Flack's Revenge

94 Words, Botched Media Opp, Nary a PR Person in Sight

Most of us have heard about those 94 words: the now infamous talking points that Susan Rice used to explain what happened in the Benghazi tragedy. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal featured a blow-by-blow account of how a CIA assessment that was at first brutally frank and accurate got watered down, as it bounced around the powers that be like a pinball. The article reported the chain of events, and how public statements evolved, culminating in Rice's appearance on the Sunday morning political talk shows.

Here is an excerpt:

Behind the political showdown over the deadly U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, are a few dozen heavily edited words.

The 94-word intelligence summary emerged from a daylong email debate between more than two dozen intelligence officials, in which they contested and whittled the available evidence into a bland summary with no reference to al Qaeda, an assessment the administration now acknowledges was wide of the mark.

Now famous as "the talking points," the 94 words were used by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice on Sunday talk shows days after the attack.  A detailed examination of how U.S. assessments were turned into the talking points reveals a highly cautious, bureaucratic process that had the effect of watering down the U.S.'s own intelligence.

The unfortunate result of this situation is that Rice's account - which seems to be the one that is most often cited - provided inaccurate information to the public and gave fodder to Republicans and Romney campaign.

I don't know if Susan Rice sought or got advice from a PR professional before going on TV and sharing the "party line" version of events; if so, this was not mentioned.

Some might see this as a good thing, that a flack wasn't brought in; but perhaps that was part of the problem.  A competent media adviser (one who had visibility into situation - but the objectivity of an outsider) would have thrown cold water on the whole ill-conceived enterprise and said "look guys this may sound good now but we will be toast if we go with this." (This is not to let Susan Rice off the hook, she made the statement, and that is where the buck should stop; the article reports that she did not believe she had clearance to improvise around the script).

Unfortunately, some just see PR as people who Spam reporters to get clients in the press (see my last post, which shares an example of this distorted view). Media training and strategy are also part of the job; good PR pros have the guts to stare down a tough situation and give their best advice despite the torpedoes.

Did you know that it is an important role for the profession? If you are in PR, are you that kind of advisor?

The Hidden PR Persuaders

I am writing about a topic that you don't see buzzed about much on the PR blogs: persuasion.  

Perhaps we don't talk about it because PR people might not like to see themselves as persuaders (my fellow Windmill Networking columnist Judy Gombita wrote a nice post on PR Conversations that touched on PR echo chambers, among other things; thanks for helping to inspire this post, Judy).

After all, persuasion is most often associated with sales, right? And we like to think of ourselves as more than just slick salespeople. But let's face it, persuasion is a key part of what we do. Sure, we inform, educate, and talk about lofty things sometimes - but we also seek to persuade in many ways; e.g. that our news is worth covering. We help our clients master their communications skills, and write speeches that captivate and persuade. In tech, we craft campaigns that aim to persuade the market that our solutions are viable and better than others.

I started zeroing in on this topic following a family get together over the Jewish High Holidays. As sometimes happens at these events, the subject turned to politics and things got heated. My parents, who are seniors, are liberal and still very feisty, bless them... my brothers can veer a bit more conservative.

Both sides squared off.  Voices were raised. Faces got red. Flecks of spit spray punctuated loud proclamations.  Neither side could dislodge the other. One of my bros made a great show of the fact that he watches Fox News and CNN to get both sides, hence his viewpoint is more informed and balanced.

Coincidentally, there was an op ed in the NY Times soon after that cited very relevant research. It said, essentially, that people tend to stick to their positions despite being presented with (and absorbing) credible information from all sides.  Here is an excerpt:

...evidence suggests that balanced presentations — in which competing arguments or positions are laid out side by side — may not help. At least when people begin with firmly held convictions, such an approach is likely to increase polarization rather than reduce it... Our initial convictions are more apt to be shaken if it’s not easy to dismiss the source as biased... It follows that turncoats, real or apparent, can be immensely persuasive.

Another article in the Times focused on rhetoric - that is, the art of persuasion. It is a great primer on the topic, and e.g. explained something that we discuss in media training: why you should stick to three key message points.

Doubling Down on Sheer Idiocy

I used to love reading William Safire's NY Times magazine column On Language. Safire, was, among other things, a wordsmith. He loved to examine the hot phrases and words of the day, exploring their origins,  usage and relevance.

If Safire was alive today he would probably be writing about the phrase "doubling down".  It has been in the news quite a bit lately and seems to be one of those things that Safire would latch onto (I think most know that it is a phrase from the gambling, meaning to double your bet on a hand, for example when you are dealt a pair of Aces in Black Jack).

