I'm happy to see a report in this morning's NY Times about the terrible job Japanese officials have done in clearly communicating with the media and the public about the nuclear disaster unfolding there.
Isn't it during that most grave of emergencies that a company should ignore public relations and emphasize public communications?
As I've suggested, I hope the misleading comments by that country's leadership will be part of the eventually international investigation into...into what? "Chernobyl" became the name of that event. So did "Three Mile Island".
Somehow Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station doesn't roll off the tongue. Perhaps just "Fukushima" because it sounds a bit like Hiroshima?
Isn't it during that most grave of emergencies that a company should ignore public relations and emphasize public communications?
As I've suggested, I hope the misleading comments by that country's leadership will be part of the eventually international investigation into...into what? "Chernobyl" became the name of that event. So did "Three Mile Island".
Somehow Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station doesn't roll off the tongue. Perhaps just "Fukushima" because it sounds a bit like Hiroshima?
No comments:
Post a Comment