I am not much for referencing Eminem songs, but this one happens to fit. The recent case of the mysterious Ellie Light letters (LTEs) that popped up in newspapers across the nation is an interesting one. Having experience handling letter writing campaigns, I find it especially intriguing. Mostly because I know how time intensive it is to research and send a LTE to multiple newspapers across the country; especially without the right media software. Of course you can do this through the Internet, but imagine what lengths you would have to go to find all of the correct contacts and email them the letter. The only time this mysterious letter writer saved was by not changing his/her name.

According to FOX News- the letter had “shown up in 68 newspapers across 31 states and the District of Columbia. Three national publications – Politico, The Washington Times and USA Today – also ran the letter, as did two foreign publications.”

Now, two people have come forward claiming to be Ellie Light, which is confusing in itself because one is a man and one is a woman who claims to be married to the man, while the man denies this. Sketchy. Also, the supposed reasoning for using the fake name, was to protect himself/herself from the “right-wing crazies” or any retribution, which of course, is now moot since he/she has come forward with their true identity. “Ellie” scoffed at the thought that this had DNC or White House fingerprints all over it, rather saying “he wanted to defend Obama both from the right and the “ultra-left” that demands ideological loyalty rather than results.”

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am not buying it. I have a hard time believing that one person, would go to the lengths that “Ellie” did, just to get a letter out supporting Obama. And, consider the timing – just under two weeks before the President’s first State of the Union. Kudos to “Ellie” and the machine that was behind this effort, while I disagree with its content and method, it is quite impressive to get a letter run in 68 plus publications.

I wonder how much “Ellie” is being paid to keep quiet about who really is behind this. As with all things, eventually they come out into the open, no matter how much denying is done in the beginning. Just ask John Edwards.

As technology continues to advance throughout the decades, it has become a stronger force in shaping our opinions, the speed with which information reaches us and how we communicate with each other. From radio to television to computers, Internet, mobile devices and now social media, each revolution of media has increased its presence and influence in our lives. Both older and younger generations collectively plug in to this technical takeover.

In fact, a new study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation now finds that kids ages 8- to 18-years-old spend the rough equivalent of every waking hour of their time in front of some kind of screen.

Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week).  And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’’(using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.

This Mashable.com report has some interesting conjectures on how prevalent media consumption is in our children’s lives. But at a staggering 10 hours and 45 minutes of media time, there’s no doubt that media consumption plays a role in shaping the opinions of the younger generation. If you have children, think of how often they are watching TV, on the computer or texting on their phones.

The real question remains, has it replaced parents or friends as the dominant influencers in a child’s life? It’s a provocative question that holds significance for parents and for the companies and organizations that will adapt to create life-long brand advocates from very early on in our children’s and grandchildren’s lives. These groups have opportunities like never before to shape the way we and our children think. But is it right? Is there an age limit on ethical influence?

How these influencers can positively or negatively affect future generations has yet to be seen, but I’m confident it will be an integral part of how organizations and PR companies operate moving into the future. In part, it already is.

In the wake of the devastating 2010 Haiti earthquake, the world community mobilized to lend a helping hand in any way it could, especially in aid relief donations. Social media has played no small role in disseminating the message and helping raise funds.

In just over 56-hours since the quake struck, the Red Cross has raised over $10 million in $10 donations from Americans by texting “Haiti” to 90999. It’s a staggering amount of money in such a short time period. In fact, it doubles the amount of money raised by charitable text message campaigns for the entire year of 2009. And there’s no sign donations are slowing down either.

None of it would be possible without social media. Word of the campaign spread over Twitter and Facebook like a firestorm. Friends updated their status reports letting others know they donated, and showing them how to as well.

So why now? What is it about this crisis that allowed the Red Cross to amass such a huge amount of donations so quickly?

It comes down to a collaboration of both new and traditional media; a merger of TV and print, social media and technology.

The first step in the chain is the ability to text message a donation without using a check book, credit card or other form of payment. The technology, provided by mGive in cooperation with mobile phone carriers, has never made it easier to donate. A major problem with past methods of donating, is that a message for help has lost its impact by the time a person is in a position to give. With the use of this text message donation system, donations can be collected instantly while the donor is emotionally impacted.