I am not even going to try a Safire-style piece, let's face it he was a genius. but let me at least make some observations.

The phrase started to get some play recently when Mitt Romney made some unfortunate comments following the attack on our embassy in Libya, and murdering of the ambassador and other U.S. personnel. He was challenged, did not back down and many in the media reported that he had "doubled down" on his position the next day.

Here's another example: This Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press show, David Gregory asked Representative Peter King:

DAVID GREGORY: Do you double down on a comment that this president has thrown Israel under the bus?

REP. PETER KING: He has not shown-- yes, I will. In the context of politics, yes, he has.

DAVID GREGORY: --the context of politics, it's either true or it's not.

REP. PETER KING: It is true.

And now apparently Romney is doubling down on his idiotic videotaped statement that dismissed most of the electorate as government-dependent. As the NY Times reported:

Mitt Romney on Tuesday fully embraced the substance of his secretly recorded comments that 47 percent of Americans are too dependent on government, saying that his views helped define the philosophical choice for voters in his campaign against President Obama.

(WSJ reported that the numbers have some validity; OK, but what about the part where Romney said that he didn't care about almost half the electorate?).

When politicians are asked if they are doubling down, you can interpret the interviewer's question as: "Did I really hear this correctly?" At this point the spokesperson has two choices: they can either back down or double down.

As you can see, the trend has been to do the latter, accompanied by some spinning and fancy footwork. I think the better strategy can be to man up, and admit that the statement was just plain dumb.

Romney and company are doubling down on sheer idiocy,

The Shush Heard Round the World; Republicans Fumble in Foreign Policy Flack Flameout

The New York Times reported the circumstances that led to the resignation of Romney foreign policy
spokesperson Richard Grenell earlier this week. 

The Romney team had asked him to keep quiet on an important call with the media - one that Grenell had helped to organize. This followed media coverage about outcry from Christian conservatives over Grenell's support for gay marriage, and some of his snarky Tweets.

There's not much sense in a spokesperson with a muzzle, and that was apparently the final insult that led Grenell to resign.  Here's an excerpt from the article:

It was the climax of an unexpectedly messy and public dispute over the role and reputation of Mr. Grenell, a foreign policy expert who is gay and known for his support of same-sex marriage, his testy relationship with the news media and his acerbic Twitter postings on everything from Rachel Maddow’s femininity to how Callista Gingrich “snaps on” her hair.

While the Romney team showed some open-mindedness in hiring Grenell, they clearly fumbled in not taking a closer look at his digital breadcrumbs.

They also broke some basic rules about crisis management, because they wanted to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. hire someone with talent who happens to be gay and does not toe the party line in certain areas.- yet not be too "out" with this.

Basic crisis management principles say that you don't go quiet in a crisis, doing this can make a bad situation worse; indeed, that is exactly what happened here.

 

 

 

 

Indian Point PR Campaign may pit Cuomo vs. Giuliani

For a PR person who loves to follow politics and lives in Northern Westchester County, NY, it just doesn't get any better.

The NY Times reported today that Indian Point nuclear plant owner Entergy is in talks with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani about a PR campaign to counter negative public perception, setting up a potential battle with the Governor:

The Entergy Corporation, the operator of the two reactors at Indian Point, which generate as much as 30 percent of New York City’s power, has been in talks with Mr. Giuliani about headlining a major advertising campaign aimed at allaying public concerns about the facility’s safety. The campaign would effectively pit Mr. Giuliani, an erstwhile Republican presidential candidate, against the governor, a Democrat.

Indian Point has been a sore point for people who live in the area. I understand the argument that it would be difficult to replace this source of power, and fears may be overblown. Yet the recent earthquake in Japan, which brought a nuclear plant close to meltdown, seems to have driven a fresh round of questions and scrutiny here in NY. And anyone from the area who is familiar with the emergency planning and evacuation procedures knows that these are jokes.

Andrew Cuomo, who by most accounts got off to a good start as NY Governor and seems to have the wind at his back, has voiced his opposition to Indian Point.

Giualini and Cuomo are two NY-based super-sized egos that fascinate and sometimes confound many people, myself included. I have greatly admired both men at various times, and have also been in irritated by them (although if I were to pick one for this campaign and in general it would have to be Cuomo).

It will be interesting to watch this battle unfold, as I am sure the media will be all over this.

(I thank my friend and ace photographer Steve Lesnick for pointing this article out).

