David,

Your post prompted me to search a little on Bob Murray, and I came across an editorial and some comments to it that mirror some of your thoughts.

The Deseret Morning News in Utah ran an editorial on Aug. 14 in which it said, "We agree that federal officials could provide a less emotional and more objective daily briefing on rescue efforts. From the start, Murray has at times appeared emotional, distraught and bombastic, as well as kind, grateful and genuinely concerned. He has an obvious interest in making things look as positive as he possibly can.

"However, it can be argued he has been honest and straightforward about the rescue efforts — efforts that continue to frustrate everyone involved.

"At the beginning of this ordeal, Murray came across as alarmingly combative. As days go by, however, his worn-on-the-sleeve emotions have been a comforting reminder that he and the rescuers care deeply about what they are doing."

Here is a link to the editorial and comments to it.

My preference would be that a spokesperson in an emergency or disaster situation be accurate AND human. It is natural to be emotional, but providing inaccurate assessments of the situation in an effort to remain positive, does more harm than good. Think back to the (Sago Mine?) incident in West Virginia, where someone leaked the misinformation that trapped workers were alive, setting off a celebration that sooned turned to sorrow.

I too think it's refreshing to hear the humanity in his voice. The one time I was listening to him on NPR a week ago, however, he went off about "global warming," "too much government oversight," yadayadayada and that's when someone needed to reign him in. Otherwise, now that's he's too tired to rant apparently, it's refreshing to get some honest-to-goodness speech out of a "spokesman."

I don't know which I like least: cool, calculating PR-talk or a drama queen who's bent on sharing his personal pain with me.

What I like best--and I am NOT making a political statement here--is what we got from Rudy Giuliani on 9/11. We knew he was in agony and we also knew that he was going to "man up," do what needed to be done, and talk straight to us. Is that so much to ask?

I saw Bob Murray on the news last night and my gut feeling was the second trait you mentioned. From the clip the media gave me he seemed refreshingly sincere and clearly saddened by the whole thing. In this too slick time of PR I thought he was just right.

At the same time, I did not know the other bits about his ranting and raving. With that in mind I'd have to take the political answer: a little bit of both.

Oddly enough, I'd say right here in Chicago we have our own Bob Murray in Mayor Richard Daley. Never a dull moment at his press conferences. The man claimed to the media he'd eat a fish from the Chicago River. I wouldn't eat a farm raised fish if it had been handled by someone who ate a fish from the Chicago River.

Great points, all. I can testify to Michael's perspective. Mayor Daley has done nothing but help his cause here by spluttering and muttering and sometimes blubbering to the point where we say: JESUS that job must be hard! He's not perfect, and maybe he's even a criminal, but still: Better him than me! You t'ink you could do better?!

I think we feel the same way about Bob Murray. And I think it's the best that leaders of big instituations these days can expect.

By the way, Tom Keefe had a problem linking his Deseret News piece. I'm not even going to try: Here's the URL.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695200505,00.html

Yes, I think I could do better.

Except at the getting elected part, and the buttering hands part.

Kind of critical parts, though.