New Job Creator?

What seems to be lacking on the job creation front is creativity and ingenuity. The nation appears to be stuck between two opposing paths, neither of which likely will produce new jobs at the rate the country needs. Whether it’s trickle down economics or robust government stimulus packages, the number of new jobs opening up is significantly lacking.

We think the Huffington Post, Skoll Foundation and Crowdrise may have come up with a way to provide the spark that is needed. They are counting on nonprofits for ideas and inspiration by challenging them to develop plans to combat the rising unemployment. The reward is an investment of $250,000 in their program design.

All nonprofits are welcome to participate, not just those running job training programs. The organizers of the Job-Raising Challenge zeroed in on nonprofits, because they are “among our country’s most underutilized resources—wellsprings for creativity, ingenuity, inspiration and concern for the lives of others,” said Arianna Huffington.

This may be the first time someone has asked those who deal with the unemployment problem every single day to be the entrepreneurial spirit behind job creation. Nonprofits are serving the jobless in countless ways every single day. They know the ramifications of unemployment in very personal terms and, likely, if put to the test can find programs that would be successful if they had the funding.

It will be interesting to see the creativity that can emerge from such a carrot and the community of ideas that will evolve from this interesting private/public partnership.

Who Got Next

As an on-the-wagon pick-up basketball junkie, the 2012 election coverage has caught my eye with overuse of the term “pivot.” In roundball it means to keep one foot in place while you rotate your body position by lifting the other foot. As in, “the incumbent responded to criticism that he voted for tax rebates by quickly pivoting to his proposal to pay Illinois teacher pensions in zebra mussels.”

Even the POTUS (never goes right) used the word pivot in a debate.

Which makes me wonder if there aren’t other basketball terms similarly apt for politicians and political campaigns.

Here are my top five along with the corresponding consequences.

Over and Back Possession of the ball is not allowed in the back court after it is advanced to the front court. In both parties over and back is not allowed on issues like gay marriage, abortion and the estate tax. A politician who changes position on major issues to make himself more acceptable to a voter segment should have a loud whistle blown in his ear by a man with a black and white striped shirt who is waving one arm in a large arc.

Moving Pick A pick is when you purposely stand in the way of an opponent. Which is legal if you’re not moving. I think this describes at least two “impartial” cable news networks that seem to perpetually set moving picks. After five moving picks a network should be shut down for the day.

Traveling On the playground it’s also called “steps,” moving while holding the ball. National politics now emulates the NBA where the rule around traveling was an inconvenience to the star system. Solution? Allow the players to take steps. In party politics proven winners are allowed to meander about on the stump with little regard for the facts and with full support of their party. When a politician “travels” at a campaign event, an official should immediately leap to the lectern and hand the mic to his opponent.

Double Dribble This basically means doing twice what is allowed only once. The Super Pacs are the double dribble of campaign finance. They should be forced to give up the ball and defend. Just saying.

Head Fake When the player with the ball indicates with a quick head movement that he will go in one direction, but moves his body in an entirely different direction. In politics the head fake is too often the campaign which is changed immediately upon entering office.

Some basketball advice for election day: a shooter’s gonna shoot. Gonna happen.

You Can Quote Me….Accurately…On That

Given a choice between being misquoted and quoted accurately in a newspaper article, which would you choose? Thought so.

The New York Times recently opined on what it calls the insidious practice of media agreeing that companies be allowed to review quotes before publication. No review, no interview.

The writer laments the loss of off-the-cuff remarks. Especially the slip ups he views as the truth. It’s not exclusively interviewee mistakes that the companies are concerned with. Sometimes—take a breath and hold it—on rare occasion, reporters make mistakes.

While going the extra mile to get it right is lauded in the news room, similar efforts by communications professionals must be obfuscation, according to the editorial. That sounds neither fair nor balanced.

Anyone who works with the media knows the tremendous challenges they face getting the news out. Reporters are asked to jump on a story with little notice and subject knowledge. The good reporters, and they are the majority, pick up the phone and check to make sure they got it right. However, there is a subset that for whatever reason or combination of factors gets part of it wrong.

Getting it wrong can make a stock’s price move when it shouldn’t. It can send the entirely wrong message to industry, government, customers and other stakeholders. It can broadcast science and data outcomes incorrectly which can then lead to unimagined difficulties.

Most people don’t speak to reporters every day. Many are nervous when they do. And as a result they make mistakes during interviews. See it happen every day to good, smart people who simply care about representing their organization well.

Not every reporter on deadline will jump back on the phone and listen to what went wrong in the interview. Especially those with whom there is no prior relationship.

When reporters and their subjects share a common objective of getting the facts right, a quick review of quotes is a useful journalistic tool.

When Mother Nature gives you a blizzard…

Chicago is still digging out from one of Mother Nature’s reminders that we aren’t in control of everything: 20 inches of snow and 50 mile an hour winds, followed by subzero wind chills.  Making something positive out of those brutal conditions is a beautiful thing to behold.

And to see a great example, head on over to the Lincoln Park Zoo’s website.  The Zoo’s response to the storm is featured throughout the site, from a cover story describing the Zoo’s preparations and response, to a beautiful slide show of the snowy Zoo, commentary by animal care staff and a letter of thanks to the Zoo staff from Kevin Bell, Zoo President.  The Zoo faced a challenge and used its response to reinforce its core messages of conservation and animal care.

Who else has turned The Blizzard of 2011 into a positive?