Once again FEMA is the laughing stock of the country. I’ve heard of people doing a lot of stupid things in dealing with the media, but FEMA’s latest bungle is almost beyond belief. They actually faked a news conference! The only good news — at least this time the agency’s ineptness didn’t risk people’s lives.

FEMA called a supposed news briefing to discuss the California fires 15 minutes before they went live. With so little warning, no reporters could physically make it to the location in time, but they were able to call in on an 800 number. With one catch — they could only listen to what was being said and couldn’t ask questions.

So, you wonder, who did do the asking?

FEMA staffers! That’s why the questions posed to Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, the deputy administrator, included such stumpers as, “Are you happy with FEMA’s response so far?” Hmmm, let me think about that.

After the agency’s deceit was discovered, FEMA’s deputy director of public affairs, Mike Widomski, said they’d been mobbed with reporters’ phone calls, so they threw the briefing together at the last moment. He claimed the questions weren’t made up, but were things that real reporters had been asking.

Home Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said what all of us are probably thinking (but in a nicer way than most of us would phrase it), “I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I’ve seen since I’ve been in government.”

So far only one person has suffered for the “error in judgment.” FEMA’s external affairs director, Pat Philbin, was supposed to take over as head of public relations for the director of national intelligence. Now he won’t.

But I hope he isn’t the only scapegoat. Why would Johnson go ahead with the “news conference” knowing it wasn’t really a news conference? Or why didn’t he announce at the beginning that no reporters were participating, but that he would answer some of the commonly asked questions and then schedule another newser later? Why didn’t FEMA postpone the event until some actual reporters could arrive? Why didn’t the agency arrange a way for reporters to ask questions by phone, or FAX or email their questions?

It’s difficult to believe that people in such high positions could be so clueless. But I guess when government’s involved, we shouldn’t put anything past them.

As the saying goes, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” That’s how I’m now looking at Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty, the ads that show real women in their undies, not the perfect, airbrushed models we’re used to. Unilever, owner of Dove, has positioned itself as a brand that cares about the messages young girls receive about what beauty is all about. Women everywhere (including Oprah) praised the company for helping them feel better about their bodies, flaws and all.

Last week, their ad agency, Ogilvy and Mather, released a video supporting the campaign with the tag line, “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does.” Well, it seems that another Unilever brand, Axe deodorant, is already talking to those girls — out of the other side of the company’s mouth.

The Axe ad campaign is the opposite of Dove’s self-esteem focus, instead featuring women coming onto men because they love the smell of their deodorant. Sure it’s all in fun, a spoof of the mating game, as Unilever said in a statement.

I’m no prude. I think the ads are funny, but doesn’t this undermine everything Dove has been trying to accomplish with the Campaign for Beauty? Will girls really see the joke, or will they just see women degrading themselves and model their behavior?

Of course, Unilever is only one of thousands of companies that have used sex to sell products. But I really thought they were different. I’m disappointed.

I’m not sure I want to be one of the first to fly on Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner. I just can’t trust them. For weeks they’ve been promising that the new jet would be delivered on time. Today, the company finally admitted it would be delayed for at least six months.

Now, if they’re willing to lie about shipment dates, couldn’t they also lie about safety, performance, and a host of other things? For example, Boeing claims the delay is not a result of design flaws, but instead the result of delays in the supply chain. Can we believe them?

Even worse, top officials admit that the first Dreamliner, unveiled to 15,000 guests in a fancy ceremony, was really a mess beneath its shiny exterior. Temporary fasteners basically held it together, and none of the wiring or other major components had been installed.

The company says it decided to admit delivery would be late during a meeting to discuss the plane’s progress earlier this week. Are we really to believe that they didn’t have a pretty good idea it would be delayed long before now? Why couldn’t they just tell the truth?

Sure they had competitive issues with Airbus. When that company admitted its A380 jetliner would be delayed by two years, Boeing took away some of their potential customers. (Of course Airbus had long concealed its own manufacturing problems.) Now all 50 Boeing customers face their own delays for replacing aging fleets and expanding their schedules. And they’re probably all a lot less trusting.

