Tiger Woods Lawyers Up

Tiger Woods. Golf pro. PR duffer.

It’s been a boom market for PR pros during the Tiger Woods debacle. If only we could get as much ink (pixels, tweets) for our clients as we have for ourselves as we continue the endless autopsy of the endless scandal. My noble disclaimer aside, time to jump in.

The Wall Street Journal has “broken” the case on Tiger’s PR ineptitude: his sports agent Mark Steinberg is handling matters. And yes, Mr. Steinberg is a lawyer by training.

The battle between lawyers and public relations practitioners is epic (at least in the annals of PR). One group says “shut up;” the other urges clients to do the opposite. According to WSJ, Team Tiger has maintained the code of silence since Mr. Steinberg told the Florida Highway Patrol that his client would answer no questions about his car accident. Silence is truly golden as reports continue that Tiger’s organization is negotiating with alleged mistress Rachel Uchitel to buy her permanent distance from the media.

This very silence has created the only Tiger boom market bigger than PR talking heads: the parade of “other women” with their digital versions of Monica’s blue dress–texts, voicemails, and possibly nude photos of the golfing great. Mark Steinberg has made Tiger Woods a billionaire. He’s now extending his Midas touch to nightclub hostesses and waffle house waitresses around the world. With the reported payoff of Girlfriend Zero, Ms. Uchitel, the media know they have to spend liberally and move quickly to keep the story going.

Silence is deadly. Arrogance is nearly as bad. Team Tiger is loaded with both. Granted the arrogance is not the wear-on-your-sleeve variety that propelled Barry Bonds to a federal indictment, but it is real and ready to eclipse Tiger’s achievements, philanthropy, and appeal.

The WSJ story includes a telling anecdote on Mr. Steinberg’s attitude toward the media as he orders journalists waiting for Tiger: “You have two questions each. Nobody asks a third question or he walks.” At least that’s two more questions than the Florida Highway Patrol got.

Tiger’s terse and cryptic online confession, now buried chronologically in the news section of his Web site, continues the disdain with the line: “Personal sins should not require press releases.” They don’t when you’re famous. They get plenty of coverage without any special announcements.

Woods’ world has been breached and Mark Steinberg, the law school grad/mega agent/best friend cannot defend it. Mr. Steinberg may have had his way when negotiating endorsement deals with huge companies. He may have successfully sued or punished marketers and media that violated his protocol. He may be able to slip seven-figure checks to a couple of party girls before the National Enquirer does. He’s not qualified to fight this war. But he’s doing wonders for the lawyers vs. PR debate…as far as PR pros are concerned.

Lord Help Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein

 

There’s a reason that companies should engage in regular public relations. Like anything else, it requires practice. Saying that you don’t need PR and then dutifully going into your bunker leaves you vulnerable for the inevitable day when the bunker is breached and you are hauled into the sunlight. Witness Goldman Sachs. 

As I write this, the Internet is filling with commentary on Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s comment to The Times of London that he is “doing God’s work.” Hopefully, Twitter has fired up its “outrage server” (it has one, right?) to handle the overload of aghast and snarky comments which include old quotes from Enron that it was “on the side of the angels” and links to The Huffington Post’s rebuttal from Satan. Some commentators are acknowledging that Blankfein delivered the line with an “impish grin,” as the article indicates. For many, however, ”just kidding” didn’t make it into the sound bite. 

Right now, someone is fuming inside Goldman Sachs headquarters: “That’s what we get for talking to the #@*#% media!” No, that’s what Goldman Sachs gets for insufficient attention to the media and the public. That’s what it gets for emerging as the Wall Street colossus following the demise or absorption of its biggest competition in Depression 2.0. The firm has new visibility and responsibility, and it is unprepared. Goldman Sachs may have hedged its bets in the housing sector prior to the 2008 collapse, but it did virtually nothing about its PR exposure. 

The God comment comes on the heels of news about Goldman Sachs’ pending bonus payouts. The subsequent announcement of US unemployment topping 10% will not help the traditional arguments that such bonuses are necessary to retain the best and the brightest on Wall Street. We are eager for a new bogeyman or “vampire squid” per an oft-repeated Rolling Stone description of Blankfein and company. Goldman Sachs needs to stop auditioning for the monster’s role. 

