Experts Matter. Find Yours.

The return on measles and how this once eradicated disease is making an epic comeback

Once long gone and considered a thing of the past – measles is back in America. The childhood disease that was usually easily contained by a simple shot along with vaccinations for mumps and rubella, used to ensure that our communities and the general population enjoyed herd immunity and remained for the most part safe from these once dangerous and highly-contagious diseases. But things have changed, and this year America has set a record … unfortunately taking public health a few steps back along with it. “Less than two weeks ago, the number of measles cases reported in 2019 broke the previous recent annual record, beating 667 cases reported in 2014. At the time, that was the highest number of cases reported since the disease was eliminated in the U.S.” May 06, 2019 – ABC News It’s a two-pronged problem and not so easy to unravel, first of all: Is it a matter of effective communication? Is public health losing the battle to online fake news? Are parents taking for granted the value of vaccinations? Does government need to intervene with mandatory immunizations? As well, there’s the bigger picture to consider… Who isn’t getting vaccinated and why? What’s the risk to the general population? And who are the compromised people who justifiably can’t be immunized and what threat does this pose to them? There are a lot of questions out there as well as a lot of false information – and that’s where our experts can help. Dr. Jessica Smith Schwind researches emerging infectious diseases in global health settings. She is an expert in the areas of epidemiology and disease detection. Dr. Melissa Carrion is an Assistant Professor in Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies and her current research is focused on maternal vaccine refusal and what are the common messages and experiences that influence these decisions. Both are available to speak with media regarding this issue – simply click on either icon to arrange an interview.

Is Late Night – the Place to Be on TV for Those Running in 2020

It used to be that stopping by a late-night talk show for any political candidate was a just an added bonus of exposure and safe coverage for a campaign.  Think of Bill Clinton answering softballs and playing the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show a quarter century ago. Now there’s no qualitative proof – but most political scientists will tell you that night helped introduce the then Governor Bill Clinton to a new audience and helped shape his image as that of a cool and relatable candidate. It may have been one of the many factors that saw him win the Whitehouse in 1992. Fast forward to today, and now securing a spot on the sofa beside any of the late-night hosts is a must for any presidential candidate who wants to be taken seriously. What Oprah was once for books and authors, hosts like Stephen Colbert have become for candidates – he’s the perennial gatekeeper for politicians. “Any Democratic candidate who thinks they can ignore Stephen Colbert might as well not run for president,” said Stephen Farnsworth, director of the Center for Leadership and Media Studies at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “Colbert once joked that the road to the White House runs through his show but it’s no joke; it is exactly so.”  - Washington Post, November 2018 In this new era of social media, 24-hour news and even fake news – why is late night suddenly the place to be for politicians? Is it because it is safe? Has comedy suddenly become the only credible and objective place for politicians? Is it because that’s where undecided audiences tune in and can be reached? Or is it because late night is now segmented and postable on YouTube?  Is the internet audience after the show just as valuable as the viewers who tune in? There are a lot of questions about what it will take and what we can expect along the long road to the 2020 election – and that’s where the experts from the University of Mary Washington can help. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington. A published author and a media ‘go-to’ on U.S. politics, he is available to speak with media regarding this issue. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.

