Today’s New York Times Editorial Page reads: “To win the coveted right of holding the Olympics, China promised to expand press freedoms for foreign journalists and dangled the prospect that, more broadly, human rights would also be improved. Instead authorities have harassed and locked up critiques, intimidated journalists, selectively denied visas, silenced grieving parents who lost children in the May 12 earthquake and relocated thousands of Chinese whose homes or businesses were seen as marring Beijing’s image.”

It seems China went the proverbial extra mile to set the world’s expectation of changed and more open policies and then egregiously disappoint. Even the Bush administration, recently notorious for attempting to clamp down on journalistic freedoms by gerrymandering proposed news media shield laws, is demanding the Chinese government reconsider its restrictions. The U.S. is demanding the Chinese government permits journalists to use the Internet and other forms of free communications before, during and presumably after the Olympics.

The Chinese obviously have ongoing freedom of information and credibility issues but they have decided to make it even worse by setting and then dashing expectations. Sure, there would have been a public, governmental and media focus on Chinese restrictions anyway but this obvious flip-flopping and prima facie lying is just plain unforgivable.

Not only does China’s action offend common sensibilities and ethics but it also sends a message to tourists and businesses everywhere that the government can’t be trusted, personal rights will be ignored and China doesn’t care what the world thinks – which seems conflictual since thwarting free speech really says, “I am so paranoid about reality and perception that I will go to any length and risk everything to control my image.” This closed positioning badly damages China’s presumed message that things have changed, business and the world is now welcome.

Whether you represent a government, corporation, personal entity, there are mindful steps to take when setting expectations or changing policy. Here are some lessons we can learn from China:

• Anticipate outcomes of fluctuating messages or actions
• Be ready to explain policy change and justify actions. For example, China may have been concerned with terrorism liabilities if certain communications are not monitored
• Have facts and information in place to support your actions
• Publicly explain your policies before you are caught in a lie

In the case of China’s communications restrictions there may be no redemption or justification but there is absolutely no doubt the Chinese government turned an issue of credibility into a disaster of duplicity.

Share your thoughts.

In the aftermath of news that ‘Batman’ star, Christian Bale, allegedly assaulted his mother and sister in a hotel room, the actor’s future appears to ride on how forthright he is about the current allegations. We always advocate learning all the details before advising clients on steps to take, but in general we recommend he issues a “holding statement” that denies the assault (if in fact no assault took place); allude to no legal liability; and express concern and compassion for family members and fans who are upset by news related to the incident.

However, if the news reports are correct, we have an especially touchy issue because it involves female loved ones and not a shoving match with an insensitive or predatory paparazzi. Mr. Bale’s criminal history (or lack thereof) would be noteworthy here. If this is the first time he is accused of a violent act, he can be more proactive in his future discussions and should appear in public expecting tough questions but being armed with reasonable explanations – again, the more forthcoming the better. If any history of violence surfaces, he better decide quickly how he will apologize and participate in an anger management program.

There can be variations of what he does depending on the details but he should take a lesson from football star Michael Vick and not seem to apologize for getting caught as opposed to a genuine apology for a mistake. He could then take actions to correct such behavior in the future and even help others as a role model on related issues.

What do you think? As always, we are interested in your comments.

The fate of the recently approved Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center spearheaded by Dominion, a leading energy company could have been that of the cancelled Dynegy Longleaf plant in Georgia but the project was ultimately saved by the fact that Virginia law does not regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. A judge in Georgia ruled differently in Dynegy’s case. However, Dominion’s journey to clinching approval to build its $1.8 billion, 585-megawatt, coal power plant had been laced with lessons coal companies and other businesses who need community support to survive can learn from.

It’s not news that Dominion faced strong opposition from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, given overall awareness and a U.S. Supreme Court finding in 2007 that carbon dioxide is one of the major contributors to global climate change. But the fact is the Virginia City Energy Center is far from all bad. The proposed Center will use up to 20 percent biomass in addition to coal for its fuel thereby reducing its emissions. According to the Washington Post, the plant is hybrid because it will be “engineered to burn coal, plant matter and “gob”, a kind of mine waster made of rock and coal piled around the mining districts of southwest Virginia.” Additionally, the project will bring 1,000 jobs to Virginia during the construction phase, a permanent staff of more than 75 people, and about 350 mining jobs for residents.
While powering 146,000 homes, a Virginia Tech economic impact study indicates the City Hybrid Energy Center will generate about $440 million a year in tax revenues and other benefits for the county.

But all of these great points seemed to get lost in the shuffle. They ended up been secondary messages instead of helping to make the case for the Virginia Hybrid Energy Center.
Here are some key takeaways from Dominion’s experience:

·Poll the community and host town-hall meetings to uncover sensitive issues before issuing proposals. This will stand a company, especially a coal plant or large-scale manufacturing company, in good stead in terms of incorporating various components that are important to residents into it plans.

·Plan a comprehensive public relations program that effectively engages your key audiences. For Dominion, each audience base, be they policy makers, residents or environmental interest groups needed targeted messaging that described why this wasn’t like any other coal power project – a perception the company didn’t successfully get over.

·For community and all issues-related communications programs, lead with the benefits. This can be orchestrated as an educational process rather than a series of disparate tactics that scream cold selling. And it should come even before a formal announcement is made and before the plant is built.