Sports broadcast gambling message is shameful.

In the public relations world, it’s all about the message. I craft messages with the aim of connecting and resonating with the public, the media and clients’ stakeholders.

From that perspective, I am alarmed by the message I am hearing when I watch or listen to broadcasts of Australia’s most popular sports. It’s a message based on selfishness and profits, developed by companies who make money as others lose it, directed at people who love watching sport for sport’s sake.

The message is loud and clear: I should now rate the chances of the teams by the odds of bookmakers and I should consider placing a bet on the cricket match or footy game as normal as having an opinion on who should open the bowling or be the team’s halfback.

The message has become intertwined to the point that it’s now - downright dangerous!

It’s dangerous because gambling is dangerous. I’m not a wowser – I have no problems with someone having a bet. I am not a regular gambler (I choose more fun ways to lose money) but like most Australians, have purchased my share of losing tickets, had a flutter on the Melbourne Cup, been known to have a game of Keno and have tried my hand at that spinning wheel thing at the casino (for the record, casinos look more fun on James Bond movies).

But the dangers of gambling are indisputable. Many people – including a long line of high profile past and present sportspeople – have experienced serious problems due to gambling addiction. For that reason children should not be exposed to the message that gambling is normal, exciting or prosperous.

Yet that is exactly the message being propagated by the television networks and commentators during every football game, every cricket match and any other high profile sporting event. It is the wrong message. It is a message with the potential to influence children and ruin lives. It is a shameful message.

Crossing to sports betting updates from the commentary team, allowing live odds during telecasts, referring to favourites by the betting odds and broadcasting odds during general sports reports, must be stopped.

That primary school children – many in families that do not regularly gamble - understand and discuss betting odds, should be enough for us to wake up and realise that we are heading down a path that will never lead to good outcomes.

I am not an anti-gambling crusader. I have no issues with poker machines, horse racing or on-line betting. These are all outlets for adults to make a choice based on their free will.

But each time the NRL, AFL or cricket makes gambling a part of the televised game, the choice has been removed from every person watching – including parents.

Sure, no one is forcing us to bet – and we are urged to “gamble responsibly” (whatever that means) – but the choice to sit through continual evaluations from betting agencies, is forced upon us.

It’s indoctrination by stealth. It’s pressuring us to normalise gambling in ideological and cultural terms. Ironically, while governments are making efforts to look after the health of the nation with issues like tobacco and alcohol, they are allowing betting agencies to raise a generation that will believe gambling is a regular part of supporting their favourite football team.

As the football season commences, we shouldn’t have to ponder the odds of Scott Prince scoring the first try in the second half through a high kick – even if backing that option pays $35.

Those who want to bet on sports will always have the choice to do so. Those of us who enjoy sports for the sake of the game (including our kids) must have a similar choice.

It’s time to act.

Is this Australia's biggest ever sporting PR disaster?

The recent announcement by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and Federal Government on organised crime and drugs in sport, could be the biggest PR disaster in the nation’s sporting history.

For the sake of the ACC, I hope information is revealed soon that provides credible rationale for the decision to make such a damaging public announcement and sully Australia's global reputation without any details and before any charges have been laid.

If not, the timing is beyond belief. In the world of public relations, timing is everything. What was the public benefit to announce such serious matters and cast suspicion across the sporting world, when matters are still being investigated?

How did the announcement assist the players, the clubs, the sporting codes?

Already one rugby league club is talking legal action over a loss of reputation and possible sponsorship – and no one can blame them.

Every player at each of the 'named' clubs in particular, but in reality across the board, has a right to feel violated. I represent clients across many fields including the sporting world, and understand the importance of personal reputation. If this suffers, so does performance, earning capacity and confidence.

To make the accusations they did without any details is unforgivable. Why not simply continue the investigation until arrests can be made, and then drop the bombshell?

Allegations have been made that this announcement was a smokescreen on behalf of the Government to divert attention from other matters. I have no idea if there is any substance to this claim, but it’s a reasonable question.

The media has let the Government and the investigators off the hook by failing to hold them to account for a decision that has the potential to wreck lives and cost a lot of people, a lot of money.

It’s a lesson in how not to conduct PR. It’s also reasonable to demand answers.

When public interest invades personal privacy

We live in a digital media age where media representatives are still working out the new boundaries between public interest and personal privacy.

Arts & IT Minister Ros Bates

The publishing of photos from personal Facebook sites have become common across all forms of media and it is normal to include links within digital articles.