That emotional impact is delivered by non-stop coverage from the news media. With photos and video of the tragedy, on the scene reports and accurate journalism, we all learned about the disaster that struck Haiti. Traditional news media still has a critical role to play in this whole process, especially in affirming the accuracy of reports and access to hard to reach locations.

That message, and nearly the entirety of the donation campaign, was then spread through social media like Facebook and Twitter. It was social media that provided the person-to-person networking that empowered donations. Traditional media only picked up on the text donations after they had accumulated over $800,000.

This powerful combination of traditional media, social media and technology provided the means for individuals around the U.S. and world to react instantly. It’s something we’ll see again, and it will the job of companies and organizations to figure out how to use it again in the future.

Make no mistake, social media entered the world of charitable activism in a big way during the Haiti crises. We look forward to seeing how it is able to help others in need.

On Tuesday, January 5, news cameras and media personnel packed the GCJPR office to hear Steve Forbes, Congressman John Shadegg and Dr. Eric Novack speak about their new ballot initiative that would allow Arizonans a choice of care under new federal health care.

The ballot initiative, the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, advocates that each Arizonan should have the right to choose their own insurance, not one approved by the government.

“Arizona Health Care Freedom Act is not about doctors, it’s not about members of Congress, it’s about all of us Americans. And it’s about the rights of individuals to be in charge of their own health and health care,” said Dr. Novack.

“This amendment is critical not only for Arizona, but indeed for the nation,” said Forbes. “This is the center. If Arizona gets it right health care can survive and thrive in America again.”

“What’s wrong with the current structure of [the federal health care]bill, is that it is going to point a gun at every one of your heads and say, ‘you must buy insurance,’” said Congressman Shadegg. “But here’s the real rub, it’s not that you must buy insurance that you like, it’s that you must buy insurance that the government approves.”

To find out more, view the Arizonans for Health Care Freedom Web site. You can also find a gallery of photos from the press conference at our Facebook Fan page.

You could probably hear the collective sigh of relief that came from Mark McGwire in every corner of the baseball world today.  After many allegations that likely cost him a first and second ballot entry into Baseball’s Hall of Fame, McGwire came clean today about a decade’s worth of steroid use that he refused to discuss even under a congressional subpoena.

Like Alex Rodriguez’ mea culpa prior to last year’s spring training season, McGwire’s admission comes at a point where it is in his best interest to come clean.  Make no mistake, neither Rodriguez nor McGwire are born again angels in their admissions.  From a branding and communications stand point their decisions finally allow a forgiving public to find closure with the fact that their sports heroes are human and make many, many mistakes.

Everyone knew that McGwire had taken illegal substances, so this revelation did not reveal much.  His inability to be forthright stuck like a thorn in the side of all those baseball fans who wanted to be able to still cheer about his remarkable display of talent in the 1998 season.

The admission will clear his way back into baseball as a hitting coach with the Cardinals.  It may not in the end get him the Hall of Fame.  Coming clean allows him to step in front of the baseball community with a small shred of integrity and begin the journey to clear his name as a professional athlete and coach.

When you look at incidents like McGwire, Rodriguez, Barry Bonds and even Tiger Woods, from a communications perspective, there is no one solution to every situation.  There have been many pundits standing up in front of the cameras during Tiger’s explosive revelations saying he should come clean and get it all out in the open.  That is easy to say when you don’t know what “all” means.

At GCJPR when we work crisis communications situations we adhere strictly to the Hippocratic adage to first, “do no harm.”  McGwire’s admission was probably overdue, but it will unquestioningly go a long way to rehabilitating his image.  For Tiger, a full airing of his transgressions will probably not have the same effect.  Tiger will at some point have to find a balance for his communications.  The sheer volume of reporters at his next tournament will probably mandate some sort of public statement, if even to just say, “I am human and make mistakes.”

The one constant in all crisis communications situations, as Bill Clinton and Rafael Palmero can tell you, is that when you do go to the camera, honesty is the only policy.  You don’t have to tell them everything, but what you do tell them had better be honest. It will be much harder to deal with when, not if, the truth is found out.