Weiner and Sheen: Possibly the Best Pitchmen for PR

For the very definition of unscripted, unplugged and a little if not a lot nutty public figures, you have first Charlie Sheen and then Anthony Weiner, possibly the best advertisements for PR in recent memory.

They both took us on pretty wild rides. Weiner's episode culminated in a surreal press conference yesterday that was almost carnival sideshow (see the New York Times article Confession and Apology...) in which conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart (who first broke the story) led off. Exactly how or why this came to be, I am not sure.

What is clear is that both celebrities pretty much winged it when it came to mixing it up with the media and going on public record (as the Times article said, Weiner did not use PR - As a politician, he was his own publicist, megaphone, strategist and multiplatformed tech man wrapped into a tightly wrapped Type A package - that now seems pretty obvious).

There will be some that say that these public figures deserved what they had coming, and no amount of spinning or image crafting would have helped. To them, I say: "are you serious?!!!" I guess if you enjoy watching public immolation and train wrecks that might be true (the stories also refute the myth that there is no such thing as bad PR).

How could PR have helped? Well by helping these guys not look like total idiots for starters. A little thought and planning when it comes to media relations, and some moves from the crisis management play book would no doubt have helped. Sure, they both probably would have crashed and burned anyway, but in a less horrific way, with easier paths to redemption.

Black and Bloomberg (Video Killed the Education Czar)

Bloomberg's embattled pick for schools chief, Cathleen Black, was removed from the position last week. In the end, it seems the empress had no clothes - or at least not everything needed to convince others (and herself) that she could do a good job as New York City schools chancellor.

I don't wish any ill will to Bloomberg or Ms. Black. The whole episode must be an embarrassment for both.

But I do like to riff on topics related to PR and communciations, and to spot and call out irony when I see it, and this episode was rife.

I think it is ironic that someone who comes from the media world was undone by the media spot lights. If it wasn't video and media training that doomed her appointment, it played a role, and showed how unprepared she was, according to this New York Times article excerpt:

Ms. Black struggled to grasp the complexities of the city’s budget process, despite intensive tutorial sessions that began on the day of her appointment and, according to advisers, never really stopped.

When her staff sought to prepare her for television interviews, through mock question-and-answer sessions, she tripped over basic facts and figures, including the process for deciding which schools to close.... Aides decided she was largely unfit for such high-profile appearances and all but ruled them out.

Ms. Black clearly could have used some more media training, she does not appear to be a very sympathetic figure, based on excerpts from the Times article Black Admits Being Ill Prepared:

A day after her surprise ouster as New York City’s top education official, Cathleen P. Black acknowledged that she was ill-prepared for the demands and visibility of running the nation’s largest public school system..

Although she endured stinging criticism of her management style and public statements as chancellor, she said that she was particularly irritated by unflattering snapshots of herself that appeared in the New York City news media.  “The worst pictures!” she complained.

...in an interview with Fortune magazine, her first since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg urged her to step down as schools chancellor on Thursday, Ms. Black also suggested that gender might have played a role in her rocky reception over the last three months.

From Telephone to Twitter - Hits and Misses in Andrew Cuomo's PR Playbook

It is a new political season, and there's been lots of coverage about the new landscape and incoming class.  Politics follows not too far behind my primary passions of PR, technology and social media.  So I especially like to track and read the articles that combine a number of these things.

On that note, the New York Times had a couple of great stories recently about Andrew Cuomo, the new Governor of New York.  It was interesting that one article focused solely on Cuomo's use of the telephone as a power tool, in dealing with the media and others.  It is an old school approach that is apparently effective (well, anyway, this was a very long article and the reporter seemed somewhat enamored and impressed).  According to the story:

The call comes with no warning, at almost any time of the day...The unhurried, instantly recognizable voice on the other end of the line belongs to Andrew M. Cuomo. There will be long pauses. There will be many questions. Get comfortable: you may be on the phone for a while...He makes relatively few public appearances, rarely gives on-the-record interviews and disdains the Sunday chat show circuit. His e-mails are restricted to a small circle and, frequently, to two words: “Call me.”

But more often, Mr. Cuomo calls you... he will first ask about the foot surgery or Little League game that came up during the last conversation. Only rarely does a secretary ask you to hold for Mr. Cuomo’s call: he makes it a point to be on the line when you pick up. He almost never puts anyone on hold.

The effect, many say, is a powerful sense of intimacy.. Mr. Cuomo also relishes the visceral feedback of a phone call, he said: the sound of the other person’s voice and the sense of his or her mood...“I am not an e-mail person,” he said. “You don’t get context, you don’t get emotion and you don’t get a connection.”

