Force For Good Communications

Tiger Woods' stonewalling lets rumors fester

A quick response and as much transparency as possible are prime articles of faith among crisis managers. Get any damaging news out quickly and completely so you can move on. Letting speculation fester is never a good strategy.

So what are Tiger Woods and his handlers thinking by refusing to cooperate with the police and releasing only cryptic and defensive statements to the public following his late-night collision with a fire hydrant and his neighbor's tree last Friday? The low-speed collision (the SUV's airbags did not deploy)accident left Woods unconscious. By the time police arrived, Woods' wife had pulled him from the SUV, reportedly using one of his golf clubs to smash out a rear window, evidently to unlock the vehicle's doors.

Woods is extremely disciplined in how he speaks to the media and is used to being able to control the public conversation to a greater extent than just about any highly visible athlete or celebrity. So his natural instinct is to go radio silent.

But it isn't realistic to expect the mass media and the blogosphere to simply go away. In the absence of anything resembling complete disclosure, the rumor mill runs rampant. Quite simply, Tiger's stone-walling leads reasonable people to conclude that he's hiding something. Canceling appearances in his own golf tournament and likely all other tournaments the rest of the year will not quiet interest in Tigers' strange behavior.

Woods is an incredible athlete with legions of loyal fans. He's extremely likable and perhaps the only flaw in his public persona is a somewhat cold exterior that comes with his unrivaled mental discipline.

Odds are that the public will learn sooner or later whatever circumstances surrounded the accident Tiger wishes we'd all forget. Better to get it out and move on.

- Jon Harmon

Crisis Management X01: Never stop learning, become a student of news events

Today's Bulldog Reporter includes an interview with me as author of this blog and author of Feeding Frenzy. The interview focuses, as you might expect, on crisis communications.

Here's one quick take-away: Become a student of current affairs and think about how you'd handle issues in the news:

We don't know what the next crisis will be, but we do know that it's coming. So pay attention to how others are handling crises. Watch the news closely and envision yourself in the crisis. Imagine that you're Robert Gibbs, and ask, how would I handle that? As PR professionals, we should be students of the news, instead of just consumers.

- Jon Harmon

Passing of the no-name decade: Drop the oh and ... Celebrate like it was 19-99!

A little year-end rant, a little early ...

Hard to believe, but this first decade of the new century, this decade with no name, is almost history.

One bright spot: we finally can get back to talking about a year in two easy-chunks: "Twenty-Ten," "Twenty-Eleven," etc. Just like the good all days of "Nineteen-Ninety Nine."

Ever since we were saddled with "The Year Two Thousand," we've struggled with the two-chunk dates. "Twenty-Nine" just doesn't work. So we inserted the obligatory oh: "Twenty-oh-Nine." It worked well enough. And it allowed us to further abbreviate the year to simply "oh-nine."

But, please, come New Year's Day, drop the oh! I cringe every time I hear someone refer to next year as "oh-ten," as in "the oh-ten emission standards will be tough to meet." (Remember: it's '10 -- not '010!)

- Jon Harmon

Can reporting co-ops save the local newspaper?

Newspapers simply will not survive under their existing business model. Readers and advertisers are leaving in droves. Newspapers are losing out to competition from alternative news sites--including aggregators such as Yahoo! News and Google--delivering pithy electronic news bites to on-the-go consumers. Newspapers' own websites are increasingly displacing the printed word, but they haven't been able to sufficiently monetize content as on-line readers resist having to pay for content and advertising hasn't delivered enough revenue.

In the six months from April to September, the top 400 newspaper in the U.S. saw their weekday circulation decline by a staggering 10.6%, and that followed what had been considered a horrific circulation decline of 6.1% the previous six months, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation's latest data.

Unless something changes quickly, you can write the newspaper's obituary.

Along with similar pressures facing traditional television news operations, the death of the newspaper could spell the end to strong, competent news reporting. Who will provide the reporting for the news aggregators to collect and distribute? Or will hard reporting largely go by the waste side, largely replaced by entertainment fluff and gossip? And even if a few strong, national news organizations--such as the Wall Street Journal and USA Today--survive, who will do the indispensable but not very lucrative work of reporting on local issues?

