Comparing Artists’ Statements about Freedom 250
Students might compare how performing artists communicated their decision to withdraw from a Freedom 250 event.
The same day the Great American State Fair concert on the National Mall was announced, several artists changed their mind about participating. Some said they were misled, believing the event wasn’t as non-partisan as initially described to them. Here’s the description on the Freedom 250 website:
Freedom 250 is the national, non-partisan organization leading the celebration of our Nation's 250th birthday. Working together with the White House Task Force 250, federal agencies, and the Commission, Freedom 250 serves as the official public-private partnership that connects, aligns, and amplifies national and local efforts to deliver the defining presidential moments of this anniversary year.
At its heart, Freedom 250 is creating a movement of citizens, organizations, companies, and leaders from across the country to honor our Nation's proud history, cherish our God-given freedoms, and build the Golden Age of Opportunity for the next 250 years. Other signature events include the Great American State Fair, Memorial Day Parade, and Evening Candlelight gathering, Sail4th 250, Salute to America (DC July 4), and the Patriot Games, among others.
Here are statements to compare and a few distinguishing elements. Links to full posts illustrate disconnections in some, jumping from the decision to a global statement without any substantive rationale.
Brett Michaels: Emphasizes concern for fan safety and failing integrity—inconsistency is messaging—of event organizers.
“Concerns have also been raised regarding the safety of my fans, band, crew, family and myself, including threats that are completely unfounded and unforgivable.”
“Unfortunately, what was presented to us as a celebration of our country has evolved into something much more divisive than what I agreed to be part of.”
Martina McBride: Also emphasizes integrity—in this case, consistency between her actions and her songs.
“It greatly upsets me that any fan who has been moved by my music may now feel like I’m abandoning the meaning behind those songs.”
Young MC: Also says he was misinformed, although students might question why he and others didn’t know the event was “Trump backed.”
“The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event. And despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, SPIN magazine describes [it] as Trump-backed.”
Morris Day: Says little but posted this image with jarring colors, an outdated circle-slash, (likely) Cooper-Black font, and the caption, "It's A No For Me.”
The Commodores: Published a statement about their values, as others do.
"Our music has always been our voice, and we choose not to publicly affiliate with any single political party. We support the betterment of all Americans."
Students may find more posts and analyze them for their own illustrations of character as well as inconsistencies and reasoning gaps.
Matthew Perry Defendant’s Claims
The live-in assistant who administered the ketamine that killed actor Matthew Perry argued he “only did what his boss said." The case raises issues of character and could spark a class discussion about ethics.
Kenneth Iwamasa pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, but his attorney argued that he was carrying out his job. Prosecutors identify financial benefits for Iwamasa, as they have for other defendants, including Perry’s suppliers: the so-called “Ketamine Queen” and the doctor-dealer, who said, “I wonder how much this moron will pay” and “Lets [sic] find out.”
Perry’s stepfather accused Iwamasa of not wanting to sacrifice his personal income and “living like a king.” He said, “You kept injecting him with more. You could have made the phone call, but you were living a pretty dandy life.” Character dimensions at play are integrity and compassion.
Demonstrating strong character often means putting others’ interests ahead of our own. This is perhaps the biggest failing of those involved in Perry’s death. Iwamasa’s statement about how he loved and cared for Perry seems to contradict his actions. The accusation was illegal drug distribution, and Iwamasa admitted to breaking the law.
In her work on Giving Voice to Values, Mary Gentile offers a class activity for students to identify times at work when they did and did not speak up when a situation conflicted with their values. Students identify circumstances that made it possible and difficult for them to speak up. The hope is for students to learn from their past and to have courage in future situations, regardless of an employer’s demands.
OpenAI Trial: “Stole a Charity” and Other Highlights
Elon Musk’s case against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shows a clever framing and other issues about money and leadership.
Elon Musk repeated versions of the phrase “steal a charity” 17 times when he took the stand. Sam Altman may have made a classic crisis communication mistake by repeating it yet again:
It feels difficult to even wrap my head around that framing. . . It does not fit with my conception of the words '“stealing a charity” to look at what has actually happened.
The phrase seems to be missing a preposition, but it implies that the entire nonprofit organization has been under siege, co-opted for personal (profit) gain. Charity sounds folksy, as though the execs are stealing from the church collection plate or taking money from a food pantry.
Altman also struggled answering a question about his honesty. He was asked repeatedly whether he is honest and whether he lies. Students might analyze this part of the testimony (about halfway down the WSJ page). Altman can’t seem to say that he doesn’t lie. When asked, "You've been repeatedly called deceptive and a liar by people with whom you've done business, right?,” he answered, “I have heard people say that.” The exchange seems like a win for Musk, although he lost the $150 billion claim against OpenAI.
