50 years ago

Peer.

The word instantly suggests someone who is your equal: In ability, qualifications, social status, age, background and so on. In Great Britain and Ireland, a peer is any member of the five degrees of nobility. (What are the degrees? See below).

In the profession of public relations, we thoroughly enjoy our peers. Why? There are multiple reasons:

• We share common traits and similar daily challenges


• We're equally motivated to represent clients and carry out campaigns


• We constantly seek opportunities to meet, to share ideas or to commiserate

The last reason my father knew well. To Robert B. Wolcott Jr., the value of his peers was very clear. As the founder of his own public relations agency, "Bob" Wolcott had two peer groups: Fellow CEOs at the many companies he represented and fellow PR executives.

The first peer group was critical to his business. CEOs at major national and international firms like Voit Rubber, Westin Hotels, General Telephone, MGM, Sunkist, Bank of America and others had to believe that Bob was one of them. It was critically important for a "PR Man" (As they were known back then) to earn the trust of a CEO. Like now, public relations was under scrutiny for its value to a company. So, Bob had to demonstrate he was part of the CEO peer group. That meant Bob had to talk and act just like a CEO. He had to understand the complexities of running a company, from the outside forces that influenced corporate decision making to knowing who to trust as your lieutenants to making the right hires. That's why, for example, he joined the major business clubs, like Los Angeles' famed California Club. Within these walnut-walled, high ceiling halls, Fortune 500 executives mingled with business objectives in mind. It was a place to be seen, to interact among your peers, and to make deals happen. Bob also insisted that he had direct access to CEOs at his client companies. His advice and strategy must be shared with the most important decision maker - directly, at an executive-to-executive level. A direct meeting was the only way to clearly demonstrate his full value to a client company. It was a business rule that served him well - both in building a respectable client base for his company, and later in life when he was a solo practitioner and being hired directly by CEOs for his counsel.

The second peer group was equally important. More than a half-century ago, the top 100 public relations executives in the United States knew each other very well because they created a "club" called the PR Seminar. As a peer group, they sought a special type of annual gathering with the appropriate level of programing. If you are running a PR agency or a communications division at a major corporation, your issues are much different than, say, what is facing the account supervisor at an agency. World events, public policy and economic indicators were - and remain - more important to the executives and their daily decision-making.

Consider this entry in my father's journal about why he enjoyed the annual PR Seminar peer group meetings:

"...I've always labeled them as a 21/2-day brain stretcher. Why? The subject matter was rarely about public relations. The sessions were devoted to all sorts of corporate subjects, government activities and the like....we had speakers the likes of Don Rumsfield, Don Moynihan, Reg Jones - GE's CEO, famed NY Times Editor Scotty Reston and many more. I remember an engrossing 3-hour session led by Art Miller, the widely respected Harvard Law professor."

And another reason:

"Another major benefit was mixing with your peers. I can't tell you how many times I got calls from (peers) asking me about people, organizations, etc., in this area. I, in turn, could always call them. One time, a client was having difficulty getting to the right person at Kodak. So, I called Dave Metz, the SVP of PR, and he gave me the name and that immediately removed my client's roadblock problem."

Fifty years ago, Bob Wolcott created the Public Relations Society of America's "Counselors Academy" so executive members of PRSA had their own peer group. Back then, PRSA needed this "club" to compete with similar peer groups such as the PR Seminar, the Arthur Page Society, the National Investor Relations Institute and others.

Forming the Counselors Academy probably helped my father's path to becoming PRSA's president in 1966. Counselors was the first "special section" to be created within PRSA. Today, PRSA has 16 sections, covering various specialties and peer groups from Sports and Entertainment to Technology to Public Affairs. It was inevitable to see more sections. The public relations profession has grown in substantial numbers over the past 50 years, so it is only natural that we seek a way to remain within the "right sized" peer group that cater to our specialty(ies).