One possible remedy to this dark picture could be provided by local news co-ops. The New York Times has begun publishing a local edition in San Francisco and is moving ahead with plans for a Chicago edition as well, stepping into voids in those markets caused by newspaper bankruptcies. The Wall Street Journal has similar plans. While these localized national papers will put additional financial pressure on truly local newspapers in those markets, they also are spawning news co-ops that may be the future of serious local news journalism.

In Chicago, the non-profit news co-op will be headed by James E. O’Shea, a former editor of the Los Angeles Times and a former managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, and other well-regarded journalists will step into key reporting and editing responsibilities. The co-op will provide content for the NY Times' Chicago edition as well as for Chicago public TV and radio stations. It will compete with the news organizations of the Tribune and Sun-Times, both in bankruptcy, at least as long as those newspapers continue to exist. 

In smaller markets, perhaps non-profit news co-ops will supply reporting for all of the area's newspaper, broadcast and web news outlets just as pool arrangements today cover national news stories that are either prohibitively expensive or are not conducive to being covered by the full circus of dozens of camera and sound crews.

Whenever a full complement of news organizations are replaced with a single reporting operation, the worry grows about compromised or less than fully objective news coverage. But as the economics of news organizations grows increasingly dismal, it may be the only local alternative.

P.S. - Nearly three years ago, I posed the question here: "Does the newspaper have a future?" But I certainly did not foresee the dire situation newspapers find themselves in currently. In fact, the lead of my post was: "Reports of the death of the newspaper have been greatly exaggerated."

- Jon Harmon

FCC moves forward on needed net neutrality rules

(update of previous post...)

The Federal Communications Commission appears to be moving ahead in establishing regulations that would enforce so-called "net neutrality" on Internet providers.

"The FCC voted 5-0 to begin the rule-making process, with the agency's two Republicans dissenting with parts of agency's initial findings," reported MarketWatch.

Once the rule-making process begins, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the regulations will be enacted. That's a good step forward in maintaining an open Internet. Under net neutrality, Internet providers would not be allowed to block access to users of competitive Internet providers.

The FCC appears to be wisely allowing for exceptions--as long as they are openly disclosed--for providers to block spam or other unwanted content, such as child pornography. (Any reasonable step taken to limit child pornography, as well as minors' accidental exposure to pornography, is certainly positive. And consistent with the "Blogger Power" initiative championed here two years ago that gained a groundswell of support from around the globe. Blogger Power achieved some small success in highlighting the issue but we always knew that government action was required for any real victories to be declared. A special thanks to Michigan Congressman Thadeus McCotter for his leadership and support.)

- Jon Harmon

Net neutrality versus the coming mobile meltdown

"Net neutrality" is a concept often taken for granted. It is assumed to be a sacred right -- isn't in the Constitution somewhere? But net neutrality may be rapidly becoming untenable in our mobile world as streaming video to handheld devices puts huge new strains on available wireless capacity.

Net neutrality refers to the principle that an internet provider should always allow its users to connect with the users of other internet providers, and should not block the applications and content of other providers. It also has become an article of internet faith that net neutrality means unlimited usage (as opposed to surcharges based on consumption of wireless capacity).

But Holman Jenkins argues in today's Wall Street Journal that unfettered usage is leading to a "mobile meltdown in the making."

Consider: A single You Tube viewing consumes nearly 100 times as much cellular bandwidth as a voice call. In Asia, some 200 million people already watch video on their smart-phones...AdMob reports that mobile Web page requests grew 9% from July to August--a 180% annual growth rate. And Motorola recently went public with worries that a handful of mobile Sling-box users could wipe out cell service in a whole neighborhood.

... the biggest political scrum in the near future won't be over classic net neutrality at all--it will be a battle over usage-based pricing, which is one of the few demands to keep excessive demand in check.

Jenkins calls on the Obama Administration to take steps to free up more wireless spectrum, allow mobile phone operators to merge and to "relax about net neutrality."

But don't expect champions of net neutrality and free, unfettered usage to go quietly in the night.

