Monday's quick reads: Stanford endowment, United Airlines,

1.) A PR problem for Stanford endowment (San Francisco Chronicle) -- According to Forbes magazine, Stanford's $17.5 billion fund is the biggest investor in a "tough talking" Texas firm, NC Ventures, which specializes in buying bad bank loans at pennies on the dollar, "then going after the borrowers." That means, increasingly, those defaulting on their home loans. Which, in turn, can create a PR problem for a certain type of investor.

2.) Smashed guitar, Youtube song - United is listening now (Los Angeles Times) -- An unhappy passenger's catchy Youtube video has caused PR headaches for United Airlines.

3.) Why strategic planning and corporate communications should work in harmony (Council on Public Relations) -- Chief executive officers, senior strategists and communications professionals share many similar views when it comes to corporate strategy, but they must collaborate more effectively to achieve optimal results, according to a new study.

4.) Reactor LLC to test social media's effectiveness (Kansas City Business Journal) -- A Kansas City design and branding agency is trying to answer the elusive marketing question: What is the return on investment for social media?

United Airlines, meet the press

United Airlines and its shareholders endured the bumpiest of rides on September 6th when Bloomberg released a story stating that the airline had just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The problem? The article on which their report was based was six years old. Within minutes the stock was in a free-fall, plunging as much as 75% before trading was halted and the inaccurate report was pulled.




It's a long and sordid tale, with many fingers being pointed in different directions. What strikes me about this Poynter article is how the incident pits new media (Google) versus traditional media (The Sun Sentinel and Bloomberg).

The bizarre incident should reinforce for all of us the lightning speed at which news travels today, and the imperfections of automated technology. It also reinforces that reporters, like the rest of us, are human. The question is not whether reporters will make mistakes in their coverage; the question is how your organization responds when they do.