Regretful hindsight about taking TARP money (which it has paid back with interest) is not enough. Just ask John Kerry about “votes for and against” war appropriations. Two former CEOs turned treasury secretaries is not enough. Goldman Sachs has never been more vulnerable, precisely at the moment of its greatest industry dominance. In a previous post, I cite The Wall Street Journal’s report of Goldman Sachs’ “charm offensive.”  My recommendations for next steps: 

• Explain briefly that the God comment was a jab at the industry while apologizing profusely
• Convert those bonuses into charitable donations, now
• Shake off this bloody nose and stay in the public arena. Don’t let the anti-PR faction in the organization get the upper hand

POSTSCRIPT 1: The New York Times reports Goldman Sachs’ $500 million contribution to a fund to help small businesses. Goldman’s largest shareholder and the world’s second richest man, Warren Buffett, is an advisor to the program. This is perhaps Goldman Sachs’ best move since Mr. Buffett is one of the few business leaders who commands genuine respect, thanks to his strong track record and humble lifestyle. 

POSTSCRIPT 2: The Wall Street Journal reports Goldman Sachs’ 30-member advisory committee will receive stock in lieu of cash as bonuses. The stock cannot be sold for five years and can be taken back “in cases where the employee failed to properly account for risk.”

Slow Down, Toyota

At the beginning of the week, Toyota instituted a mass recall of floor mats entailing nearly 4 million vehicles. The recall is a response to reports of unintended acceleration and stuck accelerators, with the most notable case being an August crash that claimed the lives of a California Highway Patrol officer and three family members. Punctuating that accident: a frantic 911 call from a passenger in the careening vehicle and a subsequent public apology by Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda.

With the mailing of recall letters, Bob Carter, Toyota’s U.S. group vice president for sales, announced that out-of-position floor mats were the sole cause of unintended acceleration, with the company finding no evidence of any other vehicle flaws. This statement has drawn sharp public criticism from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which called Toyota’s statements “inaccurate and misleading.” Citing an “underlying defect” with the accelerator pedal and driver footwell, the agency stated:

Safety is the No. 1 priority for NHTSA and this is why officials are working with Toyota to find the right way to fix this very dangerous problem. This matter is not closed until Toyota has effectively addressed the defect by providing a suitable vehicle-based solution.

Toyota’s “all-clear” was a colossal PR blunder that blindsided the government agency who has final say on the safety of its cars. Now in damage control mode, Toyota VP Yukitoshi Funo has been compelled to state, “It is not part of Toyota’s culture and the Toyota way to cover up anything.”

Toyota’s travails join other noted PR crises in the auto industry:

Audi, unintended acceleration–Audi sales took a decade-plus hit after mid-1980s reports of unintended acceleration. “60 Minutes” ran a segment that turned into a scandal for the show when it was revealed that “proof” of a phantom accelerator pedal on an Audi was rigged.

Ford/Firestone, Explorer rollovers–In 2000, the NHTSA investigated the high incidence of rollovers for Ford’s trendsetting Explorer SUV. Tread separation on the stock Firestone tires was singled out as a cause. Soon, Ford and Firestone were in a fingerpointing war over shoddy tires and tippy SUVs with both corporate giants accused of insufficient empathy for accident victims. (Ex) Ford CEO Jacques Nasser’s poor performance at a congressional hearing was a compounding PR failure.

Ford, Pinto gas tank ruptures–the granddaddy of auto industry crises, the 1970s subcompact was deemed vulnerable to fires and explosions from gas tanks rupturing in rear-end collisions. Mother Jones produced a “smoking gun” memo claiming Ford knew of the problem and had decided settling lawsuits would be cheaper than a redesign. Later investigation would cast doubt on the conspiracy theory and the Pinto’s actual deficiencies. Still perception is everything, including the lingering perception of Ford as a money-grubbing builder of dangerous cars.