Yet it’s time for this question to be asked – “How far is too far?”

Today the Brisbane Courier Mail published an on-line story about a member of Queensland’s parliament that is currently in the spotlight.

Some months ago, Arts and IT Minister Ros Bates attended a lunch organised by lobbyists yet failed to mention the gathering in the official ‘Lobbyist Register’. The State Opposition has questioned this and the media has – appropriately – covered the story.

Today a list of those attending the lunch was published on the Courier Mail website - http://tinyurl.com/9wu4gjd. The publishing of this list was without doubt a matter of public interest as the controversy surrounding the lunch is directly linked to those who attended. Were they there to lobby the minister?

Yet the article did more than simply name the attendees and the companies they work for. It included a hyperlink from every name to personal Linkedin pages, where we can see their photos and read about their previous positions, education and skills.

One could reasonably argue that a Linkedin page is public and therefore anyone should be able to view the information.

This is true, but equally each one of us with a Linkedin page understands that usually, those viewing the page do so with a legitimate reason. I think most people would be a little uncomfortable and feel slightly violated being on such public display under these circumstances.

By publishing the names and creating a link to more information than the reader needs, attendees have been abstractly though personally linked to the controversy surrounding the lunch.

This muddies the story and invades the personal space of people who have not asked for public exposure, but were just doing their job.

Is journalism going too far or is this legitimate? I wonder how others feel.

Boobs make news - but where's the story?

The issue of breastfeeding (Kochie might use the the more ‘classy’ American term of ‘nursing’) hit the Aussie headlines over the past few days following the simple act of a mum being asked to feed her bub in a more discreet location than the side of a public swimming pool.

Despite the local council – who manages the pool – admitting its error and apologising, this mother was determined to use the opportunity to make a principled stand for breastfeeding and promote the right of mums to do it anywhere, anyhow and anytime.

Now, thanks to comments by the Seven Network’s Sunrise host David Koch for women to keep breastfeeding “classy”, the issue has gone national.

What makes the story interesting from a media relations perspective is that I’d argue it’s a story about nothing.

Is there really widespread discrimination and antipathy against breastfeeding mums across Australia? I doubt it. 

I’m sure I pass mothers breastfeeding babies almost every day, yet I usually don’t notice them and when I do, I don’t think twice about what is a completely normal part of life. My wife – and many of my friends – never had a problem nursing in public and if a mother does have a bad experience, there are laws in place to protect them (as we saw in this case).

Furthermore, most nursing mums are very ‘classy’ about it. I’d imagine discretion is their preferred option and I’ve never met any who seek an audience!

When you remove the hype, the story in question goes like this: mum is breastfeeding at pool, mum is asked to move (Council insists she was not asked to stop feeding but they equally had no right to ask her to move), mum gets upset and goes to media, Council admits wrong and apologises to mum.

At this point mum could have elected to accept the apology and go about her life, but instead decided to arrange a protest at the pool. There was no purpose to the protest as the Council had already apologised, yet it was still carried across television network news and reported widely through the national media.

Meanwhile hostages were being killed in Africa by terrorists, which received less coverage by some of the same networks.

This is no criticism of the media who understand their audiences and are merely providing content they know will interest. But it does provide an insight into the types of stories that will garner widespread coverage.

It also highlights the drawing power of boobs!

Lance Armstrong interview - Part 1: He blew it – Embarrassed but not sorry

Part One of today’s Lance Armstrong interview with Oprah showed us that the disgraced cyclist is sorry……..for being caught!

While Armstrong appeared to start the interview well, he could not contain the cockiness and arrogance that put him in this position in the first place.

One statement was the most telling. When he said he regretted coming back because “we wouldn’t be here if I didn’t come back”, he exposed his true motives and lack of genuine remorse.

Lance Armstrong was really saying in today’s interview – ‘I’m happy to admit I’m a jerk, a bully and arrogant, but I am most sorry that I didn’t get away with it’.

He did a few things right – he didn’t blame others and he tried to take responsibility, but it was so clear that he still does not get it.

He is struggling. He wants to be sorry but he can’t because he’s not.

He’s embarrassed, guilty and remorseful that he got caught and I’m sure tomorrow we’ll learn he is sorry that he hurt his mother and children – but he can’t understand that what he did was wrong.

When he revealed that he regretted coming back, he told us that he wishes he got away with it. That was the wrong message and will not help him with the public.