I suppose I should be happy that the CEO of Wal-mart, Lee Scott, was bluntly honest at the Wall Street Journal’s recent ECO:nomics conference when he admitted, “We are not green.” How refreshing, some might say. But from a PR/media relations standpoint, I think it was the wrong thing to do.

Inevitably, that juicy, loaded statement, “We are not green,” was featured in the WSJ headline, putting the focus on Scott’s outspokenness, and ignoring the rest of what he said that helped temper the statement.

He went on to explain that Wal-Mart is trying to reduce its carbon footprint, but that the company has to grow at the same time. He added that the company is working with its suppliers to reduce the amount of packaging in its products, not just to please environmentalists, but also to save money.

Then, another unfortunate, flippant statement. When asked when he expected the company to meet its goal of having zero waste, Scott said, “I haven’t a clue.”

Besides inviting sensational headlines, Scott’s statements undermine Wal-Mart’s heavily publicized efforts, both on its website and in newspaper articles, to push its going green strategies. He and his company come off as hypocritical.

Much smarter to be more tactful and less sensational. “We’re working hard to reduce our footprint, but it’s not an easy task. We have to continue to grow, yet at the same time find ways to cut waste. That’s why we’ve asked our suppliers to…….”

Lee Scott is CEO of the largest company in the world, with critics ready to pounce at any provocation. He needs to be more careful about what he says in public.

Will Southwest Airlines be able to recover from its most recent PR crisis? This time it’s not about scantily clad women being kicked off airplanes, but something much more serious — safety. The FAA proposed a record $10.2 million fine against the airline, charging it missed deadlines to inspect planes for structural flaws during 2006 and 2007.

If it were any other airline, I’d doubt that it could recover with its reputation intact. But Southwest has in its favor something that none of the others bring to the table — good will. Over the last three decades, it’s consistently been able to put good will into the trust bank.

From former CEO Herb Kelleher to present CEO Gary Kelly, Southwest has been open and available to the media and the public. Southwest is the first and only airline to start a blog, allowing comments from customers. And what other company, let alone airline, would let itself be vulnerable to TV cameras filming a reality show?

It also doesn’t hurt that Southwest has always been about fun and excellent customer service. It consistently rates favorably on measurements such as on-time flights, lost baggage, and complaints. Yes, the company has alienated customers occasionally with some of its actions, but it has always come back because of its transparency and ability to build relationships with the media and the public.

Now Southwest is making heavy withdrawals from its very full trust bank. I predict it will overcome this latest set-back with good PR and by doing the right thing. It’s a lesson for other companies and organizations. Depositing good will in the trust bank can pay big dividends.

You’re exhausted, you’re distracted, you’re angry. Not a good time to do an interview. Samantha Power, former free-lance journalist, Pulitzer Prize winner, foreign relations expert and adviser to Barack Obama, had to resign after making one of the most common mistakes in the media relations handbook — forgetting for a second that you’re talking to a journalist.

In an interview focused on her most recent book, not the Obama campaign, Power let her guard down and told The Scotsman reporter, Gerri Peev, “We f**** up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win. She’s a monster too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything.”

We can imagine Power’s horror at hearing the word “monster” come out of her mouth and then desperately trying to save herself by declaring the statement “off the record.” Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Going off the record is always a dangerous proposition, but if you decide to risk it, you must declare the rules ahead of time and get the reporter’s agreement.

Many people have been in her shoes. You’ve been talking for awhile, in person or on the phone, and start feeling you’ve developed a relationship with the reporter, that they’re your friend. Then comes that unguarded remark, after you forget that every word you say can be in the paper tomorrow, and you expect your “friend” to save you. Sometimes they do, but when it’s a highly visible, cutthroat political race, that’s unlikely.

Besides remembering that reporters aren’t your friends, I think a couple of other lessons come out of this example. First, interviews don’t have boundaries. Yes, the story was supposed to be about Power’s new book, but that doesn’t mean if a journalist hears something juicy (or asks a question) on another topic she won’t write about it.

Second, just because you know how to ask questions doesn’t mean you can answer them effectively. As a former free-lance journalist, Samantha Power knew media relations from the reporter’s perspective. But even former reporters aren’t automatically good spokespeople. They have to learn the “rules” and practice them.

As a side note, while I realize why Power had to resign, I’m sorry it had to happen. I agree with CBS newsman, Bob Schieffer, who says, as name-calling goes in politics, “monster”is pretty mild.

How refreshing! An entire PowerPoint presentation with no bullet points. Yep, it’s possible. I’ve done it, and I saw someone else do it last week at a PRSA meeting (Public Relations Society of America). Good job, Dan Wool.

What’s wrong with bullet points? Contrary to what most presenters believe, bullet points kill communication rather than facilitating it. They make information harder to understand, not easier.

The core purpose of communication is to bring things together; to take fragments of information and combine them into a single understanding. Bullet points do just the opposite. By breaking a topic into title, bullet points, and sub-bullet points, you’re fragmenting communication, not consolidating it.

Some important research also negates the value of bullet points. People process information through dual channels, verbal and visual. A screen full of bullet points overloads the visual channel. If you move most of the text off the screen and narrate it instead, you shift some of the processing to the auditory channel. Then you can use the screen to illustrate your points visually.

Research also shows that people learn better when information is presented in chunks, not in a giant bullet point data dump. They also learn better when you use graphical cues to illustrate how the presentation is organized.

I think presenters use bullet points for two reasons: Everyone else does it. And most importantly, it makes their job easier. They just have to read what’s on the slide rather than preparing a presentation that is audience focused. PowerPoint becomes a crutch instead of an aid.

My newest presentation mentor is Cliff Atkinson, author of Beyond Bullet Points. He’s one of those leading the charge to change the way we use PowerPoint. It’s not easy, but well worth the effort. Your audience will thank you.

You’ve probably heard the saying, “Don’t do anything you would be ashamed to read about on the front page of the morning newspaper.” It’s good advice. One that many businesses and organizations should heed.

Like Health Net, the company that prides itself on canceling patients’ policies in the middle of life-saving treatment. There is justice though, at least in one case. A judge in California ordered the company to pay nearly $9.4 million to a woman who was dropped while being treated for breast cancer.

Other lawsuits have followed, including one filed by the Los Angeles city attorney, claiming that Health Net illegally canceled the coverage of about 1,600 patients. And that’s just California.

But what’s especially reprehensible is that Health Net was paying its employees bonuses for finding ways to drop policy holders who required expensive treatments. Often they did it by looking back at the original health insurance applications to find any minor flaw that could justify cancellation.

Of course, Health Net wanted to keep the policy from going public, but the judge ruled that the California proceedings would be open to reporters and that all documents would be open as well. So now they’re reading about themselves in the headlines. They should be very, very ashamed.

As a side note: Last year the company made $200 million dollars in profit, and this year executives will get double their normal bonuses if they hit revenue projections.