But OpenAI lost too. “Scam Altman” and “stealing a charity” may reverberate in investors’ heads during the pending IPO.
Insults Hurled with Kevin O’Leary in Data Center Fight
Like many communities, Box Elder County, Utah, is debating the development of a local data center. Two young women are in the spotlight, attacked by investor Kevin O’Leary. Students might analyze O’Leary’s claims and the women’s video approach as they attack back. The data center project, dubbed Wonder Valley (“Mr. Wonderful” on Shark Tank), mirrors a smaller Alberta, Canada, project.
On X, Gabi Finlayson and Jackie Morgan posted a video of O’Leary on Fox News. He accuses them of being Chinese operatives, and they interject by commenting on his flip flops and hat. They laugh and curse, and although the video shows many edits, they are authentic—unlikely Chinese shills.
Students may laugh too—the women are funny—but they have stronger arguments. O’Leary has more claims with little evidence. He discounts other protestors ("over 90% of the protesters are actually not people that live in Utah or Box Elder County” . . . “paid by somebody—I don't know who”).
In addition, one of his major arguments is the number of jobs the data center will bring, but Business Insider reports a discrepancy. O’Leary claims 10,000 temporary construction jobs and 2,000 permanent positions, but his own O'Leary Ventures CEO Paul Palandjian said numbers are closer to 4,000 for start-up, and USC Marshall researchers found ongoing jobs to be about 78% of that initial number.
He also dismisses environmental concerns by boosting himself: "I'm actually the only developer of data centers on earth that graduated from environmental studies, so I'm pretty aware of what these concerns are.” His Wikipedia page cites “an honours bachelor's degree in environmental studies and psychology,” which could mean just a few undergraduate courses.” Also, of course, knowing environmental concerns doesn’t necessarily translate into protecting the environment.
The X video did get 3.8 million views so far, so something worked. But students might discuss how else the women can respond to O’Leary’s attacks.
An Argument Against Canvas and Other LMS Use
The recent ShinyHunters Canvas hack exposed vulnerabilities in higher education infrastructure and ignited calls for educators to take protective actions. A blog post by the Digital Rhetorical Privacy Collective (DRPC) offers an example of a persuasive argument for students to analyze and includes recommendations relevant for business communication faculty.
Talk with Students about Data Ownership, Privacy, and Security
Lessons around digital citizenship and data integrity are certainly within our course objectives, although data privacy and security may be less so. Still, the breach is an opportunity to remind students about setting strong passwords, restricting personal information, and practicing skepticism to avoid phishing attempts.
Insist on Transparency and Responsible Technology Use in Classrooms
The DRPC suggests talking with students about what faculty can see and how we track student participation in an LMS. This is one of those situations when it might not be our responsibility, but we may be one of few (or the only) faculty who discuss the breach and LMS vulnerabilities with students.
Reduce, Rethink, Refuse LMS Use
Although well intentioned, blog post suggestions in these categories are rather broad. We might rethink how we use an LMS as we rethink our entire courses and pedagogy because of AI. But the recommendations to move assignments to other platforms and post the bare minimum may work for some content or some faculty but not others.
Students may have their own ideas about LMS use, including whether they would like to see more low-tech options and whether they want to manage new platforms that require separate logins.
UPDATE: Students might compare that blog post to a Chronicle opinion.
Lawsuit AI Errors and “Hallucinations”
Another case of “hallucinations,” a term falling out of favor, reminds students to follow AI policies and check AI work. Sullivan & Cromwell, a highly regarded Wall Street law firm, submitted court filings with citation errors. Another law firm involved in the case found the errors.
I asked ChatGPT to find the actual “inaccurate citations and errors” mentioned in news sources, and it made up a couple of examples—no surprise there.
To rebuild credibility and ensure integrity, Sullivan and Cromwell apologized:
I apologize on behalf of our entire team. I also called Boies Schiller Flexner LLP on Friday to thank them for bringing this matter to our attention and to apologize directly to them as well.
In a letter to the judge, the firm admitted it didn’t follow its own policies:
We deeply regret that this has occurred.The firm maintains comprehensive policies and training requirements governing the use of AI tools in legal work. These safeguards are designed to prevent exactly this situation. The Firm’s policies on the use of AI were not followed in connection with the preparation of the Motion. In addition, the Firm has general policies and training requirements for the proper review of legal citations. Regrettably, this review process did not identify the inaccurate citations generated by AI, nor did it identify other errors that appear to have resulted in whole or in part from manual error.