As they gather in North Carolina this week for the annual Counselors Academy conference, my colleagues will be seeking the same thing my father did 50 years ago. A once-a-year opportunity to exchange ideas among peers and an opportunity to "stretch one's brain" away from the daily grind of running an agency or division. Nestled within the dense Pisgah National Forest among the Appalachian hills, there will be CEOs of well known PR agencies, solo counselors, the heads of major PR departments within corporations - all networking and seeking knowledge to be better company executives and communication professionals. (Sadly, I couldn't make it).

As a relative newcomer to Counselors, I am just getting started with a new group. I know there is a lot to look forward to - from my peers. Already, I've made many new important friends across the country. I've called on them, and they've called on me. I've been encouraged to be more entrepreneurial. I've been exposed to all sort of new ways to think like an executive. Thanks, dad, for making this happen.

Trivia answer: Five degrees of nobility are: duke, marquis, earl, viscount and baron.

iPhone and the news coverage

Not sure what caught my attention more: The front page Wall Street Journal story about "annoying Orange" or the escalating saga of the lost iPhone4?

Lucky for folks already registered for a conference later this week in Palm Springs - they'll get some expert commentary on both. (Well, maybe not about Annoying Orange).

Perhaps the experts can sort it out for me. Like, why I'm more inclined to watch multiple episodes of Annoying Orange rather than figure out the First Amendment battle over the lost iPhone4?

The Palm Springs panel this Thursday (April 29) will have top mainstream journalists analyzing the influence of online journalism and blogs, and how we in the PR profession use social media channels to distribute news about clients, causes and organizations.

I'm moderating the panel. As it was, I had plenty of other stories and case studies to offer up to the panel for analysis. Then I came across the dynamics of "Annoying Orange" and the scandal of the lost iPhone4.

For sure, the panel will tackle topics and issues critical to how public relations professionals conduct themselves and how we recommend strategies to clients. Namely, what is the influence of social media on mainstream journalism?

The issue is one of the more pressing ones for PR pros today. As PR pros continue to use (exploit?) social media to promote clients, products and causes, there are growing risks of credibility and influence. Mainstream journalism is still considered the most credible, by most surveys. Yet, mainstream journalism has lost audience share to social media channels, blogs and specialty online-only news sites.

Public attitudes and viewing habits continue to shift, such as with product reviews. CNET, Wired and other mainstream sites are holding their own, but then Gizmodo breaks a story about Apple's latest phone and all bets are off. Are mainstream journalists changing their reporting techniques in deference to the influence of blogs?

For public relations professionals, understanding how these parts are moving and where the machine is headed are critical to our future. We need to remain relevant, on top of our game.

Do we ask: Is a Facebook buzz better than a front page story on The Wall Street Journal. Is a YouTube video with 200,000 views better than a story picked up by the Associated Press for a national run?

For PR pros, there are generally two key considerations when using social media: Where to place product or other news and how to place it. "Where" depends on what research is telling you about getting the most buzz. In many cases, PR folks will develop a strategy that suggests placing news at "XYZ" blog first , where it will soon blossom into greater and greater coverage because "XYZ" blog is so popular. "How" usually suggests either "exclusivity," a multi-faceted launch on multiple channels, a gimmick like a YouTube video (or lost phone?) or perceived "leak."

In the end, the key is to get "influencers" and "tastemakers" interested - to buy product or move the needle.

Many still consider mainstream journalism a very important channel for influencing, especially when dealing in the rapid spread of misinformation over the Internet.

So, for example, a question to the panel will be: At what point does a journalist from a mainstream news outlet start noticing fast-moving "news" on a blog and turn it into a story? It's been nearly 20 years since a "leak" about problems during a beta test of a Microsoft browser software changed the rules for online information and what constitutes "news." Since then, we've had hundreds, perhaps thousands of crisis communications fires that began on the Internet.

