Bill Huey, Strategic Communications, Atlanta (12/27):
I'm in no position to judge the guilt of Mr. K or assess the fairness of his trial, but I find it highly ironic that an American PR firm has to be enlisted to defend a Russian oligarch when there are American businessmen who swindled far, far more money from the U.S. Treasury and remain untouched by the Justice Department. Due process or political special handling?
Veep (12/27):
Read no further than the New York Times' recent series (continued today) about the joke that is Russia's court system. This guy will likely be charged with something else when this recent sentence expires and will not see the light of day as long as Putin pulls the strings. That's what happens to political enemies of the Kremlin. It's no different today than it was 20 years ago.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (12/27):
Bill Huey raises good questions, as he always does. On the one hand, Rubenstein's reputation is such as to virtually assume he is doing this work for good reasons. On the other hand, one has to wonder, as Huey does, what PR activities have shielded some pretty bad characters right here in the US? Pardon my naivete.
Ron Levy (12/28):
There is hope for Khodorkovsky, and for Russia retaining the world's respect (earned with the blood of 30 million Russians who lost their lives fighting for freeedom against Hitler as our allies) because (a) Russia has an appeals court as we do, (b) Russia has very exceptionally bright PR people, world class, who have a right to consider not just technical legal arguments but what is best for the people of Russia who have suffered so much, and who damn well deserve wisdom from their government and judicial leaders, and (c) what is better for the people than locking Khodorkovsky away till death do us part would be some verdict that wins worldwide respect for the power of Russia to punish those found guilty PLUS the humanity of Russia in permitting people as God almighty does to repent and have another chance.
Common sense tells each of us and the world that Khodorkovsky did not do his own tax returns or fill out his own expense account statements, and did not try to embezzle billions of dollars. Guys who have well over one billion don't risk jail in cold Siberia to embezzle additional rubles or even euros. But common sense also tells us that Kodorkovsky's big mouth and political ambition got him into this trouble. The things he was saying about government were intolerable and possibly untrue. To Putin's credit he didn't have Khodorkovsy bumped off but jailed him. Rubenstein may be terrific in this situation because he tries for the best outcome possible which is often not the best outcome imaginable-- not a "my guy wins and the accusers lose" but a win-win situation where my guy survives, nobody loses, even the accusers win somewhat, and everyone moves on to better days.
Khodorkovsky and Russia can help each other. Khodorkovsky could admit with profound and sincere regret to having made errors (without specifying what they were), his government could send him--after suspending sentence pending good behavior--to manage some oil drilling area in Siberia, his lawyers and friends could counsel him to keep his mouth shut (which would not require much convincing), Khodorkovsky could come out in TV ads in favor of sobriety and other good causes, and Rubenstein could go on to his next win-win diplomacy.
We weren't there and we can't judge. But we CAN judge, as can the brainy PR people of Russia and the government leaders, that if they imprison Khodorkovsky until he dies, they are schmucks, and comrades, the managers of Russia are not schmucks. (Full disclosure: I worked for decades as a supplier to Russia, I toured much of their country lavishly, and in all those years I never knew anyone there high or low to lie to me or even exagerate.)
Veep (12/28):
Ron Levy,
I'm speaking from experience here when I say that the only thing shadier than the Russian courts is the Russian media-PR complex. Also, to think that an apology will get him out of this mess is just not correct. The guy is probably lucky to still be alive.
Patriotic American (12/28):
Aha, an admission! Levy who for money has defended all kinds of companies, industries and countries, now reveals (perhaps in a moment of haste) that for decades he served Russia! This calls to mind the lawyer who in a televised Senate hearing asked Senator McCarthy: "Have you no shame?" What is the moral justification for defending the guilty? Should PR defend those who pollute? How about defending those who favor violent overthrow of the government? Is there not a line that PR and lawyers should not cross in defending those who are accused, especially if the accused are clearly guilty?
Ron Levy (12/28):
If someone wants to pay us well to tell the truth, I think we should do it. In the court of public opinion, PR helps assure the public of fair trials instead of one-sided orations followed by lynchings. Sometimes what "everyone knows to be true" isn't always.
Like violent overthrow of the government sounds like a bad idea but it's what George Washington and Simon Bolivar and Joseph Stalin did although each also did some bad things. Our Declaration of Independence cites the epicurean delights--life, liberty and pursuit of happiness--as "rights" and says in paragraph two that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government."
Our Declaration calls for PR or at least communication by saying in paragraph two that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind equires that they [referring to those who want to dissolve unjust bonds] should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Urges our Delaration: "let facts be submitted to a candid world." Pollution sounds like something "everyone knows" is evil but every company on earth produces waste, so does evey human being, and PR is often needed so the public can know "what's in this for us" in what the company produces and what is being done to reduce waste. Joe Honick hates Muammar Gadaffi but unless PR tells Gadaffi's side of the story, how can we know both sides?
In New York State, a woman was convicted and executed for murdering her own child but later on it came out that she didn't do it. Just as Russia benefitted from using American technology, the leaders of that country may also benefit their people by recognizing American PR wisdom: (a) public opinion really does matter; (b) sometimes it's possible to win or hold public aproval, and at the same time achieve important ends of public safety, by looking for a creative solution instead of imposing punishment that is more harsh than required.
|