The term “hallucination” regarding AI is losing favor. Opponents say it assigns a human characteristic—breaking with reality—to a technology; that it stigmatizes the human medical condition; and that it’s too broad, referring to mistakes, inventions, and other issues. (For example, see articles in Cureus and AI and Society.)
Whatever we call it, LLM output may always need to be checked.
Business Communication Lessons from Meta/Google Trial
Business communication students can learn from the KGM v. Meta and Google case for their own presentations and messages. Three examples are emotional appeal/storytelling, concrete visualization, and document discovery.
Considered a landmark case that opens paths for other suits, KGM v. Meta and Google (Instagram and YouTube) found companies negligent, citing defective product design causing addiction. The plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, has a reputation of theatrics in the courtroom, which we see in these first two examples. Students need to balance ethics/credibility and effectiveness for their own presentations.
Emotional Appeal/Storytelling
At the heart of this case is how kids are affected by social media, and storytelling was key. Families brought photos and a large banner with names and ages of children who died, blaming social media companies. Plaintiff attorneys also showed a large poster with hundreds of selfies KGM posted of her when she was a child.
These strategies humanized the plaintiff and contrasted Mark Zuckerberg’s stoicism. As NPR reported:
At one point, the family's lawyer brought out an internal document about how Meta's staff has pushed Zuckerberg to be more empathic and relatable and more human in public appearances and, you know, not to be fake and corporate and cheesy—these are their words—you know, during events like court appearance. And Zuckerberg responded by, you know, showing some human vulnerability. He said, quote, "I think I'm actually well known to be very bad at this."
Concrete Visualization
In legal terms, “demonstrative evidence” or a “demonstrative exhibit” “explains or illustrates” testimony; it’s not direct evidence. In persuasion communication, we might call this type of evidence examples rather than, for example, data. We also encourage students to make large numbers concrete.
Lanier illustrated these strategies:
As the punitive-damages phase of the trial got under way in court on Wednesday, the plaintiff’s attorney, Lanier, revealed a jar of M&Ms—415 of them. Each one represented $1 billion of the $415 billion in total stockholders’ equity of Alphabet Inc., he said. As he removed M&Ms one by one, Lanier noted how the jar barely registered a change, symbolizing how inconsequential even a ruling of $1 billion in damages would be to a company of Alphabet’s value.
This type of illustration gets attention and does clarify points but might seem cheesy in business presentations.
Discovery
Once again, this is a good opportunity to talk with students about the legal discovery process, which makes any internal emails, texts, reports, Teams content, etc. public. Perhaps the plaintiff’s strongest evidence was Meta’s own documentation that demonstrated how leaders exploited—actually, built—platform features to increase addiction.
Instead of a lesson warning students about what they put in writing, we might teach them to act with integrity. If social media executives hadn’t build systems that are now proven to be addictive, they wouldn’t have had to censor what they put in writing.
Both Meta and Google are appealing the case. They will not accept responsibility. Together, the companies will pay $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages. That’s .6% of one M&M. How could students visualize that?
Problems with a Stacked Wealth Chart
Students might find better ways to display data than this stacked chart showing U.S. wealth distribution over time.
The chart in the WSJ article, “Billionaires’ Low Taxes Are Becoming a Problem for the Economy,” shows that wealth has grown tremendously over time and that those with the most wealth have accumulated far more over time. But the comparisons are hard to see with the stacked area chart. We’re missing percentages of wealth. Because the point is “distribution,” we want to know the share of each group. We don’t know by looking at this chart.
The WSJ chart emphasizes numbers (not just relational data) over time, both in the interactive mouseovers of specific data points (which show dollar amounts) and in the tiny vertical columns, which makes the chart both more precise and uglier.
Compare that version to the original, a Federal Reserve chart. Also a stacked area chart (click to enlarge), but this one uses solid colors to reflect distribution and places the lowest 50% at the bottom, where, intuitively, we might expect them to be. That bottom placement also shows at least some wealth of that group (instead of the mere orange specks at the top of the WSJ’s chart).
The default of the Fed chart is “units” (top left), but a toggle shows shares for percentages. The mouseover is more useful, showing a summary of percentage (or dollar amounts on the default chart) at any point. However, visually, the differences don’t look as dramatic as they are because the growth in dollar amount is so much higher than the percentages. We don’t see the writer’s point:
The bottom half of American households have lost ground. Their 2.5% cut of the country’s wealth has slipped from 3.5% in 1990.
Curiously, this note at the bottom of the WSJ article shows how people conflate percentages and numbers:
Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier version of the chart “Wealth distribution by wealth percentile group” incorrectly had a percentage sign instead of a dollar sign on the y-axis. (Corrected on Feb. 19.)
Another point may be worth mentioning with students. We’re talking about inequality, so numbers of households—people—might be included somewhere.
From the Fed’s data file, I asked ChatGPT to create an indexed line chart. This sets all group values in 1990 at 100 for an equal starting point—a way to show comparative growth over time. The chart labeling doesn’t follow business communication principles, but now we see what has happened since 1990. This chart far more clearly illustrates a main point of the WSJ article:
Only the richest 1% of households have grown their share of overall U.S. wealth since 1990.
Tom Pritzker Resigns After Epstein Discovery
The list of executives resigning or losing positions after more Jeffrey Epstein files become public is growing. Students can read emails related to the latest: Tom Pritzer, Hyatt’s executive chairman.
Pritzer’s resignation letter to the board includes the following:
My job and responsibility is to provide good stewardship. That is important to me. Good stewardship includes ensuring a proper transition at Hyatt. Following discussions with my fellow Board members, I have decided, after serving as Executive Chairman since 2004, and with the company in a strong position, that now is the right time for me to retire from Hyatt.
Good stewardship also means protecting Hyatt, particularly in the context of my association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell which I deeply regret.
I exercised terrible judgment in maintaining contact with them, and there is no excuse for failing to distance myself sooner.
I condemn the actions and the harm caused by Epstein and Maxwell, and I feel deep sorrow for the pain they inflicted on their victims.
The first line is performative and was omitted from most news reports. As an issue of integrity, good stewardship requires good behavior while serving in a role, not just when resigning.
Students might read the first and second lines as a push from the board rather than a true resignation. Either way, it explains what students often wonder about executive resignations for personal improprieties: they affect the company. At the same time, Pritzker’s were related to Hyatt business, with emails showing him facilitating travel and arranging an interview for “the girl from Romania.”
The second bullet illustrates classic crisis communication strategies of distancing and downplaying, as though “contact” were his only crime. We see a similar theme in all statements related to Epstein—little true accountability.
The third bullet reflects a false show of sympathy few would believe after reading emails like these, which were sent ten years after Epstein plead guilty for sex crimes in Florida and as accusations piled up throughout the next decade.
Students might discuss the best approach for these leaders. Another strategy is Lee Wexler’s. The billionaire and former CEO of Victoria's Secret said he “was duped by a world-class con man,” a tough claim to support.
Maybe this is one of those rare times when it’s better to say nothing at all.
The New York Times is tracking resignations and other fallout from the Epstein files.
Hilton’s Crisis Communications
Hilton Hotels is facing reputational damage related to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions in Minneapolis.
The controversy started when the Hampton Inn in Lakeville, MN, refused Department of Homeland Security reservations, telling agents, "We are not allowing any ICE or immigrant agents to stay at our property.” Students might identify this action as an example of character, particularly courage—taking action despite risks. But Hilton, the parent company, did not appreciate the move, posting this statement on X.
Students may analyze this message as classic crisis communication strategies, particularly distancing the parent company from the actor. They also might point to the jargon about “meeting our standards and values,” and maybe, “a welcoming place for all.” Everpeak Hospitality, the Hampton management company, supported Hilton’s view with a statement of its own: “We do not discriminate against any individuals or agencies and apologize to those impacted.” That’s the policy issue both companies rely on, an example of criteria reasoning: we have a standard in place.
Hilton did follow through on the threat and removed the hotel from its portfolio. We see the former URL, but the empty page is clear.
Despite Hilton’s attempts to distance the brand, the company is implicated along with other Hampton hotels. Some criticize Hilton for not engaging in the “courageous conversations” promised after the killing of George Floyd. Students might read about that initiative and discuss whether current actions are inconsistent (another issue of integrity).
This week, after seeing ICE agents at the NYC Hilton Garden Inn, protestors crowded the lobby, resulting in dozens of arrests.
Although Hilton is most actively in the news, an organizing effort might affect other brands. “No sleep for ICE” may extend protests to other hotels, which the American Hotel & Lodging Association anticipates with this statement:
The hotel industry is closely monitoring the situation in Minneapolis and remains hopeful that tensions will de-escalate. As places of public accommodation, hotels play unique role in their communities and are focused on the safety and well-being of their employees, guests, and the broader public. Hoteliers are committed to navigating this sensitive and evolving situation with care, professionalism, and respect for the communities in which they operate.
The association tries to balance conflicting values and priorities. Yes, hotels are public spaces, yet they care about the “safety and well-being” of the “broader public.” This moment seems to demand both and yet both may be difficult to achieve. Students might discuss how a hotel owner—of an independent brand and one part of a group—can navigate these times. It isn’t easy.
Ye’s Apology
Once again, let’s talk with students about a sincere apology. Ye’s doesn’t cut it.
Students might remember that rapper Ye (Kanye West) sold clothing with swastikas, released the song "Heil Hitler,” and went on a few antisemitic rants, causing Adidas and Gap to cancel their partnerships. Students also might remember his apology back in 2023 before he released a new album (after which he wrote on X, about “my new sound called antisemitic”).
This week, he took out a full-page Wall Street Journal ad to apologize—again, before releasing a new album. Criteria for sincere apologies are explained in chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character. In addition to the promotional timing, students might point out how long his antisemitic actions lasted, despite his crisis communication attempts to contain them.
Ye blames a brain injury and mania for his actions. But of course, not all people who have bipolar disorder write Nazi songs and sell Nazi t-shirts. This is an example of his not taking responsibility—not apologizing at all—and possibly causing harm by stigmatizing others.
By far, the most questionable line is, “I love Jewish people.” He doesn’t say it, but we know what follows: “Some of my best friends are Jewish.”
A spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League put it well:
[The apology] doesn’t automatically undo his long history of antisemitism and all of the feelings of hurt and betrayal it caused. The truest apology would be for him to not engage in antisemitic behavior in the future.
Yes, changed behavior is one criterion of a sincere apology. We’ll see.
Minneapolis CEO Letter About ICE
Several CEOs signed a letter distributed through the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Students can analyze it in terms of character and persuasive strategy. For me, the letter is light, late, and self-serving.
Here are a few notes—and students will have their own opinions:
Positives
Leaders did something. We heard very little until recently, which may be understandable. The public seems divided on whether CEOs should speak out against Trump. CEOs said a lot after George Floyd was killed, which was expected at the time. They made some statements at the beginning of the Israeli-Hamas war and faced backlash; nothing seemed right. So now they’re shy about jumping back in. But local CEOs have particular responsibilities and interests.
More than 60 CEOs signed on. We see big companies and big names on the list—Best Buy, Target, 3M, General Mills, and others.
Negatives/Skepticism
The letter says little. The CEOs request no specific action; they call for “an immediate deescalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions,” “peace and focused cooperation,” and “a swift and durable solution.” What? How? Should people stop protesting? It’s an open letter with no defined audience. What’s the call to action?
The language is vague and mealy mouthed. References to “recent challenges” to “yesterday’s tragic news” are weak and insulting. We might call on the CEOs to “say his name”: Alex Pretti. With no mention of ICE at all, the letter might be from a different time and place.
It’s late. Published on January 25, the letter missed intense activity since early December and the killing of Renee Good.
The focus is on leaders themselves. Most of the letter says what the leaders have done, are doing, and will continue to do. See below for the underlined parts (more than 5 of the 8 sentences).
It’s virtue signalling. At some point, the numbers tipped, and it became imperative to sign. At that point, leaders signed to conform rather than to demonstrate courage. In fact, NOT signing might have been more courageous.
The purpose is self-serving. In addition to virtue signalling, the last line shows the CEOs’ real purpose—to get back to work.
Students could do better. Perhaps they could rewrite the letter for these CEOs.
[Underlined parts are about leaders themselves and their own interests.]
The business community in Minnesota prides itself in providing leadership and solving problems to ensure a strong and vibrant state. The recent challenges facing our state have created widespread disruption and tragic loss of life. For the past several weeks, representatives of Minnesota’s business community have been working every day behind the scenes with federal, state and local officials to advance real solutions. These efforts have included close communication with the Governor, the White House, the Vice President and local mayors. There are ways for us to come together to foster progress.
With yesterday’s tragic news, we are calling for an immediate deescalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions.
We have been working for generations to build a strong and vibrant state here in Minnesota and will do so in the months and years ahead with equal and even greater commitment. In this difficult moment for our community, we call for peace and focused cooperation among local, state and federal leaders to achieve a swift and durable solution that enables families, businesses, our employees, and communities across Minnesota to resume our work to build a bright and prosperous future.
“Abolish ICE” as a Communication Strategy
“Abolish ICE” (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a useful case study in communication strategy and framing. Will the slogan get the results people want?
Regardless of students’ personal views on immigration officers’ actions in Minneapolis, including the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the slogan may be “emotionally satisfying [but] politically lethal.” The language is reminiscent of abolishing slavery, but the situation is quite different.
In business communication, we teach the value of framing for persuasion, but here are a few issues students might discuss:
Abolishment/elimination may not be what people want; they may want reform instead. A similar approach, the “defund the police” slogan after the murder of George Floyd, may have divided constituencies.
The extreme language prevents more moderate communication approaches and goals, for example, restructuring, supplementing, or limiting.
The result may not be practical. Students might research “zero tolerance” language in the workplace.
The frame doesn’t offer a positive solution; it’s loss-based proposal.
The slogan begs the question, and then what? Students might research the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, also criticized for having no clear policy-related goal.
George Lakoff’s work could provide theoretical grounding for this discussion.
Students might identify and research other slogans—for products, social causes, or sports—that gained attention but backfired or showed little result. They’re too young to remember Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no” campaign, but it’s another good example.
In this case, what could work better? Maybe students will have ideas for something that conveys an inspiring, moral imperative, but is more policy focused and doesn’t alienate people who don’t share the extreme position.
Image source.
New Dietary Guidelines Website
The new U.S. dietary guidelines are represented visually on a website, realfood.gov. Students can analyze the content and graphics for the primary audience of Americans.
Here are a few points students might identify:
Clear, simple language appropriate for the audience. “Real Food” is a consistent message, and the summary works well upfront:
Better health begins on your plate—not in your medicine cabinet.
The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans defines real food as whole, nutrient-dense, and naturally occurring, placing them back at the center of our diets.
Colorful, but navigation doesn’t work well. Lots of graphics engage the user, but some of the graphics don’t work quite right, at least on my screen. Numbers in red boxes increases with each click without new corresponding text. The static text, “America is sick. The data is clear,” shows for several increasing percentages, so the data isn’t clear. When I tried the mouse instead of keystrokes, I got a blank red screen.
Consistent messages. Language reinforces the connection between diet and health throughout:
90% of U.S. healthcare spending goes to treating chronic disease—much of which is linked to diet and lifestyle.
Debatable evidence. WIthout sources, the user can’t research claims further. Above is a good example we might want to explore, particularly what “much” means in this context. Also, the “links” are quite complex and vary by person.
Misleading history. The site includes a food pyramid from 1992, shown here, which has been updated. Also, the associated text doesn’t match the situation then or now:
For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized highly processed food, and are now facing rates of unprecedented chronic disease.
Nowhere do the 1992 guidelines or any since, including the simplest and most recent, MyPlate, recommend processed foods.
Simplistic FAQs. Expanded boxes at the bottom of the site include silly questions and answers, for example:
What about hydration?
Hydration matters. Choose water or unsweetened beverages to accompany meals and snacks.
Few disagree with the push for real food and fewer preservatives. But critics question the emphasis on animal protein—the environmental impacts and the dangers of over-consuming saturated fat and sodium. In addition, the “inverted pyramid,” with its clipart food images, doesn’t offer guidance for limiting quantity or balancing of food choices, which MyPlate tried to address. Finally, the high cost of food makes the recommendations for some families difficult or impossible to follow.
Chatbots for Persuasive Arguments
New research shows how GenAI sways political opinions. Students can discuss the strategies AI tools use and opportunities for their own persuasive arguments, while considering ethical issues and potential misinformation.
Research published in Science concludes,
When AI systems are optimized for persuasion, they may increasingly deploy misleading or false information. This research provides an empirical foundation for policy-makers and technologists to anticipate and address the challenges of AI-driven persuasion, and it highlights the need for safeguards that balance AI’s legitimate uses in political discourse with protections against manipulation and misinformation.
In an article in Nature, the authors write,
Examining the persuasion strategies used by the models indicates that they persuade with relevant facts and evidence, rather than using sophisticated psychological persuasion techniques. Not all facts and evidence presented, however, were accurate; across all three countries, the AI models advocating for candidates on the political right made more inaccurate claims.
Students might discuss how they can use a chatbot for their business arguments. For example, in what circumstances, might encouraging people to search for their own answers through an AI tool be more effective or more practical than presenting an argument? These studies recognize the value of unleashing a massive amount of evidence that students might not have at their fingertips. In addition, inviting people to converse with a chatbot allows them to ask unfiltered questions, avoiding fear of judgment.
An interesting class activity could involve a short student presentation with individual chatbot time following, either to replace or precede a Q&A session. Then, potential misinformation can be explored as a class.
Netflix Announces Warner Bros. Acquisition
The potential acquisition called an “unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business” is getting surprisingly little communication from Netflix, the acquirer. This situation illustrates positive news that is also persuasive, trying to convince readers that the business decision is a sound one.
In an email to subscribers, “Welcoming Warner Bros. to Netflix,” the company says little. The emphasis is on nothing changing at the moment, but the merging of media and genre is jarring: Casablanca, Game of Thrones, and KPop Demon Hunters in one breath and “TV shows, movies, games, and live programming” in another.
Company leaders express more excitement in the news release. At the top, all criticism seems to be addressed with the promises of increased customer value and, sounding vague but confident, greater opportunities for creatives and a stronger entertainment industry.
Transaction Unites Warner Bros.’ Iconic Franchises and Storied Libraries with Netflix’s Leading Entertainment Service, Creating an Extraordinary Offering for Consumers
Netflix to Maintain Warner Bros.’ Current Operations
Combination Will Offer More Choice and Greater Value for Consumers, Create More Opportunities for the Creative Community and Generate Shareholder Value
Acquisition Will Strengthen the Entertainment Industry
Students might analyze these claims against criticism of the potential acquisition. Critics argue potentially higher prices for consumers, fewer jobs because of consolidation, the death of movie theaters—and an antitrust violation.
A search of my inbox revealed this 2011 email from Reed Hastings about spinning off the mailed DVD business. What a quaint, simple time that was, when the CEO signed his own emails, acknowledged members who felt “we lacked respect and humility,” and apologized for a small, but deeply felt change.
Ole Miss Coach Accused of Lying
Lane Kiffin, football coach for University of Mississippi (Ole Miss), claims that he was asked to stay on after resigning, but players and the athletic director say otherwise. The situation raises questions of character, particularly honesty.
The dispute happened publicly, with Kiffin posting to X. Several players posted responses, with sophomore Brycen Sanders, on the team leadership council, weighing in first, as you see here. That post was reposted enthusiastically by Jayden Williams and supported by others.
Kiffin’s post is surprising, considering how easily it’s proven untrue by several observers. Unless players and the athletic director had a good reason to lie, fans would more likely believe them, particularly because Kiffin’s move was so highly criticized. Kiffin may have underestimated the power of team solidarity.
In addition to the obvious issue of lying, without psychoanalyzing Kiffin too much, students might discuss why Kiffin would include this claim in his X post at all. Why not graciously leave, with a new job in hand? That entire middle paragraph could have been omitted, leaving the decision up front and a few kind words at the end.
Instead, Kiffin’s reputation might be tarnished as he starts his new job at Louisiana State University (LSU).
Sondor Displaces Guests Without Warning
A hotel’s abrupt closure left guests stranded and offers communication planning lessons for students.
Short-term rental and boutique hotel company Sonder by Marriott Bonvoy filed for bankruptcy after Marriott pulled out of the agreement. Sonder communicated news by placing printed messages under hotel guests’ doors.
Trouble had been brewing, as the founder and former CEO chronicled in a LinkedIn post back in July. But, of course, guests don’t necessarily see “the writing on the wall”—and even his post ends on a positive note about the Marriott deal. So they booked stays expecting the company would honor its commitment, an issue of integrity. (Cue Seinfeld at the rental car counter.)
Marriott’s statement promises to help guests—or, those who booked through Marriott. This message (click to expand/download) was posted by a guest on Reddit. Imagine how a guest feels receiving this note: “[w]e are kindly requesting that you check out of the property as soon as you are able.”
Apparently, Sonder employees at hotel properties had no notice either, learning about the failure when guests told them. Corporate employees say the same:
Even most of us at the corporate level were left in the dark. We didn't find out anything until our city teams started messaging us for more information, which if course we didn't get.
We received notice Sunday that more information would be sent to us today (Monday the 10th), and literally senior leadership was silent ALL DAY.
The only thing we received was an email saying "thanks for your service to the company, here's a link to the DOL's unemployment website. Your employment is terminated effective immediately."
No email from SLT, no messages, nothing. Yet, Janice had enough time to go give out a press release.
The writer is correct that Sondor published a statement about the “Chapter 7 liquidation” plan but mentions nothing about current guests.
It’s time for another lesson in communication planning for any change but, particularly, for bad news. One of the most important lessons is that employees should be notified before customers or the public.
In addition to the communication issues, this situation raises questions about integrity and accountability. What is owed to guests who had reservations? Some guests received help rebooking; others did not. Some had to book at places far more expensive than their Sondor property. What is the right, compassionate thing to do?
“Mistakes Have Been Made” by BBC Editing Trump Video
In a BBC documentary about President Trump, footage was edited in a way to mislead the audience. The situation is worth a class discussion about the ethics of editing and accountability.
The director general (top executive) and the head of news have resigned after criticism that combined segments of President Trump’s speech on January 6, before the Capitol attacks, seemed to purposely misled viewers. Here are the edited and original versions (click the image, right) showing parts spliced together:
BBC Video: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you don’t have a country anymore.”
Original Video: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
President Trump said that underlined part 54 minutes later—so the “fight” parts weren’t so closely connected to approaching the capitol.
The BBC executives demonstrated accountability by resigning, but they use passive voice, which makes their apologies sound evasive:
“Overall, the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made, and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.” (director general)
“While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear: recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.” (head of news)
We might question who did the actual editing? Who made the mistakes? Yes, these leaders ultimately are in charge, but how did this happen? Without clearer accountability, critics may be more likely to assume bias in reporting, a serious accusation for a news organization of BBC’s stature. The issue also raises bigger questions about BBC’s editorial process. BBC failed to isolate the event, which is common advice in crisis situations.
Amazon’s Layoff Texts and Email to Employees
Students can analyze Amazon’s layoff email against principles for delivering bad-news messages. Let’s look at the reasons given for the downsizing and what the Economist called the “impersonal text-message blast.”
As always, context is important. In this case, the planned layoffs are not news to employees, as it’s not news to anyone who has seen the media reports about 30,000, about 10%, planned cuts. This week, 14,000 were laid off.
For the communication, this means that the Amazon statement, posted on the website for the public, is not delivering the news for the first time. Students will note that two previous messages (from last year and earlier this year) are linked to illustrate to employees—and the critical public—that they had ample warning. Still, of course, employees are feeling the pain.
In her email, Beth Galetti, Senior Vice President of People Experience and Technology, addressed the reason by first acknowledging skepticism:
Some may ask why we’re reducing roles when the company is performing well. Across our businesses, we're delivering great customer experiences every day, innovating at a rapid rate, and producing strong business results. What we need to remember is that the world is changing quickly. This generation of AI is the most transformative technology we’ve seen since the Internet, and it's enabling companies to innovate much faster than ever before (in existing market segments and altogether new ones). We’re convinced that we need to be organized more leanly, with fewer layers and more ownership, to move as quickly as possible for our customers and business.
CEO Andy Jassy also said the decision is not “really” financially or AI driven:
The announcement that we made a few days ago was not really financially driven, and it’s not even really AI driven—not right now, at least. Really—it’s culture.
If you grow as fast as we did for several years . . . you end up with a lot more people than what you had before, and you end up with a lot more layers. . . . When that happens, sometimes without realizing it, you can weaken the ownership of the people that you have who are doing the actual work.
We could argue that all decisions for a for-profit corporate are ultimately financially driven. Why do culture and too many layers matter? Why do they need to be more “nimble”? Sure, they want to make quicker decisions and get the right products to the right customers as quickly as possible (same-day paper towels!), but in the end, doesn’t that all serve the bottom line? Do they solely want people to feel “ownership” over their work?
Neither Galetti or Jassy say it explicitly, but AI might be replacing some of these roles. In a June email, Jassy wrote,
As we roll out more Generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done. We will need fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today, and more people doing other types of jobs. It’s hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company.
Understandably, this talk makes people more nervous than they already are. But to not attribute some job loss today to AI seems inconsistent and dishonest.
Another business communication issue worth a class discussion is how some of the layoffs were communicated: through text message. These messages are highly criticized in an Economist article, but that might not be fair. First, we should consider how employees typically receive communication, which may be by text, particularly remote employees. Second, two messages ask them to check their email, and then, call the help desk if they didn’t receive an email, so the news isn’t actually delivered via text. Even more than email, texts are efficient methods to get a consistent message out to many people at the same time. The company is balancing compassion with fairness in addition to efficiency.
Students might conclude that texts are the best possible option. It’s simply not practical for managers to meet with 14,000 at the same time and deliver the same message: not to show up for work because they wouldn’t have access to the building. Now, that, too, sounds cold, but it’s a sound business decision to have people whose job was eliminated not work. Amazon is continuing to pay people, and they are encouraged to another job within the company, or they will receive severance pay.
Layoffs are messy in the best of situations. No one wants to see employees lose their jobs, particularly in an uneven labor market. But students might accept the process for what it is, while planning to include more transparency in their own bad-news messages.
Image source.