Are They Really This Stupid? Air Force One's Not So Excellent Day Out

Air Force One's dramatic and fright-inspiring flyover of Manhattan yesterday was supposed to be for "publicity purposes," according to The New York Times.

It worked.

Follow-up stories today will probably reveal that officials kept the flyover a secret from the public -- in fact, even from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- so that the airplane wouldn't become a target. I can't imagine why else they would insist on such secrecy, but I have to ask, "A target for what?" The bad guys aren't interested in taking down an empty plane -- where's the drama in that? They like their airplanes full of innocent people.

I realize that many non-New Yorkers, particularly those incapable of empathy, have no sense of the terror and trauma caused by the September 11, 2001, attacks. For some, if you haven't lived through it yourself, you can't imagine what it must have been like. But does this describe the D.C. people who told the NYC officials they couldn't notify the public of this highly unusual and exceptionally dramatic flyover? D.C. experienced its fair share of trauma on September 11 so we should be able to expect them to "get it" more than we could from knuckleheads in any other part of the country.

This is yet another reminder -- you've read them here before and I'll keep posting them -- of the importance of communicating with all constituents or stakeholders. There is no excuse for traumatizing New York City's residents and workers. If you can't let them know in advance, then don't stage the photo opportunity. The backlash generated by the buzz just isn't worth the photos.

Don't Forget Your Constituents

When making a major news announcement, don't forget to inform your constituents.

Yesterday, my high schooler sent me a text informing me that our beloved high school principal (yeah, that's Mr. Paddock in the picture) announced to the 1,800 HS students in grades 10-12 that he would be retiring at the end of the school year.

This is big news for a number of reasons, so because I'm subscribed to the superintendent's e-mail announcement list, I waited yesterday for the "official" word. None came. When my daughter got home in the afternoon, she told me there were reporters at school to cover the story. Well, then, certainly, the superintendent would want to tell his constituents before they saw it on the 6 p.m. TV news, right?

Wrong.

The news was on TV last night AND announced in a decent-sized article in this morning's paper. That sent me and my bed head shuffling to my computer to check for an early morning e-mail from the superintendent because of course he wouldn't let his parents see it on TV news one night and in the newspaper the following morning without commenting himself.

OK, you know already... there was no note. Worse, there was nothing on the district Web site, either. An announcement has been added to the Web site since I first checked this morning, but I haven't received it via e-mail.

This is a good example of what not to do in school communications: Don't let your constituents get your news from the media or you will risk undermining your credibility and their trust in you.

Bottom line: As soon as Paddock announced to students in homeroom that he was retiring, the superintendent should have sent an announcement to his e-mail distribution list and posted it on the district Web site. It's OK for Mr. Paddock to tell his students first, but reporters shouldn't be getting the news before parents do. It's really that simple.