The lesson from all these examples: Toyota must engage in complete and patient cooperation with regulators and safety agencies to prove its goodwill and facilitate independent verification of its cars’ roadworthiness. It must be willing to take extra losses manifested in recalls and redesigns to maintain trust. It must look beyond the floor mats.

The gold standard for corporate crisis response comes from Johnson & Johnson with the Tylenol poisonings of the 1980s. As product tampering became apparent, J&J pulled Tylenol off the shelves, designed tamper-proof packaging, and eventually discontinued capsules in favor of one-piece caplets. They took full responsibility for public safety and kept lines of communication open. All of J&J’s choices were costly, yet invaluable. The Tylenol brand survived and flourished, J&J’s reputation grew, and the case study became standard reading for PR students and practitioners.

Toyota will not decide if its cars are safe. Investigators, regulators and ultimately the public will.

POSTSCRIPT 1: The Los Angeles Times reveals the NHTSA dismissed numerous reports of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles over the past several years. The PR debacle grows as the government agency calling Toyota to task now appears complicit in the failure to confront this problem. Shades of the SEC and Bernie Madoff.

POSTSCRIPT 2: Toyota announces an additional step of modifying and eventually replacing nearly 4 million gas pedals.

POSTSCRIPT 3: The Los Angeles Times reports the possibility of electronic throttle control as the true root of Toyota’s accelerator problem and conveys opinions that the NHTSA “hasn’t kept pace with technological changes.”

Good Ol’ Joe

EUobserver reports Russia is mounting a public relations campaign “to justify [its] great power ambitions and improve the image of Joseph Stalin.” Russian news agency Ria Novosti has enlisted RJI Companies in a first phase with the eventual goal of hiring a large PR firm to conduct an expanded campaign. EUobserver describes RJI as a “little known” consultancy. If nothing else, this gig will put them on the map.

Phase One entails burnishing Russia’s image at a conference on the Arctic being held in Moscow next month. Enviromental and energy stewardship will be Russia’s main message points. This will be a good warmup to reputation management for Stalin given the country’s pollution record, which includes dumping reactor cores and high-level wastes from nuclear tests into the Arctic Ocean.

There is a flurry of official denials about the bigger Phase Two campaign, a program to cast a positive light on Soviet actions before and after World War II as justification for an expanded Russian role on today’s world stage. RJI Companies disavows any plan to spin Stalin. Rio Novosti says that it has no involvement with public relations for Russia, insisting that it is a news organization. The Soviet newspaper Pravda used to insist that its name meant “truth.” (It did, according the English-Russian dictionary.)

Public relations campaigns for nations are nothing new. In an earlier post, I describe simultaneous efforts by Israel, Palestine and the United States to improve their images, explain their actions, and garner support in the Middle East. But a Russian attempt to rehabilitate Joseph Stalin displays overwhelming arrogance and a tin ear for PR. It amounts to playing to the base–Russia’s ruling class, as EUobserver indicates–that blows away any feeble rabble-rousing by the extreme right or left in America.

Despite Krushchev’s 1956 “secret speech” acknowledging Stalin’s crimes, a wistfulness for “the man of steel” has lurked, fanned more recently by the Putin regime. This is sad enough inside Russia’s borders. It won’t play outside them.

POSTSCRIPT 1: The Los Angeles Times reports Russian nostalgia for Stalin and an attempted whitewashing of his image, even while Russian President Dmitry Medvedev blogs about millions killed by “terror and false accusations,” warning that “Russia must remember its tragedies.”

POSTSCRIPT 2: Newsweek reports the Putin regime’s “hearts and minds” campaign to de-Westernize Russia’s youth.

Bailing out the Trust Bank

 

Al Golin, founder of the "Trust Bank"

BusinessWeek recently ran “The Great Trust Offensive” in their issue featuring the 100 Best Global Brands.  The article identifies trust as a brand asset, highly valuable and equally perishable. It cites an Edelman poll that finds 14% fewer Americans trust business and features a quote from Larry Light, CEO of brand consultancy Arcature: “Trust is what drives profit margin and share price.”

