A quick and dirty analysis of what people have been saying online during the last three days shows that youth organisation founder, Melody Hossani, is the most talked about contestant so far, racking up four times as many comments as estate agent manager, Alex Britez Cabral, and executive assistant, Helen Louise Milligan.

However as my search only looked for mentions of “Apprentice” and each contestant’s full name, the results could be skewed if people don’t mention the contestant’s full name or the TV programme. Regardless of this I think the results give a fair indication of what conversations are taking place on the web.

Interestingly, the most talked about person yesterday was Susan Ma, who was mentioned more times on Thursday than on Tuesday when the names of this year’s contestants were actually announced by the BBC. It could just be a coincidence, but the fact that yesterday’s surge in mentions coincided with The Sun’s decision to publish pictures of her in a bikini, does make me wonder…

Beachwear aside, it will be very interesting to see how the social media chatter about each of the contestants changes as the series progresses and how it correlates with Lord Sugar’s decisions in the boardroom.

One of the more awkward press cycles for the Coalition started with Cameron’s speech proposing a cap on immigration. Following the speech all seemed well; this was a policy agreed on by both Tory and Lib Dem members of the Coalition Cabinet…except one rather high profile member on the Lib Dem side. Vince Cable didn’t quite agree with Cameron’s policy – or at least his presentation of the policy – and of course decided to have this argument in the usual channels provided for government policy dispute…the press. Vince Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC, Cable suggested that Cameron’s want for “good immigration, not mass immigration” was “very unwise”.

At first this seemed to be a major messaging blooper on the part of Vince Cable – he had gone off Coalition message and was now directly contrasting the Government viewpoint. Or was it Cameron’s fault for using language that was ‘too strong’ to announce the policy? At this point, you would have been forgiven for asking, where was Vince Cable’s PR keeping in tow? Or, had Cameron’s speech not gone through Coalition scrutiny for wording?

As the dust settled it seemed that both Cable and Cameron had not actually gone off messaging; they were in fact one hundred percent on message – just not Coalition message. They were on Party message. Cameron made his immigration announcement whilst visiting Southern constituency of Hampshire, a traditional Tory stronghold – but one that the Lib Dems have always been a strong challenger for.  His strong rhetoric was a clear attempt at pulling moderate-Tories away from being scouted by Lib Dems and back into the party bosom. Cable, on the other hand, was illustrating that there is a difference between the Parties and that voters will not be voting for the Coalition but two separate set of ideologies.

Yesterday’s upheaval came not long after Clegg was caught on tape saying to Cameron, “If we keep doing this we won’t find anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debate”. Clearly at this point the Party head’s were worrying that the messaging of Coalition unity was blurring the messaging of the separate Party’s values. Perhaps Clegg’s words then and Cable’s today signified a new era in the Coalition. Since it’s formation it has been screaming as loud as it can about being ‘unified’. Perhaps now, as council elections approach, Party allegiances are returning and the messaging is moving to one of ‘separate Parties working together’ rather than ‘one government’.

Problem is that the race happened in 2008 and whilst I actually remember watching it at the time I, like virtually everyone else no doubt, had forgotten about it. By bringing this lawsuit three years after the event, Tesla is dragging their reputation down all over again all on their own.

And even if they win, the damage will be done. Definitely a case of when their comms advisors should have a) been consulted and b) been listed to if they had told them, as I hope they did, that this is an act of reputation management madness.

Our hope is that this is a cunning double bluff and that Tesla will suddenly announce a brand new battery which dramatically increases the car’s range…here’s hoping for their sake!

Last night I sat on the sofa, with a mug of tea in hand, turned the TV on and waited for the rage to wash over me. What was I watching? BBC Question Time of course!

Nothing beats an hour’s worth of screaming at the box as politicians, authors, PR folk and Apprentice candidates (WTF?) try and win over our hearts and minds with the best soundbites media training can buy.

Actually something does beat that. That something is #BBCQT. Because of Twitter I’m not only enjoying a good rant at an inanimate object, I’m actually airing my views to real people who in turn are dishing out their, sometimes rib crackingly funny, opinions. In fact, it’s as if #BBCQT is our own little version of the show.

I know I’m not alone when I say I get a little warm feeling inside when one of my sarcastic #BBCQT remarks gets re-tweeted a few times. I imagine it’s the same feeling as the guests get when they receive a ripple of applause from the audience.

But perhaps more importantly than the benefit it has on my own ego, #BBCQT is actually making the show more engaging and entertaining than ever before. Last night’s show was, by all accounts, distinctly average.