“It causes you to ratchet up a notch your healthy skepticism,” said John Plueger of ILFC, Boeing’s biggest Dreamliner customer. Yeah, I agree.

Why are so many people who are quoted in press releases “excited?” Here’s just a small sampling of what I’ve collected:

• “We’re excited about selling more products with X company.”
• “I’m excited about this new opportunity and the much broader responsibilities I will have.”
• “We are excited about the benefits this relationship will bring to our customers, vendors, and employees.”
• “We are excited to add X company to our European distribution network.”
• “We’re excited about this mixed-use project and delighted to have found this location.”
• “We are excited that our senior management team is now in place.”
• “We’re excited to once again offer our customers the chance to enjoy this delicious bayou delight.”

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

If writers are making up these quotes, it’s just plain lazy, colorless writing. If people are actually saying them, it’s dull, trite thinking.

Some do try to change the pace, but with equally bland results:

• “X company is pleased to enter into this partnership with Y company.”
• “I am pleased that X company has delivered the perfect satellite to Y company.”
• “We are pleased to offer this unique technology to our colleagues”

Blah, blah, blah…..

Why don’t these writers come up with a quote (or prod their spokesperson for a quote) that actually adds something to the story?

• “Selling more products with X Company will give us much wider distribution in Europe. That allows us to show potential customers just how easily and inexpensively we can solve their technical problems.”

• “This is the perfect place for our mixed-use project. It’s a growing, vibrant part of the city close to the freeway. And residents there have told us they’re looking forward to the new shopping, restaurants and offices we will bring to their neighborhood.”

Even worse are the supposed “quotes” that in reality, no one would ever, or could ever say.

“X company represents the best-in-class customer-focused distribution in the electronics components industry,” said John Doe, Vice President of Sales at Y company. “Their extensive product catalog published every 90 days combined with their intuitive, user-friendly website and online catalog, along with their expansive shipping capacity, will be a great advantage to customers who are looking for up-to-date product information and availability of the X company components available for their next generation of electronic devices.”

Huh?

Is it so difficult to do a real interview with spokespersons? If that’s not possible, then at least put words in their mouth that they might actually say.

Many pundits are saying the traditional press release is, or should be dead, with the more interactive, social press release taking over. I am excited for that day to come.

Countrywide Financial is in full “damage-control” mode. They’ve hired Burson-Marsteller to handle crisis management and to try to restore the company’s reputation. According to the Wall Street Journal, which obtained a transcript of a conference call between Countrywide and the PR firm, Burson-Marsteller’s Jason Schechter said, “We wanted to assure you that my firm and I have brought companies through the worst type of publicity.”

Gee, maybe Countrywide should have thought about its reputation months or years ago by doing obvious things to protect itself. Like prepare a crisis plan, or learn how to deal effectively with the media. Part of the company’s problem started when it waited for days after the crisis broke before talking to reporters.

Maybe Countrywide should also have done a better job of taking care of its customers, who ran to withdraw money the minute they heard about the company’s problems. Maybe Countrywide should have stopped its workers from lending money to people who wouldn’t be able to pay it back and/or who didn’t understand what they were signing. I had to chuckle when I heard CEO Angelo Mozilo, (whose total compensation was $120 million last year), claim on Fox news that none of his loan officers would ever grant questionable loans.

The funniest part of the whole damage-control effort is how Countrywide is forcing their employees to be good soldiers. All are expected to sign a pledge to “demonstrate their commitment to our efforts,” and wear a “Protect Our House” wristband, this after 20% of the workforce was canned. I’m sure this will raise morale and get employees to rally to the cause.

The thousands or millions that Countrywide will be giving to Burson-Marsteller to mop up the mess after the fact could have been much better spent long ago. It could have been used to train and manage loan officers. It could have contributed to ethics training. It could have been spent on community service programs, and communication efforts that showed the company’s transparency. And of course, crisis preparation.

Not to worry, though. Everything will turn out okay. “I’ve made a lot of people rich or richer who have joined me on my past crusades,” says Andrew Gissinger, an executive managing director at Countrywide. “Please trust the same holds true here.” Well, at least some people at Countrywide will still have plenty of money.