PR pros may respond to the article with a collective “no kidding,” but its numeric portrait of trust–statistics, effect on the proverbial bottom line–is essential. The article’s description of trust shifting from a PR priority to a marketing goal is also important as companies modify their messaging to address consumers’ deepest needs and concerns.

Despite the new measurements and emphasis, trust is not something that can be “ramped up,” “unveiled” or treated like a product. The best methodology remains the “trust bank,” coined by PR legend Al Golin and the crux of his book, Trust or Consequences. According to Mr. Golin, steady, sincere deposits in the trust bank pay dividends in:

• Employee retention/recruitment
• Customer relationships
• Innovation
• Branding

Continuing with the banking metaphors, accruing trust helps companies “save up for a rainy day” as public goodwill will sustain them during setbacks or crises.

Will companies “get it?” There was supposed to be a great trust awakening after Enron, Tyco and other corporate scandals early in the decade. The economic upheavals and corporate rogues gallery of the past couple of years have practically made us forget Ken Lay and Dennis Kozolowski.

Now the most traumatic recent lessons seem to be wearing off as Goldman Sachs faces a PR Katrina in the form of pending employee bonuses triggered by new multi-billion dollar profits. The Wall Street Journal reports that Goldman Sachs is mounting a “charm offensive.” Apropos of the times, it is a bailout of their trust bank.

More from the Afghan Communications Front

Gen. McChrystal

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, has submitted his “Commander’s Initial Assessment” on the Afghan war to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Nine pages of the 65 page report (redacted version) are dedicated to strategic communication.

The Washington Post summarizes Gen. McChrystal’s assessment of communications in the Afghanistan theatre and recommendations for improvement. Most critically, he declares, “The information domain is a battlespace.” He calls for better integration and synchronization of communication activities, reinforcing Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s insistence that “strategic communication” not be a detached entity.

Additional communications objectives for Gen. McChrystal include:

• Discredit and diminish insurgents and the extremist allies’ capability to influence attitudes and behavior in AFG.
• Increase effectiveness of international and [Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan] communications with the Afghan people and the [International Community].
• Increase AFG political and popular will to counter violent extremism and protect the operational centre of gravity, namely the support of the Afghan people.
• Maintain and increase international and public support for ISAF goals and policies in AFG.

In his second most critical statement, Gen. McChrystal asserts, “Focus should be on identifying the optimum medium for propagation rather than just on the message alone.” In this, he stresses the importance of “word-of-mouth” communication that enlists tribal leaders and others in positions of trust and authority among the Afghan people. Traditional media such as radio and newspapers are part of the mix as well.

The selection of communication channels has been problematic in similar efforts in Iraq. As The Washington Post article points out, over $500 million has been spent on communications activities there with a heavy focus on traditional media. Results have been questionable with one quoted expert deeming the American programs ineffective.

Another problem is turf wars within the American government regarding administration and execution of such communication programs. The Post cites Congressional concerns that the Pentagon is expanding into what has been a State Department purview. This friction harkens to an article I wrote for AdWeek in 2004 calling for a Department of Communications to centralize such activity. While the creation of a new cabinet department is highly unlikely, the internecine battles over America’s communication efforts shows the pitfalls of the current fragmented approach.

In the end, Gen. McChrystal is placing an essential priority on communications. It is part of a balanced and pragmatic plan for victory. Al Qaeda and their allies are adroit and insidious communicators, from the supreme statement of 9/11, to viral video, to whispered death threats for villagers who attend polling places or send their daughters to school. America’s leadership, ingenunity and resolve must extend to this “battlespace.”

Admiral Mullen Communicates

In an article for Joint Force Quarterly, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assesses America’s programs to improve communications in the Afghan theatre, which includes neighboring Pakistan. Adm. Mullen declares his dislike for the term “strategic communication,” and The New York Times calls his essay a “searing critique” of US government outreach efforts in the Muslim world.

The take by multiple media implies that Adm. Mullen is anti-communications and at odds with the Obama Administration. The further implication is that our ”strategic communication” is nothing but spin and our top military officer is exposing it. A professional public relations perspective on the Admiral’s article gives a more accurate reading.

Adm. Mullen’s main admonishments:

Our messages lack credibility because we haven’t invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven’t always delivered on promises.