The guests were either dull or irritating, the questions were very tabloid (a quarter of the show dedicated to Andy Gray’s sacking is a bit much) and it seemed to drag on a bit. However, over the course of the hour, the show’s hashtag received 12,000 tweets. Katie Hopkins, a woman that up until last night I didn’t know existed was even trending for a moment; which I’m sure will secure her a place on Dancing Whilst Singing and Basket Weaving on Ice.

Despite the very grey programme, I was having a thrilling time reading some hilarious comments and having some banter with a few friends as we batted about our thoughts on the show. Without that community, I would have switched off and gone to bed after 10 minutes of enduring Will Self’s monologues.

But I was hooked.  I needed more fuel for my tweeting and wanted to see the fantastic comments from others unfold. Basically Twitter saved Auntie’s arse last night – I’d be writing a very different blog post had the community not been there.

Perhaps some clever sod in Broadcasting House knew that by putting odd guests on the panel, Twitter would be buzzing with #BBCQT, potentially attracting even more to next week’s virtual gathering.

Image by Downing Street via Flickr

In PR we all know that timing is everything… Clearly the BBC doesn’t. I found it quite extraordinary that the BBC would air a Panorama documentary accusing 3 FIFA officials out of the 22 who will decide the hosts for the 2018 world cup of wrongdoings. Why bring this to light so dangerously close to the ballot on Thursday? Especially when the alleged bribery happened in the 1990’s – not only is this old news but it’s irrelevant to the current bid.

Highlighting Jack Warner, whose vote is crucial for England, seems another incredibly poorly thought out decision. Whilst many minds will (or should have been) made up by now, the ones still on the fence about where their votes should go, could ultimately be swayed now. This, in no way, will help England’s bid which is a massive shame for football fans. England’s bid hopes already lie in the balance, the BBC would be foolish to think this has gone unnoticed.

But don’t lose sight of the real reason. After all, I am still a girl… Who wouldn’t want our David Beckham back in the UK for a bit?

Image via Wikipedia

So the Exmoor Emperor red deer, said to be the largest red stag in the UK has been shot dead during rutting season, to much concern and upset from Exmoor locals and deer enthusiasts.

On a personal level I find this appalling; if you hunt to eat, then I can just about get my head around it. But to shoot dead and leave the corpse near a roadside just smacks of Big Game Hunter / Small Man Bravado to me.* But its not even brave; Exmoor Emperor was never going to get into the Top 100 World’s Most Deadly Herbivores, let alone the top 10. Although I’m sure he had a wicked glint in his eye…

On a comms level, I do enjoy listening to BBC Radio 4 The Today Programme when stories like this come up. The BBC has to be objective and the presenters try incredibly hard to maintain that, despite it often being difficult. But there was no mistaking the tacit disapproval over this news item; no gags, no adulation, no criticism (it would be too biased), just a statement of fact and momentary silence. In Radio 4 terms, a momentary silence speaks volumes of disapproving frowns.

So, for the man that paid thousands to shout down a defenceless deer, and leave him on the road side, I hope you heard the broadcast and felt shamed. The reality is that you are probably proud it’s been featured nationally.

*Yes, I am assuming it’s a man.

Taking a big slice of column inches over the last month has been the slow demise of Daybreak.  And still it goes on.  So, is it really the end of the line for the unsultry duo, or just a question of implementing some quick & clever reputation-building tactics?

Jon Horsley gives a number of suggestions for how ITV could save the ailing show but none that actually focus on ITV sticking by its guns and putting plan in place to bolster its own PR efforts.  Typically, we’re quick to put the boot in to anything or anyone given a big fanfare.  But knowing how the UK media works, ITV’s PR machine surely has a plan in place for such an issue?

You’d hope so but as yet there doesn’t seem to be much sign?

So, here are a couple of suggestions for trying to change perception with what they’ve got rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water:

1. Harness the audience: ITV needs to change the conversation by working with the viewing fans it does have.  He who shouts loudest
2. Amplify the content: It’s an entertainment breakfast show and we know there’s an audience eager to consume.  Better pre-promotion of content (and better content) to the right audience in the right places
3. Re-build the personalities: TV demands great stories so build great stories around the personalities so people get a chance to get to know them better.  Tell them what they’re like rather than allowing people to perceive who they think they might be.

What do you think?  Is Daybreak a show that can be turned around?

Last week I went to a talk by Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, and while I was tempted to ask ludicrous questions about The Stig and how much money they make from selling old programmes to Dave (“money for old rope” was the phrase that came to mind) – I thought it best to let people with sensible questions take the floor.

Aside from denying that he was a sexist, an ageist or a racist (seriously, did anyone expect him to say yes?) one of the more interesting questions was about the bias that the BBC is often accused of.

