Once again Madonna has made international headlines. Earlier this week the Material Girl and her husband Guy Ritchie traveled to Malawi, Africa and temporarily adopted a local infant named David Banda. The temporary adoption has been permitted despite a law that requires would-be parents live in the country for at least a year while social welfare can investigate their ability to properly care for a child. This matter has been fraught with controversy. As Madonna and baby David left Africa, human rights and child protection agencies voiced their disapproval with some challenging the legality of the adoption process, claiming laws were waived to allow the temporary adoption due to Madonna’s wealth. Eye of the Child has launched a legal bid to keep David in Malawi until he is older. They believe child protection regulations may have been set aside to benefit a celebrity who has generously provided vast monetary contributions to the impoverished, AIDS-stricken, nation. Madonna's charity, Raising Malawi, is setting up an orphanage in the country for some of the 1 million AIDS orphans. Madonna has insisted she has followed the necessary legal process to adopt a foreign baby and hopes David will become a permanent member of her family. Upon arriving in London earlier this week, Madonna issued a statement to the media: "We have gone about the adoption procedure according to the law like anyone else who adopts a child. Reports to the contrary are totally inaccurate. After learning that there were over one million orphans in Malawi, it was my wish to open up our home and help one child escape an extreme life of hardship, poverty and in many cases death, as well as expand our family." At TD&F we do not evaluate the morality of particular issues - we review the communication tactics around them. So without commenting on the ethics of this situation, I would give both Madonna and Eye of the Child touchdowns for their immediate and direct communications on this issue. Both the pop star and the human rights group effectively communicated their stance and opinion on this issue and deserve kudos for their communication plays.

MP Garth Turner was ejected from the federal Conservative caucus earlier this week for allegedly leaking party secrets and for taking critical shots at his colleagues, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Conservative caucus unanimously voted to indefinitely "suspend" the Ontario MP for making disparaging comments on his website blog and for breaching caucus confidentiality. On Tuesday, Turner leaked aspects of the pending Clean Air Act and negatively commented on the Act which the Conservatives released yesterday. According to CTV, the MP was warned month’s ago to stop posting caucus information on his blog and playing reporter on his MPTV webcasts. "Garth Turner is trying to wrap himself in the veil of innocence," Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, said Wednesday. "But he knows why he got kicked out." Ironically, by ejecting Turner from government for posting comments to his blog that are damaging to the party and its members the Tories have made his website all that more popular. Since being ejected from cabinet on Wednesday, Mr. Turner’s blog, www.garth.ca/weblog has been flooded with viewers casing the site to crash multiple times due to overwhelming hits. Mr. Turner has posted an apologetic service message on the home page of his website, “WEB SERVER TRAFFIC REMAINS VERY HIGH TODAY, and weblog traffic also is extraordinarily heavy. Please accept my apologies for any momentary service delays, and thank you for visiting! –Garth.” By throwing Turner out of the minority Conservative government, the Tories have helped fuel the very fire they wanted to smother. The lesson in all of this: organizations need to factor in the communications ramifications of any action they’re contemplating, as sometimes it can end up creating way more smoke than the original fire itself.

After a decision by the Irish government to eliminate a tax break allowing musicians and artists to avoid paying taxes on their royalties, U2 has moved their music publishing company to the Netherlands. Critics are calling Bono a hypocrite, as he has lobbied world leaders, including Ireland for aid to help end poverty in Africa, yet it appears he and the band are avoiding paying taxes in their homeland – taxes which would potentially give the Irish government more money for African relief. David Evans (aka The Edge) has defended his band’s decision by citing the financial reasons why this move is logical, “Of course, we’re trying to be tax efficient. Who doesn’t want to be tax-efficient?” There are no arguments from us on the financial perspective; however, the team agrees that from a communications perspective, this move was a Fumble. Bono (who at the time we issued TD&F has not yet commented on this story) has built his brand around his fight against erasing debt in Africa. This move by U2 (as a business entity) definitely tarnishes Bono’s brand and reduces his ability to criticize the actions of other bodies (i.e. countries) in terms of how they choose to handle their funds and from Bono’s perspective, share their wealth. A key communications lesson: in order to help control your message and thereby ensure consistency in the promotion of your brand, it is important to incorporate your communication strategy into your overall business activities. It is essential to have a communication strategy in place to address unfavourable opinions that may arise from the audience to which you are preaching – especially when this can diminish your own position in a fight for noteworthy cause. In this case, a quick response from Bono detailing any direct financial support for African relief on the part of himself and his bandmates would have gone a long way toward blunting the criticism – ditto for mention of the presumably large amount they all pay (and will continue to pay) in Irish personal income tax.

Rob McEwan has led media relations initiatives in a wide range of disease areas. He is Veritas' Pulic Relations Senior Consultant.

In any other circumstance, Peter MacKay’s alleged comment in the Commons involving his dog and/or Belinda Stronach would warrant no further attention than perhaps a passing giggle. Jilted lover takes shot at former significant other amid testy exchange with critics – no big whoop. But the political world often bears no resemblance to the real one, and this is one of those times. MacKay’s dig was promptly – and predictably – pounced upon by everyone looking for any way to attack the minister of the Crown and/or the government he represents … howls of outrage, demands for sweeping apologies on behalf of women everywhere. Gimme a break. In the words of my hero, Dennis Miller, “Put the pen down. It was a freaking joke.” But that said, the fact of the matter is that MacKay has created a communications issue that he needs to deal with. So what should he do next? Call a news conference and issue a heartfelt, personal apology while standing before the cameras? Nope. That would give the story way more mileage than it deserves, and certainly way more than MacKay would want to see it get. It’s Friday. He’s gone back to his riding for the weekend. I would recommend a one-line comment – delivered via his Press Secretary or other aide – saying that he “regrets” making the comment (If, in fact, he really did say it). He only needs to regret having inadvertently created a problem for himself … and Monday’s a whole weekend away.

There was much scratching of reporter heads going on last week, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper called a news conference to announce … that his government would soon announce its air quality plan. You know, the one that’s NOT Kyoto? There he was, at a podium emblazoned with the words “Clean Air,” saying only that an announcement was coming and that it would be a realistic plan aimed at reducing emissions and protecting the air. But it wasn’t until yesterday that the actual plan was announced, and predictably it was pilloried by every environmentalist under the blazing sun as a too little plan that will take too long to have any impact. So why the Touchdown, and what was Harper thinking? My take is that he was banking on the fact that the vast majority of Canadians don’t pay attention to the details of policy, but focus instead on whether there seems to be any policy at all or not. By announcing that a policy announcement was coming, it let him position his government as being actively engaged on the air quality file, before the critics had a chance to see the details and, inevitably, denounce it.

It was the terrible minivan-transport truck accident in Caledon last weekend which killed four people that brought to widespread attention the fact that there was a loophole in Ontario’s seatbelt law: specifically that it didn’t require vehicles to have seatbelts for every occupant. Ten people were in the minivan involved in the accident, yet there were only seatbelts for seven. A perfectly legal situation – but not for long. As soon as the legislature was back in session on Monday, Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield introduced an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act which will close the loophole, vowing to do everything possible to ensure speedy passage. That’s a page right out of Crisis Communications 101: respond to a bad news situation by indicating exactly what you plan to do to try and prevent it from happening again – and be quick about it.

Bob Reid has been a journalist and media advisor to a former Ontario Premier. He is now Veritas' principal media coach.