the diabetes treatment seems akin to Philip Morris acquiring the worldwide rights to the cure for lung cancer. You know what they say about covering your bases…

Speaking of Zyprexa lawsuits, if you are interested in some impressive and insightful commentary on one of Lilly’s most recent PR gaffes — issuing one of the more dubious news releases I’ve ever seen — I highly recommend you check out this website.

Share This Post

The State of Alaska has filed suit against Eli Lilly, contending that the drugmaker inappropriately downplayed Zyprexa’s health risks and should now be held responsible for the medical expenses of in-state Medicaid patients who contracted diabetes or other ailments after taking the drug. Many will be keenly watching this trial. Eight other states have filed similar suits and as many as 30 others are reportedly considering doing so. Opening statements were made yesterday.

This blog marks the third or fourth time I’ve written on the topic. I’m beginning to think that few outside Eli Lilly are as engrossed in the details as me and The New York Times, which has also written extensively about it. The newsworthiness of this major legal battle explains the Times‘ ongoing interest; my own stems from the broader crisis communications lessons to be learned from Eli Lilly’s handling of this matter.

While the Times did an admirable job of covering the trial’s opening arguments and setting the legal stage, I must question its reporting in that same article about Eli Lilly being investigated for “off-label” marketing of this drug – a serious no-no in the pharma world. While the reference to those charges was unquestionably relevant, the Times neglected to inform readers that the State of Alaska’s lawsuit had also alleged off-label marketing tactics, but that the presiding judge had already thrown out the claim. While I don’t know whether the dismissal was due to a lack of corroborating evidence or perhaps simply a technical glitch – the Times should have at least given the full story.

As an aside, I can’t help but note the irony of Alaska prosecutor Scott Allen reportedly characterizing Eli Lilly’s alleged conduct as being “reprehensible”. That is the same word that senior federal district Judge Jack B. Weinstein used to characterize the information-gathering tactics of Alex Berenson, the Times reporter who has been following this story for the paper.

Up until today, I had been largely mistrustful of the Times‘ Zyprexa reporting because of the alleged ethical shortcuts the newspaper had taken in obtaining the story. I refused, naively, to accept that Zyprexa, an FDA-approved pharmaceutical, could be as horrific a drug as the Times portrayed it to be. I figured that that Lilly’s communications team was simply doing a very poor job at damage control, woefully mismanaging the escalating PR crisis. The anecdotal evidence that Lilly’s outside attorneys are also actively engaged in Lilly’s media relations efforts only reaffirmed my belief.

But I admit my stance has changed now that I’ve read the initial comments made during the opening statement made by Nina Gussack of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represents Eli Lilly. In a nutshell, she defended the company by saying that Zyprexa’s benefits outweigh the risks and noted that Alaska’s Medicaid program continues to pay for Zyprexa.

While this cost-vs.-benefit approach is hardly a novel one, it just doesn’t sit well. I understand, of course, that there are inherent health risks with virtually any drug and that, despite the threat of possible side effects, informed patients often decide to take that gamble each and every day, starting new drug regiments to cure what ails them. I also understand that there are times when doctors have to make that decision for them, such as in emergency rooms, where the patient’s life is at risk and giving consent is not possible.

What I find morally repugnant, however, is the thought of doctors prescribing drugs that potentially cause life-threatening illnesses to patients who are unable to give their informed consent when other, less risky drug therapies are available. Is schizophrenia the more pressing health concern than diabetes or vice versa? Who gets to make that call? What about the myriad health complications that are shown to be associated with obesity in general? How do we factor them in to the prescribe-or-not-prescribe decision process?

After reading about yesterday’s Eli Lilly assertions, it is now clear to me why the company has hid behind its attorneys rather than aggressively, publicly address the allegations repeatedly raised by the Times. The “benefits outweigh the costs” rationale is a rather weak one to flog in the face of a mounting public backlash. Then again, the public comments they did make – that the Times had repeatedly taken evidence “out of context” – is hardly reassuring to investors, patients, doctors, and everyone else for that matter. As I’ve noted before, the “out of context” defense is rarely a credible one.

While I don’t think that the ends justify the means with respect to how the Times obtained some of its information for its ongoing Zyprexa coverage, I do admit that I’m grateful that much of it has come to light. Something tells me that Eli Lilly and the prescribing doctors who fell for its sales reps’ spiel are much less so.

Share This Post