Do mainstream journalists feel compelled to set the record straight, even if the information is false? Does a rumor become "news" just because "it's everywhere" on the Internet? I promise we won't revisit the Domino's Pizza video.

But, I can tell you that many mainstream journalists first viewed the lost iPhone4 story on Gizmodo as a prank by Apple.

One question I may pose to the panel deals with freedom of the press and whether CA's trade secrets law trumps the 1st Amendment. Charges are likely in the missing iPhone4 story since police issued a search warrant on the reporter's house. Could this case have a chilling effect in the blogosphere? Or perhaps with mainstream journalism?

OK, you ask: What about Annoying Orange? There is no real PR consideration for Annoying Orange, other than to marvel at its popularity. And, that its fame rose to a point where it was finally noticed by one of the biggest mainstream news outlets.

I won't spoil my opening line at the panel on Thursday.

Muddy waters?

Public disclosure and public relations can and do co-exist. But in recent examples and with another "big game" at stake - the matter is not resolved by any stretch.

The health care debate has cast attention on deception and "front groups" created by the health care, insurance or pharmaceutical industries. A prominent public relations executive detailed at the 2009 PRSA conference why he left a cushy insurance industry job for this reason.

The next ethical spotlight could very well be cast in California in 2010.

California water wars are notorious. As soon as a drop falls from the skies and lands in the Golden State (as well as other Western states), it is "game on" for control.

California is "water rich" in the north and "people rich" in the south. Hence, the need to build canals to send water hundreds of miles from mountains and rivers to population centers. The most notable skirmish is the city of Los Angeles' epic takeover of Owens Valley water rights (as portrayed in "Chinatown").


Numerous books have been written about how various parties - from the state's large farming concerns to urban water agencies to well-organized environmental groups - wage intense, high-priced battles over this precious resource. I once worked for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which was created to build and manage a 200+ mile pipeline to transport water from the Colorado River to one of the largest populations in the world.


This year, California's lawmakers passed a series of monumental bills designed to protect the major faucet in our our massive water system - the Delta.


This was big. This was huge. It's been more than 30 years since acts of similar magnitude were accomplished.


Passage came after major political battles. I mean, major political battles. This column can't adequately summarize the extent of these multiple negotiations except to say that anytime you mix legal rights (like property rights), the country's biggest agriculture concerns, some of the most cunning environmental groups, millionaires, lawyers, lobbyists, the governor, public affairs strategists - each with their own agenda to carry - it is, well, manic and complicated. Trades and favors are exchanged in mostly painful ways.


California's water picture involves a mix of public relations, public affairs and lobbying. And, money. Water is perhaps one of the most complex issues in California.


Given the stakes, many public relations and public affairs firms in CA have been called upon to develop and implement various campaigns.


Now comes an article from an independent news organization about "front groups" apparently created and managed by public affairs firms or similar interests. A few "Friends of the.." popped up in the latest CA water battle. This is old stuff in California. With this state's predisposition for legislation through ballot initiative, we've seen these "Friends of..." or "Citizens for...." groups suddenly emerge to support their side of the issue. Heck, voters in California will see four or five "firefighter" organizations endorsing ballot measures or candidates. Firefighters consistently earn the most trust among citizens, so their endorsements are continually sought. But it's now difficult to figure out which firefighter group to follow.

While not new, front groups can pose issues in terms of public disclosure or creating public confusion. The Public Relations Society of America has guidelines, ethical standards and periodic bulletins that practitioners should follow when conducting business on behalf of a client, company or organization.

One thing should be clear: A public affairs firm or public relations agency is best suited to develop and manage an issues campaign.

In most cases, a firm is hired by an existing organization and there is no question whose side is being promoted. But in cases where multiple entities or individuals have a "case" to make and no organization exists, a "Friends of.." group is created. Or, call them "front groups." Now comes the tricky part in terms of disclosure - and the source of the recent news examination as to who funds these groups and their true intentions.

