big ocean

Today's N.Y. Times article about "the face" of BP -- spokesman guy who shows up to inform, apologize, and speak soothing words.

He's getting criticized.
(There's a surprise.)

The article refers to his "gaffes." Reading them, I didn't think his gaffes were that bad. Not that good; not that bad.
Perspective (in A, B, and C):

A. this is a giant disaster, anyone speaking of it is going to be criticized by somebody because it's stressful situation -- it's like the President -- any President of U.S. is criticized and his decisions second-guessed by commentators when the topic is a bad terrible disaster -- oil spill, Vietnam, Iraq, whatever you got.

B. With so many commentators everywhere now because of the internet and other forms of instant (and constant) communication, in a way it's good because everybody gets a say -- very democratic -- and in a way it's bad or weird because it becomes TOO MUCH. Feelings escalate and facts and situations get blown out of proportion.

(The article says, "The chief executive's tendency to utter provocative statements has prompted a surge of criticism from politicians, bloggers and television pundits...." [Really???!!! No shit??!!] That's hardly news.)

Pouncing on somebody and making fun of what they say has dubious value, I think, in the public discourse, but it has Value with a Capital Dollar Sign for the "television pundits" -- being critical, sarcastic, indignant, and sometimes outrageous is their stock in trade for which they're being well-paid while they actually contribute very-little-to-nothing towards solving problems such as the oil spill, and sometimes seem to make things worse.

A couple of the statements (or, phrases) which some critics criticized the BP chief. exec., Tony Hayward for:
he called the gulf "a very big ocean";
and "What is undoubtedly true is that we did not have the tools you would want in your tool kit."

That's not a big disaster, or a horrible insensitive thing: that speaking style is British. It's sort of a style of understatement, sort of "lower-key, upper-class, la-de-da approach which is commonly seasoned with real sort of plain speech -- which can sound slightly dorky or even dumb, to the American ear. (I remember Prince Charles saying of parenthood, on the event of the birth of his first son Prince William, "It's rather a grown-up thing.")

I hear the "tool kit" comment as being similar -- it might not be what I'd say, or what most of us in America would say -- but it's British. It's a style of speech. I think a listener, particularly someone who is elevated to their own newspaper column or television show, should extend themselves to hear what the person is saying and to try to hear what they truly mean.

C. And it says in the article, "Mr. Hayward, a geologist who has led the company for three years..." A geologist. Since when is a geologist a P-R wizard? I think those are two different things. (P-R, I'd have a crack at. Geologist -- not so much. ...though I do know a rock when I see one.)
A feed salesman is not necessarily ready for a job running the Pentagon.
A lobbyist / advocate does not qualify as a brain surgeon. (Bring your head over and lay it on my table, we'll see what we can do....)

Brit. Petrol. should maybe take public relations more seriously. Maybe in a big company like that, where they do such Big, physical things, they regard much emphasis on P-R to be shallow; that's a legitimate concern -- but P-R is a GOOD thing if done right, and with integrity and a positive goal -- like, making things good and making things clear, Not to cover stuff up.

-30-