Ethics Quandary? Women in PR More Apt to Seek Allies Before Giving Execs Advice

Women in public relations are more likely than men to seek allies and form coalitions before they give ethics counsel to senior leaders, while men are more likely to rely on presenting research, according to a Baylor University study. The study also showed that while senior public relations executives in the study overall tend to use “rational approaches,” such as research, case studies and appeals about what is right and lawful, success depends on building relationships with colleagues in other departments so that they have backup when ethical issues arise. “A PR person can be the conscience, but are they listened to? Are they respected? Are they at the table?” one woman said. “You can be doing everything right, but if nobody is listening to you, it really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Except that you can sleep at night.” The study — “The Use of Influence Tactics by Senior Public Relations Executives to Provide Ethics Counsel” — is published in the Journal of Media Ethics. The article highlights the need for younger PR practitioners to seek out senior PR executives as mentors before and during confrontation of ethics issues, said lead author Marlene Neill, Ph.D., assistant professor of journalism, public relations and new media in Baylor’s College of Arts & Sciences and author of the book “Public Relations Ethics: PR Pros Tell Us How to Speak Up and Keep Your Job.” “What inspired us to conduct this research were findings from a study I conducted in 2016 with Millennials working in public relations,” Neill said. “Survey results indicated that Millennials did not feel prepared to provide ethics counsel, were unlikely to speak up and did not even expect to face ethical dilemmas. We decided to conduct this study to instruct them how to do this effectively based on the experiences of senior executives working in our industry.” Researchers conducted through in-depth interviews with an elite selection of 55 public relations executives, many of them with Fortune 500 companies. They included members of the *Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) College of Fellows and The Arthur W. Page Society, with the combined sample averaging 33 years in PR. They represented 19 states and industries including government, healthcare, telecommunications, financial services and energy. Interviewees discussed ways to exert influence, ethics training and whether they are of value as an ethics counselor. “Some see it as being of little use; some recommend the PR practitioner take a modest role in encouraging consideration of ethics among multiple leaders,” Neill said. But others felt strongly that they should be an “organizational conscience” when they think company actions might pose an ethical dilemma with troubling consequences. One reason to do so is that without “boat-rocking” with straightforward tactics   an organization, some may turn outside the company by whistleblowing or leaking information to stakeholders, media or government officials. “Our study found that building relationships was critical for practitioners to ensure that other executives would listen to and respect their counsel,” Neill said. “That doesn’t mean they always won the debate, but relationship building has to do with building respect and trust.” While the interviewees’ most common approach to influencing was rational, followed by coalition-building, “some said they relied on persistence and assertiveness if they felt an issue was so objectionable they could not stay silent,” Neill said. “A few people turn to ingratiation, such as flattery.” When it comes to differences in how genders approach the role of ethics counselor, one reason women may recruit allies is that they tend to be outnumbered by men in the boardroom, Neill said. One woman said that “Going in force can help your case. But sometimes it can backfire . . . you know, if somebody wants to kill the messenger. But if several people come to you with the same messaging, I think you take notice.” Another woman said that she was “reprimanded for being so forthright. So, I didn’t do it that way anymore.” Some women were wary of using emotional appeals. Because of stereotypes about women being emotional in the workplace, “I probably erred in the other direction,” one woman said. Men, meanwhile, were more likely to prefer informational sources of power such as research and case studies, Neill said. But both genders said they ask questions, discuss, listen, share alternatives or solutions and recommend. A few men and women used more confrontational descriptions, such as saying, “We absolutely put our foot down” and “Tell them it’s wrong.” But in the case of women, “some of these more confrontational accounts were used in connection with allies or coalitions,” Neill said. In a few cases, men and women gave examples of resigning accounts or refusing to accept new clients if they decided the client’s business was not worth the ethical cost. Many interviewees said they had received ethics training through PRSA. A few said they had received training through their employer, college courses, personal study and mentors. A few pointed to their religious upbringing. Some of the more common ethics issues centered around communication, such as open disclosure of information, inaccurate information or sending fake letters to an editor. But others were business challenges, such as abusive behavior toward subordinates, misuse of public funds, smear campaigns and conflicts of interest. Neill said that because the study was limited to 55 individuals, a larger study and surveys of senior PR executives in other nations would be valuable. She and a colleague next plan to study to women’s leadership experiences. *PRSA College of Fellows is an exclusive group of approximately 350 senior professionals, each with a minimum of 20 years of experience in PR, Accreditation in Public Relations and recognition for distinguished careers. The Arthur W. Page Society is open by invitation to chief communications officers of Fortune 500 corporations and leading nonprofit organizations, chief executive officers of PR agencies and senior professors from business and communications schools. The study was funded by The Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication and supported by the PRSA Board of Ethics and Professional Standards and PRSA College of Fellows. Co-author is Amy Barnes, associate professor in the School of Mass Communications at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and co-author of “Public Relations Ethics: PR Pros Tell Us How to Speak Up and Keep Your Job.” ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked research institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 17,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through the efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 80 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions. ABOUT BAYLOR COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES The College of Arts & Sciences is Baylor University’s oldest and largest academic division, with 25 academic departments and seven academic centers and institutes. The more than 5,000 courses taught in the College span topics from art and theatre to religion, philosophy, sociology and the natural sciences. Faculty conduct research around the world, and research on the undergraduate and graduate level is prevalent throughout all disciplines.

