The Good, The Bad, The Spin

• Netflix is taking the radical step of ensuring excellent customer service. What was once an assumed business creed is now being used as a way to be a market leader. This is a mixed blessing.
• The Wikipedia scandal has spread like wildfire. It’s extremely tempting to assume an anonymous identity to set the record straight–or, cynically, to bend it in our favor. For public relations practitioners, following PRSA’s code of ethics means, quite clearly, this practice should be avoided. I would say that anonymous postings or edits should be avoided publicly and privately. There are two other downsides to the Wikipedia scandal: One is that it calls into question the assumed glory of the democratization of information; two, it’s yet another reason that despite Wikipedia’s overall accurate information, there’s enough glitches in the system that it’s best not to be used as a serious source of information. (This blog will never reference Wikipedia as an objective information source until these glitches are ironed out.)

• This is a double whammy: iPhone users are described as shocked and take matters into their own hands when they receive box-sized bills for their iPhone usage–airtime and Web time. AT&T’s response: this is standard billing practice. Consumer responses: Post a video on Youtube. Both reactions are ridiculous. Consumers know what they are getting. I am very used to scrolling through online ‘agreements’ and clicking the ‘I agree…’ box. My laziness will not be a substitute for later bewilderment, though. For the record: My Verizon bill is normal and (usually) acceptable. My Internet service for my phone is unlimited and no record of my surfing activity is included in my bill. It’s a sensible policy.
• The Bush administration needed better PR advice. It’s possible. Yet, solid practitioners know that PR advice can only go so far when the leader knows best. In other words, surrendering to the realities of groupthink may be the necessary survival strategy for those looking further into the horizon.
• Surprise, surprise: Consumerist notices that organizations are editing Wikipedia entries, and the businesses are doing it anonymously.

Do liberals and conservatives spindoctor science, or are renegade journalists high on anthropomorphism? Franz de Waal, who’s a scientist, a primatologist to be exact, weighs in on the primate revisionism that occurs in this month’s issue of The New Yorker. De Waal explains:

“The main message of (Ian) Parker’s piece could of course have been that fieldwork is no picnic, but instead he went for profound revelation: bonobos are not nearly as nice and sexual as they have been made out to be. Given that the bonobo’s reputation has been a thorn in the side of homophobes as well as Hobbesians, the right-wing media jumped with delight. The bonobo ‘myth’ could finally be put to rest. Parker’s piece was gleefully picked up by The Wall Street Journal and Dinesh D’Souza (yes, the same one who blamed 9/11 on the left), who accused ‘liberals’ of having fashioned the bonobo into their mascot. D’Souza urged them to stick with the donkey.”

At the end of the day, this issue is essentially about the common discomfort–on both sides of the political spectrum–with comparing humans to primates. It’s the worst kind of human exceptionalism because it ignores one simple point: We are primates. One kind of many.

Of course, it’s not just journalists who have trouble with science. So do scientists. (more…)