"Pop-up" groups that don't fully disclose their financial supporters or intentions cast an unwanted negative shadow over the other organizations that do disclose. They also can "muddy the waters" in a legitimate debate of the issues.

As the media director for a CA ballot initiative in the 1990s, I made it clear who I represented and their financial support. Once I disclosed this with reporters and editorial boards (and disclosure was made upfront), I was able to have a better discussion of the issue with news organizations. I believe our honesty - combined with a well crafted campaign - earned us points at the polls.

As 2010 approaches in California, we now brace for more "pop-up"groups to form in the debate over an $11 billion bond measure to fund major water projects in the state. Yes, I said "$11 billion." On the ballot in November 2010.

This is the final piece of the massive battle over how to fix the state's water system. With this kind of money at stake, it's easy to conclude that my public affairs colleagues will be gainfully employed next year.

Already, we have seen some groups forming their opposition to the measure, or using the bond issue to redirect public debate toward their issues. Strategies are being formed. Money collecting has begun to pay for advertisements and public affairs strategists.

Confusion is ahead. Scare tactics are inevitable.

The question relevant to the public relations profession and the hundreds of public affairs professionals doing business in CA is whether all front groups and organizations provide full disclosure. It would be sad if an agency or strategist is gambling or taking a calculation: Either that mainstream news organizations no longer do this kind of investigative reporting or, even if they do publish a "money trail" article, no one cares.

The CA electorate - and the public relations profession - will be better off with full disclosure.

Babies, Breakfast and Brevity

What a couple of days in LA and the country.

First we find our dear friends and public relations masters Joann Killeen and Michael Furtney hired to represent the mother who had eight babies and facing intense scrutiny for having fertility treatments. Joann and Mike are seasoned pros and know how to treat this one with the highest ethical standards. Joann is the former leader of the Public Relations Society of America and Mike has represented many large national and international companies. Both are Accredited in Public Relations and are PRSA Fellows, significant achievements that distinguish their skill, expertise and professional ethics. In addition, they are professors at Los Angeles area universities. If we're lucky, we may get to hear more about Joann's and Mike's handling of this story in November at the international conference of PRSA.

What the news media and others often forget is that there are other sides to the story. The poor mother has not had the chance to speak, but plenty of others have taken their shots at her. So, it is entirely logical for this family to bring on board seasoned communicators who can help bring some balance to the discussions.

This drama unfolded at the same time the Los Angeles Times announced further layoffs and a consolidation of its section. Receiving the most attention was the elimination of the separate California section, which used to be the "local" and "Metro" section. Reaction has been loud across several sectors.

And, today, Feb. 3, 2009, we saw a great public relations effort unfold with the added potential of capturing a telling glimpse into the state of our country. I speak, of course, about the "Grand Slam" free breakfast giveaway at Denny's. Like many of us, I ventured out in the morning hours to take advantage of a free breakfast. With an ample supply of milk and Honey Nut Cheerios at home, I ventured out mostly because I was curious.

What would I find?

As I guessed and as news stations reported this evening, there were long lines across the country. All day long. Long lines.

But there was more to the story.

These were not folks who liked pancakes, sausage and eggs over-easy delivered to them in minutes with a smile, and free coffee refills. No. The majority of people I saw and spoke to were in need of a break. In well-worn clothes and tattered shoes, they resembled some of the folks I come across at homeless shelters and food pantries. They are surviving on the edge. Barely employed or recently laid off. A free meal meant they could extend by a day their measly offerings at home.

So, here we were. A great opportunity for some enterprising city desk editor or assignment editor at a local TV station to capture a great story. An incredible human interest story. But for reasons that escape me, the story came and went with barely a notice.

Was it because news editors didn't want to give a free promotion to Denny's? Well, that's silly when you consider the steady flow of features we read and see of actors promoting their next movie. Or, as I suspect, have we lost so many well-trained, veteran newsmen and newswomen to budget cuts that this story simply wasn't on anyone's radar?