Bigly: the effect of Trump's rhetoric on national security

Going against the findings of his own intelligence community, President Donald Trump has called Russian meddling into the 2016 U.S. presidential election a “hoax.” In a recent turn of events, though, the president accused China of interfering with the midterm elections. Has President Trump’s rhetoric on the intelligence community and hesitancy to hold Russia accountable influenced countries, such as China, to also try meddling in U.S. elections? “If people and foreign officials start believing President Trump’s rhetoric, there is a possibility, that we will face issues of doubt and trust concerning U.S. policy and commitments,” said Craig Albert, an expert in U.S.-Russian security affairs, director of the master of arts in intelligence and security studies and associate professor of political science at Katherine Reese Pamplin College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Augusta University. “Also, President Trump’s rhetoric helps prop up Vladimir Putin as being equal in stature to the leader of the free world and gives Kremlin and Putin greater credibility with Russian citizens and the near abroad.” Midterm elections are on the horizon, and Putin will continue election meddling regardless of Trump’s actions or rhetoric, Albert said. “Russia, under Putin’s leadership, will continue to increase its cyber activity against all sectors of the U.S., including and especially into the cognitive hacking of our electoral process,” he said. Cognitive hacking is when fake sources are used to spread fake news on social media. The success of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election is emboldening other actors, like China. “Non-state actors like ISIS and Al Qaeda feel empowered to engage in both cognitive and source hacking in order to shift American public opinion,” Albert said. “We already believe China and Iran have engaged in similar operations. It won’t be long before ISIS utilizes the same type of intelligence operations because they are low risk, extremely high reward operations. Albert is available to discuss: • How President Trump’s rhetoric affects the U.S. intelligence community • How Trump’s apparent support for Russia empowers Putin and the Kremlin to continue meddling into U.S. elections • How Russia’s actions are emboldening other non-state actors • Why Trump’s denial of Russian meddling into U.S. elections can further damage U.S. relations with its allies Contact us to schedule an interview with Albert or to learn more about his expertise. Source:

Latest push in fake news is pushing fake experts

During the 2016 presidential election, hundreds of fake sources used social media to spread fake news. Many of these posts were traced back to the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm that used social networks to create divides among Americans and influence the election. This is known as cognitive hacking and is the real scandal of the 2016 election, said Dr. Craig Albert, director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies program and associate professor of political science at Katherine Reese Pamplin College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at Augusta University. Fake sources using social media to spread fake news are often able to reach a large audience who may never realize the stories are false, Albert said. In some instances, entire organizations and groups have been created under false pretenses and have had millions of social media followers. “When so many people see fake news on their newsfeeds, they become a product of their belief in a fake story,” Albert said. “So, a fake story controls their opinions.” Now, Russia is taking fake news a step farther. The newest trend is creating a false persona to push fake news on U.S. news organizations. “They will have an expert create a story, and they will create credentials and a website to give credibility to this individual,” Albert said. “When media outlets try to ascertain the credibility of a person they typically visit the individual’s website or look at their resume. It appears legitimate, so the source is validated, and news outlets run the story.” In many cases, though, these are false stories by individuals with fake credentials. Albert calls this source hacking. Dr. Albert is an expert on American politics and political philosophy. He has experience with all forms of local and national news organizations and is available to speak to media regarding cognitive and source hacking. Contact us to schedule an interview with Dr. Albert or to learn more about his expertise. Source: