Armstrong’s Confession: a Calculated PR disaster? - II

Is this fall from grace different from that of Tiger Woods? Without a doubt, it is a yes. Tiger Woods’ infidelity embroiled him in a controversy, and there were repercussions. Key sponsors - Accenture and General Motors to name a few – ended their sponsorship deals with, and others such as Tag Heur dropped him from advertising.  Since it was connected to his personal life, his talent was never put into question, and after his break he successfully reclaimed his position in the game. Armstrong’s wrongdoings were those that put his talent, and more importantly ethics, into question. The lies only added to the disgust felt by his admirers. Armstrong, unlike Woods, had a survivor story. His comeback in 1998 after battling with testicular cancer was a source of inspiration for many.  The irony lies in our secret joy in seeing a hero’s feet of clay. There is no doubt that people are shocked, disgusted and maybe even repulsed. But everyone wants to believe that a hero is just like them – flawed.

Lance Armstrong faced the brunt of his interview. He lost his Olympics medal, Tour de France titles, and SCA Promotions has sued him for $12 million. The public image of the Livestrong Foundation has taken a beating, as Armstrong’s credibility and image is on a downslide. It might take a few years before respect is regained and that can be done only by cooperating with the trial and focusing on cycling (if and when he is allowed to compete). Public memory is short-lived, and that can contribute greatly to his comeback. Only hard work and patience helps heroes come back from the dead.

Armstrong’s Confession: a Calculated PR disaster?

Seven Tour de France titles to his name and a survivor story – Lance Armstrong changed that with a recent interview with renowned talk show host Oprah Winfrey. Y ears of accusation of speculation came to a full stop. The full stop was a dignified, carefully planned one, but not everyone was convinced of his remorse. It was rather hard to believe the cyclist who had been lying through his teeth for over ten years to the world. Confessing to using performance-enhancing drugs seems like a self-made PR (Public Relations) disaster. It was a carefully executed disaster. He dug his own grave, possibly to emerge as a reformed individual in the public eye. The questions were answered with caution, which was only to be expected given the magnitude of the doping scam. Though it was implied that there are others using performing-enhancing drugs, no names were taken and for that Armstrong deserves credit. He claimed that the last time he used drugs was in 2005. He also apologized to the world at large (he had little choice). There was also no disillusionment about the consequences of his confession. He admitted that he is “not the most believable guy in the world right now.” The poker face through most of the interview did not convey emotions effectively but there was a clear attempt to come across as an honest and changed person.  

The confession was in one sense unavoidable. Tests conducted by USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) and inquiries made by US federal prosecutors would have revealed the truth sooner than later. Instead of being caught and being forced to apologize, it was wise to do it in a dignified manner where he could explain that it was “the ruthless desire to win” that fueled his poor judgment. Instead of letting the world perceive him as a liar and a cheat he decided to project himself as a man who has changed and is attempting to change. It was sensible appealing to the emotional side of people, conveying that he is “flawed” (in his words).  He even claimed that he couldn’t have won the titles without the drugs. There is no doubt that he was projecting himself as an ordinary, fallible human being with blatant honesty. 

Kasab's ticking clock

The Supreme Court has upheld Ajmal Kasab’s death sentence. Ever since November 26^th 2008, his death sentence has been a topic of discussion and the joke is that after 26/11 Kasab is the safest person in India. As I write this, my family is in the living room, watching a panel discussion on Times Now on the very topic I’m writing on (if you’re wondering why I’m not watching it, it’s because I avoid Times Now on principle. But yes, I can hear the shouts and accusations). In a span of a few hours, a great deal has been said about the recent development. If the judiciary was even half as quick as the news media, Kasab would have been history.

The Indian judiciary has been erratic on death penalty. Since 1995, only one execution has taken place, that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee. However, between 1975 and 1991, 40 executions took place (if Wikipedia is to be believed). It could reflect two things – greater concentration on human rights, or an increasingly lethargic judiciary. He does have a chance to save his skin, by filing a review petition (and a curative petition, if that is rejected). After all, self-preservation can be a powerful instinct. The President’s pardon, if granted, will be the last saving grace. Indian law is providing him escape routes, with goodwill no doubt, but is running out of reasons to spend over 5 crores of tax-payers’ money on his security. Though keeping him alive has not been futile as he has confessed to the terrorist attack and given a couple of names, four years is a long time.

However, what all of us need to remember is that his death sentence does not directly affect us. He has given  the information he wanted to, and it will be comforting to know that if he is executed it will save quite a bit of money. Yes, we must be aware and ponder on the issue as concerned citizens, but we will not feel the immediate effect of the verdict. The ones who will be affected are the survivors of the terror attack, a handful of politicians, the Supreme Court, the people who lost their loved ones in terror attack. It is possible that some families have lost hope, but I’m sure that there are a number of those who will receive closure. Discussing and analyzing the issue is not a bad thing, if one can keep in mind that the decision is not going to affect them directly. You may watch panel discussions, read blog posts and editorials, but those directly affected will look at it through different eyes. The eyes of the survivors, in particular will look at the situation in a way only they can. It is easy to support the saying “an eye for an eye makes the world blind”, until it is your eye at threat. The survival instinct does reveal hidden layers of a person's character, doesn't it?

For further inputs you could take a look at this article on NDTV:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-upholds-ajmal-kasab-s-death-sentence-says-he-waged-war-against-india-260696?pfrom=home-lateststories

Silence the bird and wipe the wall?

Thanks to Mr.Kapil Sibal, India has recommenced talking about the freedom of speech again, this time with respect to social networking sites. Monitoring content on social networking sites is something that no one is going to be happy about. However, this affects only the netizens. Infact, in India if you have access to social networking sites, you should consider yourself lucky. One can say that we have 25 million Facebook users. But, our country is home to 1.2 billion people. In a country where illiteracy, corruption and domestic violence are rampant, I think we need to be realistic and prioritize our problems. I don't intend to support the government, but I think we need to calm down and weigh the pros and cons.

Facebook has a breed of people who love and take pride in airing their opinions on anything and everything. There are thousands who have the ability to give constructive criticism. But there is also a section who can do nothing but curse and sling mud. If controlling content will lead to removal of this pile of garbage, I for one will be glad. I am not exactly in favour of saying whatever you like just because its a social networking site. Misuse of the right of speech is dangerous. If you use this right to make derogatory statements, then it is abuse, and not use. Don't we hate it when politicians abuse their powers?

Now that we have looked at the positive, lets not ignore the negative. The Government has woken up to the fact that social media is a strong medium, and this a place which brings people together without barriers. It is a  brutal weapon they don't know how to shield themselves from. They are aware of the strength of social networking sites, and are frightened. Also, when you talk about filtering the content, what extent will the government go to? Tackling with this issue will be like walking on a minefield - you need to be extremely careful. The Government could also delete content where the author has disagreed with an issue without using derogatory or inflammatory statements. That would be unfair and regressive, as we all have the right to provide valid feedback and voice our opinions.

I'm neither in favour nor against this issue. However, I do think we need to breathe, think and be practical before protesting. Lets remove the blinkers and see the larger picture. It may be ugly, it may be pretty. But if you can see the entire picture and not just the splotchy parts, wouldn't that be fair and just?