LA Times rejects opinion article

The Los Angeles Times has rejected an opinion article penned by PRSA National Chair and CEO Jeff Julin about former Metrolink employee Denise Tyrrell and how her actions align with PRSA's code of professional conduct. If it's rejected by other local papers, I hope it can be published on PRSA's Web site, and this blog.

LA Business Journal gives "half" support to Denise

LA Business Journal Editor Charles Crumpley weighs in this week (Sept 9-14 issue) on Metrolink's Denise Tyrrell's handling of the "who was at fault" question, under the headline: "Responsibility, Not Blame"

"I want to praise Denise Tyrrell. She was the Metrolink spokeswoman who resigned under pressure last Monday after quickly admitting that it was the Metrolink train engineer who ran a red light and caused the tragedy of Sept. 12.
I want to stand squarely in her corner for setting aside the usual evasive and lawyerly gibberish and making an honest statement.
I want to, but I can’t. That’s because, unfortunately, the situation is more nuanced.
Within 24 hours of the tragic train collision, Tyrrell met with reporters and said that barring the results of an official investigation, “We believe that it was our engineer who failed to stop at a signal.” She went on to say, “When two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone’s made an awful mistake.”
The problem with her statement is not that she put the blame on Metrolink instead of the freight train it collided with. Even within hours of the tragedy, it was clear that the Metrolink train ran the red light. Her honesty on that point was refreshing.
The problem was that she seemed to put the blame on the engineer. While he was an obvious suspect, it was simply too early to know whether he was guilty of the “awful mistake.” At that very early point in the investigation – recovery of the dead was still going on when she made the statement – there were too many questions. Was there a problem with the signal? Had there been a mechanical failure? Had the engineer suffered a heart attack? Had the train been hijacked by terrorists?
In any case, she quickly had to resign her position. Critics pointed out that she didn’t really know who or what was at fault, so she shouldn’t have all but blamed the engineer, who died in the crash. Those critics have a valid point.
As L.A. County Supervisor Don Knabe and some others have pointed out, it would have been better had she said something like: “It is clear that it was the Metrolink train that ran the red light. Exactly how or why that happened is not clear. Of course, an investigation is under way.”
Tyrrell, in my opinion, had the right impulse. She had the wrong execution.
And even though I can’t stand squarely in her corner, I will stand on her half of the ring. Any business or organization that finds itself a player in a tragedy could take a lesson from the forthrightness that she showed. Too many companies worry first about the punitive damages they face and let truth become a victim. I believe that hurts them. And it should.
I’m just speaking for myself, but if I were a juror and sat on a case in which a company was involved in a tragedy, I’d be inclined to lighten up if the business had quickly and honestly admitted its fault and guilt.
As for the company that had quickly sent out a PR robot who danced and dissembled and then later parsed the words of the investigation in full lawyerly evasiveness, I’d punish them."

More support for Denise

LA Times columnist Patt Morrison, who also has a lively radio show in Los Angeles, weighed in on Denise Tyrrell.

I spoke with Denise on Thursday and expressed PRSA's support for her. She was thankful and said she is still trying to take it all in. "It's still a bit overwhelming," she said. But, I could tell Denise was unwavering in her original counsel to MTA executives to disclose early the information Metrolink had before them.

She also is not second-guessing her decision to leave Metrolink.

Also saw two letters to the editor in the Times, including one from a PR professional who was critical of Denise for a premature disclosure of information. I have spoken with dozens of PR colleagues and at least more than 80% of them are in support of Denise's actions. Most of the senior PR pros I've spoken with are clear to point out that they wouldn't hesitate to disclose clear facts, as long as there was clear discussion of the ramifications. This includes impacts to "customers," potential legal action, etc., since our jobs must ultimately protect our organizations and companies.