To paraphrase – Mark Thompson’s argument was that people believe that the BBC is biased because it represents a view that is different from their own, no matter which side of the argument those accusing the BBC of bias sit.

To be honest, this did seem like a rather obvious and token answer in order to evade the question but apparently statistics bear him out. According to a nib I read in the Metro this morning there were 169 complaints to the BBC that its coverage of the Papal visit was too favourable – on the other hand 197 complained that it was too critical of the Pope. Not exactly a significant difference.

So there you have it – the BBC is not racist, ageist or sexist and is also seemingly quite balanced.

Top Tip #1 – Live TV is not the time for swearing

After weatherman Tomasz Schafernaker stuck his middle finger up at BBC New’s 24 Simon McCoy it was then reported that he had previously called Glastonbury “Muddy Sh*te” rather than “Muddy site”. Though I am sure he was not wrong with this particular Freudian slip, it does lead me to ask: who ever put this man on live TV? He is clearly far too stupid! However, if he just followed the golden rule of not swearing on live TV then he may have avoided such criticism.

Top Tip #2 – Don’t try to ‘sex up’ serious news events

The weatherman with the silly name follows other brilliant live TV mess ups which have led me to ask the question: who put this moron on TV? This often comes when people try to make a news story that much more exciting. Kay Burley, in true Sky News style, is often caught out trying to make stories that much more headline grabbing. For instance, during Sky News coverage of the 9/11 attacks she somehow felt the need to hyperbolise the biggest news event of a generation by greeting viewers with this fantastic gem, “and if you’ve just joined us, the entire eastern seaboard of the United States has been decimated by a terrorist attack”. Kay managed to top this by asking the wife of Suffolk serial killer Steve Wright “Do you think if you’d had a better sex life he wouldn’t have done this?” Clearly the wife’s fault! I don’t know about you, but when I don’t get any for a while – I just have to strangle someone. Perhaps Kay Burley should have taken this tip to heart. Both these events were already huge stories; she did not need an attempt to make them bigger.

Top Tip #3 – If national news cameras are near you, behave!

This rule is a big one. If there are cameras around you, make sure you are not doing wrong otherwise you will be caught out and will look a moron. Remember ‘that banker’ who was watching porn on his company computer whilst a live TV interview happened behind him. He was nothing to do with the broadcast, just having a normal day at the office – and let’s face it, whose normal day at the office doesn’t involve the watching of pornographic movies. Sadly, he seemed to forget that this national news interview would be happening right behind his desk – he quickly became far more interesting than the actual story. What a banker!

And it’s not just everyday office workers who need this tip re-iterating to them 24/7. Who can forget the marvellous ‘bigotgate’. Although probably having little effect on the outcome of the election, it couldn’t have helped. Our own Prime Minister (at the time) Gordon Brown, surrounded by advisors, still forgot that national news cameras were listening in when he referred to Gillian Duffy as a “bigoted woman”.

Both Gordon Brown and our lonely banker really should have remembered that when you are near news cameras and journalists, you really should be on your best behaviour!

The ongoing furore over whether or not a mosque should be allowed to be built near Ground Zero in Manhattan has brought many issues to light and has given people considerable food for thought.

If you want to read more about the mosque, Charlie Brooker has written a characteristically satirical take in the Guardian and the BBC has reported on it extensively (as has pretty much every news site on the internet). But while the media is legally obliged to be balanced in its reporting, should it have a moral obligation too, particularly given the sensitivity in this case? While a lot of the media coverage has been even-handed and fair, the right-leaning press must surely take at least some responsibility for the uproar.

The vast majority of people would agree that anyone with that level of influence over a group of people should act with restraint and have some kind of ethical obligation not to directly mislead the public. But is this moral necessity trumped by the need for a free press, and the commercial necessity to sell content? In the case of the mosque, the very real fear is that media slant will whip up prejudice and misinformed word-of-mouth that is socially damaging. Or even puts lives at risk.

To quote a well known superhero’s uncle “with great power comes great responsibility”. I think most people would agree with this as a general rule. The media should not be required to be squarely balanced in all reporting, as that would be overkill and make the media landscape a much duller place. But I do believe that there has to be some kind of ethical onus on fairness – regardless of legal and commercial requirements.

I have a couple of suggestions for simple ways for the media to improve balance:

-          Don’t report opinion as fact – at least try to back up your argument! Yes journalists are not ‘supposed’ to do this, but it is increasingly common as information from social media gets picked up by the conventional press

-          Avoid straw man arguments – all too common, but can be a very persuasive fallacy