We hurt ourselves and the message we try to send when it appears we are doing something merely for the credit.  We hurt ourselves more when our words don’t align with our actions.

Strategic communication will never replace deeds or conceal misdeeds, hence the message shortfall that Adm. Mullen describes. He is right, and every knowledgeable PR pro would agree. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) urges a “seat at the table” for communicators, enabling them to counsel leadership and help shape actions and policies.

Elected officials, military officers, and their representatives determine our moves in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nobody should suggest that a commander check with a PR consultant before executing a military operation. But an understanding of how every action, large and small, will play out among the populace is essential. Adm. Mullen says as much when he deems most strategic communication problems as “policy and execution” problems leading to perceptions of American arrogance that abet the enemy’s cause.

Adm. Mullen gives another important warning:

We’ve come to believe that messages are something we can launch downrange like a rocket, something we can fire for effect. They are not. Good communication runs both ways. It’s not about telling our story. We must also be better listeners.

This statement embodies the movement to create conversations and communities in public relations, marketing and communications. In their excellent book, Putting the Public Back in Public Relations, Brian Solis and Deirdre Breakenridge espouse an “engagement” model for PR versus a one-way, mass-broadcasting approach. (Advertising has been criticized for the latter characteristics; Solis and Breakenridge explain how they have infiltrated PR as well.)

The issue of Joint Force Quarterly that contains Adm. Mullen’s essay includes an article entitled “Strategic Communication and the Combatant Commander”  by Jeffery B. Jones, Daniel T. Kuehl, Daniel Burgess and Russell Rochte. This piece details military commanders’ ongoing communication responsibilities and the means to fulfill them. It does not contradict Adm. Mullen’s observations; in fact, it supports his call to integrate strategic communication, not to treat it as an entity independent of realities in the field.

Ultimately, Adm. Mullen does not denounce strategic communication or denigrate America’s intention to engage the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Muslim world. He concludes:

Strategic communication should be an enabling function that guides and informs our decisions and not an organization unto itself.

Exactly.

PR, Stat–Part II

In an earlier post, I reviewed PR efforts on both sides of the Obama Administration’s healthcare reform plan. Since then, the public relations war has escalated. Town halls held by pro-administration politicians have taken on the appearance of a WWE tour with heckling, shouting and scuffles…and plenty of media attention on the confrontations.

Other developments of note:

Sarah Palin has refused to go quietly from public life as she took ownership of the soundbite “Death Panels,” used as a synonym for a House provision to have Medicare cover end-of-life counseling. And per the social media era, she has used Facebook as her communications platform on the subject.

Wendall Potter, former corporate communications VP for major insurer Cigna, claims that the insurance industry is engaging in aggressive public relations tactics including use of buzzwords to “get people upset.” Now a member of the watchdog “Center for Media and Democracy,” Potter is knowledgeable and passionate about healthcare reform, but his “revelations” about the insurance industry’s PR maneuvers are far from explosive.

AARP is spending millions on ads promoting healthcare reform. But the lobbying group is facing unaccustomed opposition from its own constituents, manifested in protests and membership cancellations.

President Obama is pledging a new PR push of his own, including attending the type of town hall meetings where protesters have assailed Democratic representatives and senators. And to prove that Sarah Palin does not have the corner on Web savvy, the White House is updating its “Reality Check” site to counter claims against its initiatives.

Still, the tide is turning against the Administration. President Obama’s poll numbers are slipping, and a plurality is opposed to his healthcare reform measures. The Senate is dropping the end-of-life counseling provision, deeming it “confusing.”  The White House is backing away from a government-run health insurance option, saying now it is “not the essential element” of healthcare reform.

The last point underscores the Administration’s problem–just what is healthcare reform? If a government-run option–for better or worse–is taken off the table, how do President Obama and his allies define their program? The opposition has far less trouble creating word pictures–death panels, socialized medicine, Big Brother, boondoggle. Granted these terms are clichéd and simplistic, but they convey concepts quickly. The Administration has the more difficult role in the court of public opinion, that of the prosecutor who must make a case beyond reasonable doubt. It may not be fair that the White House is at such a disadvantage, but that’s its true Reality Check.