PR pros debate Denise Tyrrell's actions

Denise Tyrrell has understandably gone quiet since she was forced to defend her resignation in the news media. Denise is a consummate pro who knows she is not the story - but rather that journalists should focus on the investigation into the deadly Metrolink train crash that killed at least 25 and injured 135 commuters on Sept. 12. She also knows the story is with the victims, and the tens of thousands of commuters who trust Metrolink to take them safely to their jobs.

(For the record, I was a regular Metrolink commuter and was once on a Metrolink train that hit a car stuck on the tracks and another time on a Metrolink train that hit a man who was committing suicide. When I started my own company a few months ago, I no longer needed to take the train. I know Denise only by professional association and have not spoken with her about any of this.)

But, her actions - both how she handled the press conferences up to her resignation - have created a debate within the public relations community.

Several colleagues who saw my brief appearance on KTLA Channel 5 on Monday night or are reading the many stories about Denise's resignation have questions, as well as early assessments.

For those who have worked with the National Transportation Safety Board, it becomes clear very early that the NTSB wants to control how information is released after a deadly transportation incident. Too often, the NTSB has found, an early assumption or "piece of evidence" has been wrong or doesn't tell the complete story. I know how this control of information works, as a former roommate was an NTSB spokesperson. And, of course, there are legal issues.

So, the first question is:
1. Did Metrolink jump the gun and release the "cause" information too early? Less than 24 hours after the crash, Denise, at a press conference, said the crash was caused because it "appeared the engineer ignored a red light signal." Denise said Metrolink wanted to "be honest in our appraisal."

This was not the first deadly crash for Metrolink. And, since this was a head-on crash between a freight train and a passenger commuter train, the nagging question was: "How could this happen?" Metrolink's computer records and other information about the status of the warning lights and rail switches apparently gave officials an unequivocal set of facts. Metrolink also said others on the scene were discussing the same information. So, what they were faced with was a very critical piece of information soon landing on the ears of the news media. In many cases, PR pros realize the better course of action at this point is to play offense in order to prevent rumor (READ: blogs, Internet, Twitter) and set the record straight. In the old days, maybe Metrolink had another 48 to 72 hours to release this information. Not today. Just look what happened with reports that the engineer was texting two teen-agers just prior to the crash. The source of this information is apparently a YouTube video posted by the teens. At least one news outlet claims it has seen the actual texts from the engineer to the teens, but this report has yet to be verified. As of Tuesday (Sept. 16), the NTSB did not have the phone records. Yet, because of a lack of official confirmation one way or the other, the public is left to draw conclusions.

Metrolink's stunning announcement was met by the news media with shock - they are not used to such early disclosures in a major deadly crash. They also had genuine respect for Metrolink to be so bold and so honest so early. PR pros know that "being transparent" with the news media can earn better coverage, certainly better when compared to how the news media writes or broadcasts stories when they believe an organization is trying to deceive or "spin" them.

Metrolink's board the next day began back-tracking, essentially calling out Denise for releasing information too soon. That set into motion Denise's resignation. She said she felt her credibility was at stake, especially since her boss, CEO David Solow authorized her to give the details and that the Metrolink Board Chair, Ron Roberts, a Temecula city councilman, called her out in Monday's (Sept. 15) The Wall Street Journal.

"What was said by one of our public-relations employees needs to be followed up by the board and myself," Roberts was quoted in the Journal. The Metrolink board was either miffed they were not told in advance of the release of "cause" information, or they felt pressure from the NTSB to have staff clam up.

With this kind of statement in a major national newspaper, any public relations professional (really, no hyphen needed), would be put in the same position as Denise. So, she resigned and informed LA Times blogger Steve Hymon, who covers transportation issues. His Monday morning posting set off a national news story.

By Tuesday morning, the NTSB was starting to agree with Metrolink's assertion - but careful to say "the train" ran the red light signal. Certainly, Metrolink never attempted to answer the question: "Why did the engineer" run the red signal? The NTSB is hoping to find out.