I think the subtleties in how we communicate often go underappreciated, and this article serves as reminder about the importance of these choices.  While an in-person meeting might even be more effective, Cuomo can cover more ground using the telephone - and the phone is clearly better than other forms of communications when it comes to the nuances, the seemingly small touches that can make all of the difference in the world when it comes to relating to people.  Cuomo's direct approach is also noteworthy, and might cause some PR folks to cringe because there's apprently no PR intermediary in the mix - yet I am sure jorunalists appreciate having that type of access (even if it is on his terms).

Then again, in this era it is never enough just to master one mode of communications, and another article in the New York Times covered a misfire in the Cuomo administration's use of Twitter.  Apprently, they were quick to publish the name @NYGovernor, but someone beat them to the punch in establishing a Twitter account under that name.  Here is an excerpt:

At first glance, the Twitter page...  seemed perfectly plausible for a politician, and featured the same snapshot of Mr. Cuomo — smiling and looking off into the distance — that can be seen on the home page of the governor’s new Web site.. [the] first few Twitter messages seemed right out of the governor’s press office...

But the tone eventually got less statesmanlike, as the subjects veered toward his dislike of the Executive Mansion (not enough parking for his muscle cars)...

If that did not raise enough suspicion, there was Mr. Cuomo’s Twitter biography: “First elected governor of the State of New York since the Luv Guv.”

Assault on the Media: When Politicians Attack

When politicians go on the attack it is a sure sign that it is campaign season, and the targets often are other politicians. However, as the New York Times wrote yesterday, in this election cycle, it would seem that the politicians are fighting mad at the news media.

For as long as there have been politicians and media there has been a tension between the institutions (recall Nixon's famous quote "The press is the enemy" from years ago). Politicians want great press of course, and love to get media endorsements.

However they don't always love the coverage, and recently many (especially on the right) have seemed to drop all pretenses and ignored the conventional wisdom that says you should not pick fights with those who buy ink by the barrelful.

The article lised the the litany of media attacks on journalists.  Please visit the link for the full story, and see below for excerpts.

• ...security guards for Joe Miller, a Republican Senate candidate from Alaska, handcuffed a reporter...
• Charles B. Rangel, the famously cantankerous Democrat from Harlem, castigated an MSNBC reporter as television cameras rolled... “It’s a dumb question, and I’m not going to respond,” Mr. Rangel said in July, dismissing a question about his ethics violations case before adding a gleeful “Next!”
• Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor in New York, had to be physically separated from a reporter for The New York Post last month as the two engaged in a tense shouting match...“I’ll take you out, buddy,” Mr. Paladino snarled as he jabbed a finger at the reporter.
• Sharron Angle, the Republican Senate hopeful in Nevada... recently shushed a local television reporter before he could even ask his question. On Friday, the Angle campaign banned two local television stations from its election night party after their reporters surprised her with questions at the airport.
• And in Delaware last week, Christine O’Donnell, a Republican Senate candidate, threatened to sue a radio station if it released a video tape of an interview she had just conducted.
• Sarah Palin, who often appears proudly contemptuous of what she calls “the lame-stream media,” and Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who has accused the press of treason, have made a sport of needling journalists this year.

Obama v. Media: Is Tiff with Fox well Advised?

There was a good article in the NY Times Sunday Week in Review, The Battle is Joined; Now What? about the Obama administration's much talked-about dust up with the Fox News.  According to the story:

Administration officials seemed to have decided that they had had enough.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

The article analyzed the situation within the historical context of past presidential media wars.  For example, it brought up the Nixon administration, one that was famous for its paranoia.  (To put clients in the right frame of mind in our media training sessions, we start off with famous quotes about the media; e.g. Nixon's "The press is the enemy").

The story included words from Nixon VP Spiro Agnew about the media (“self-appointed analysts” at the Big Three networks exhibited undisguised “hostility” toward President Richard M. Nixon), but did not mention his famous quote denouncing the press as "nattering nabobs of negativism," one of my favorites.

We all know Fox has it in for Obama but does it make much sense for his administration to publicly declare war? Why turn a cold war into a hot war?  The elephant in the "unbiased media" room is that everyone knows there are biases, left and right leaning, and everyone plays favorites (or opposite) in their media initiatives accordingly.  As the article says:

... pretending has traditionally been a valuable part of the presidential playbook. Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics... the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence.

It also cites a rule of thumb in political PR regarding battles: People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones.

I'll add one more: Don't let them show you are sweating.  A president that is well known for his cool demeanor should not encourage his operatives to be so blatant about participating in media wars.