Give PR a Chance

The New York Times reports that the White House “will begin a public-relations campaign in Israel and Arab countries to better explain Mr. Obama’s plans for a comprehensive peace agreement involving Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world.” This follows a trend in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict of multiple parties placing increased priority on public relations.

Israel’s PR issues have grown with its military primacy. The country’s underdog status dissipated in 1967 with its resounding victory in the Six-Day War. The 1970s brought Israel the last major assault on its territory in the Yom Kippur War and peace with its leading adversary, Egypt, in the Camp David Accords. In the 1980s, Israel began projecting its power–the airstrike on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor to prevent his development of nuclear weapons; the invasion of Lebanon to eliminate the presence of the PLO and its allies along the northern border.

Today, many cast Israel as aggressor and occupier, viewing its efforts to stop suicide bombers (the West Bank barrier) and rocket attacks (military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) as disproportionate. Ron Dermer, an American-born advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, validates Israel’s PR crisis, which peaked with its Gaza campaign at the beginning of the year. Per an article in The Age containing Mr. Dermer’s remarks, the Israeli government will centralize its messaging and media strategy and improve its use of public opinion research. In the same piece, Professor Eytan Gilboa, considered Israel’s premier authority on public diplomacy, calls for a 10-fold increase in the country’s PR budget with a focus on Europe and the Arab nations.

In the wake of the Gaza campaign, Hamas has abandoned rocket attacks for a “culture of resistance,” stressing the arts and positive media coverage as tools in its cause. After winning a majority in the 2006 Palestinian elections, Hamas clashed with the older Fatah faction, taking control of Gaza while Fatah maintained power in the West Bank, creating a de facto “three state” scenario between Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas’ cessation of rockets and emphasis on public image is seen as capitalizing on international condemnation of Israel’s Gaza invasion and bombardment. Concurrently, Fatah has convened its first convention in 20 years, centered on a revamped, more conciliatory platform and framed by Palestinian President Abbas’ call  for “new forms of resistance to attract universal public opinion.” 

The Obama administration seeks to change perceptions among Israelis and Arabs and reverse dissatisfaction regarding American policy and actions. The President will give TV interviews to clarify his vision for the region and propose ways to solve differences between Israelis and Palestinians. Regarding public sentiments in the Middle East, US envoy George Mitchell cites Israelis believing that American pressure for concessions falls solely on them and Arab nations seen as rejecting US efforts, contrary to signals received in direct meetings with their leaders. Mr. Obama’s media push is meant to shift these assumptions.

At this juncture, all sides are acknowledging the importance of image and information, investing more in so-called “soft power.”  Will improved public relations employing the 21st century’s communications platforms drive lasting change and peace? American, Israeli and Palestinian leadership say “yes.”

The Atomic Press Release

Today, August 6, marks the 64th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Official announcement came through a press release issued by President Harry Truman:

Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British “Grand Slam” which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.

The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet. With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces. In their present form these bombs are now in production and even more powerful forms are in development.

It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East…

Arthur W. Page, a legendary figure in public relations history, wrote the release. Son of the co-founder of the Doubleday, Page & Co. publishing house, Mr. Page served as AT&T’s VP of Public Relations. During World War II, he oversaw the Joint Army and Navy Committee on Welfare and Recreation and was responsible for numerous communications and morale programs.

Noel L. Griese is the author of a definitive biography on Mr. Page. According to his account, Secretary of War Henry Stimson summoned Mr. Page to full-time duty in April 1945 and briefed him soon after on the Manhattan Project. The Trinity test blast would take place in the desert of Alamogordo, NM, on July 16. Mr. Page was asked to write the release that ultimately would be read to reporters at the White House on the day of the Hiroshima bombing while President Truman was at sea returning from the Potsdam Conference.

Arthur W. Page has been credited with writing the most momentous press release in history. Whereas the 1969 moon landing–the 20th century’s other signature event–was beamed live to television audiences, Page’s release alone was the public’s introduction to the atomic age. It is likely the last time a sheaf of paper would change the world.