Some public relations professionals I've spoken with characterized Metrolink's early release of information as "throwing the engineer under the train" and it was "easy to blame the dead guy." Others, some who have worked in transportation agencies, said they were shocked by Metrolink's early release of such critical information. They also question the "rush" to release information.

Again, time will tell, but it seems that Metrolink felt entirely confident of what they had in front of them and felt compelled to release it early -- to start, as they said, re-gaining public trust in their agency by being forthright and honest.

So the next question is:
2. Why did Roberts single out Denise and not include the CEO for authorizing the release of the information? We'll have to wait and see the ultimate answer. It's only speculation at this point.

Another question posed to me by both journalists and PR colleagues:
3. Did Denise's emotions play a role in all this? They didn't come out and say it, but this is what they meant to ask: "Did Denise accidentally release sensitive information because she was emotionally distraught?" The question has raised some emotions of its own, especially with female colleagues who are upset about what they see as unfair treatment of Denise because she is a woman.

My response to KTLA was this: "Hey, even veteran firefighters at the scene were overcome with emotion. It's a situation that carries a lot of trauma with it. Anyone is allowed to be human in those circumstances." We've seen male U.S. presidents crack with emotion, so why not the spokesperson of a regional transit agency? Denise gave information she was authorized to give and after that, I must point out, only then did she allude to it being an emotional time for her.

No matter the question or answer, this one will be a classic case study for the PR books.

PRSA Western District Chair comments on Metrolink spokesperson's resignation

Denis Wolcott, current chair of PRSA's Western District and past president of the PRSA's Greater Los Angeles Area chapter, went on camera Monday to discuss the sudden resignation of Metrolink spokesperson Denise Tyrrell following the train authority's quick disclosure that its engineer was at fault in Friday's (Sept. 12) head-on train crash that killed 26 and injured 135 commuters.

Public Relations professionals are expected to adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public. Ms. Tyrrell's boss, Metrolink CEO David Solow, told reporters Monday that he authorized her to disclose that the engineer was at fault and had ignored a red signal to stop. Denise gave the news last Saturday, in a stunningly quick less than 24 hours after the crash. Metrolink felt it had to answer the nagging question: "How could this happen?"

However, the National Transportation Safety Board, which likes to take control of how information is disseminated in deadly transportation crash investigations, quickly responded to Metrolink's disclosure, saying it was premature to assign blame. On Sunday, the Metrolink board of directors, a politically appointed body, met in private and later issued a statement essentially agreeing with the NTSB that it was premature to assign blame.Although not all of my interview with Los Angeles TV station KTLA Channel 5 was aired, I did stress the importance of an organization’s board, executive office and public relations staff working in concert when it comes to public communications and that public relations professionals clearly need to be part of the decision-making process at the highest level. I also cited the importance of an organization making a timely and full disclosure of authenticated information.

Denise Tyrrell also gave an exclusive on-camera interview to KCAL-TV, a local CBS affiliate, here.

Here's the background:FROM THE LA TIMES..." Metrolink spokeswoman Denise Tyrrell called the agency's chief executive to make an unusual request. "I asked him to allow me to make a statement to rebuild public trust," she recalled, "and I told him we had to be honest and upfront about what happened."

David Solow, she said, "agreed" with her plans to publicly acknowledge Saturday that a preliminary investigation showed the Metrolink engineer ran a red light before the commuter train plowed into a Union Pacific freight train. Her teary comments and surprising candor elicited a flood of encouragement from Metrolink staff members and commuters from as far as London and Vietnam.

By Monday, Tyrrell had resigned her $86,000-a-year post amid intense criticism from Metrolink officials and federal investigators who called her public comments premature and inappropriate.

But Tyrrell, 55, has no regrets.

"When you have loss of life, spinning is unacceptable," she said.

Watch the video which includes a PRSA comment for Denis Wolcott, chair of PRSA's Western District and past president of the PRSA's LA Chapter.