-- Jon Harmon

Mainstream media flunk test but don't even know it

The continuing controversy over the community activist group ACORN is either a non-news event created (or at least stoked) by Fox News and conservative talk radio, or a national scandal that shows how mainstream media ignores news that's inconvenient to their entrenched biases.

It all depends on the which media archetypes you subscribe to. That is, what story line you buy into.

Western mass media have long embraced the role of watchdog for the "little guy" against abuses of power and proudly adopted the moniker, "The Fourth Estate" (a term apparently coined by Thomas Carlyle in the 19th Century to refer to the check that media provided against abuses of power by the three vestiges of power in England: the clergy, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. It works as well in American parlance to the watchdog role media provide against corruption in government, manifested by the three branches of the Federal Government -- or, more broadly, against corruption by the powerful: politicians, corporations and the wealthy.)

But the distinction within that last part of the previous parenthetical reference is important -- some want their watchdogs to be watching out for abuses by a menacing and over-reaching Federal government, and others most want protection from rich and powerful interests manifested by "evil corporations" and "the wealthy.'

Mainstream media in America (network news, newspapers and news magazines) have largely adopted the broadest definition of power abuse to stand guard against -- government AND corporations and the rich. Within this archetypal framework, media begin by viewing corporations and the wealthy suspiciously, until proven otherwise, while public interest groups, charities and other non-profits are viewed from a favorable starting point, until proven otherwise. Perhaps that tilt is required to be fair and balanced, if you assume that the voices of corporate and moneyed interests generally are louder than the voice of "the little guy."

Nevertheless, it is the pervasiveness of this bias in "mainstream" American media that created the opportunity for conservative radio hosts and Fox News commentators to find a large audience who don't want a liberal filter on their news. (Plenty of them want to listen only to right-wing boosterism, but you have to believe a whole lot of people just want it "straight.") 

But what's really interesting about the ACORN flap is going largely unreported, even on the Poynter Online, a fantastic source of journalistic self-critique and introspection. (The only item I could find on Poynter was this rather self-righteous explanation from the Austin American-Statesman about why it had been so late in covering the ACORN controversy.)

What's really interesting is how the ACORN stings demonstrate the sudden rise in influence of a new "Fifth Estate" -- largely unfunded citizen journalists with the self-appointed mission to report news from their own perspective, and often, to dramatize what they see as bias or blindness in traditional media.

Anyone with a cell phone camera is a potential cit-j, sometimes augmenting traditional news sources in important ways. for example, on-the-scene reports from Iran's citizen-journalist dissenters have helped keep world attention on Iraq's rigged elections, long after that country's crackdown on traditional media reports. But cit-j's are also stepping forward in this country to cover "news" that isn't covered in mainstream media. The videos that have brought national scandal to ACORN were not elaborate or particularly well produced. And they cost next to nothing. In an age of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, it no longer takes the resources of a major news organization to reach an audience of millions.

Of course, members of the "Fifth Estate" by and large didn't go to journalism school and have no editor looking over their shoulders making sure that information they report is well-researched and truthful. And that raises a new challenge for the Fourth Estate -- to provide a check back on information put out by the Cit-j's, without automatically discounting its value and assuming that if it was dug up and disseminated by amateurs it isn't worthy of reporting in the mainstream.

- Jon Harmon

Don't be a jack-ass: Clarify ground rules before agreeing to talk 'off-the-record'

Photograph: Jason DeCrow/AP

The White House was surprised and embarrassed when a reporter tweeted to thousands of his "followers" that  President Obama had said that Kanye West was a "jack-ass" for his the monumental rudeness toward country singer Taylor West at the Video Music Awards.

Not that the President wasn't spot on with his assessment of West. But he has bigger fish to fry. And didn't he learn anything from that press conference in July when he declared that the Cambridge police had "acted stupidly?" When the President expresses an opinion, it becomes news -- and can become a distraction from the policy agenda he is promoting. 

Turns out that Obama's slam had been an off-hand comment made during a supposed "off-the record" time while CNBC was setting up a pool camera for a formal interview. ABC's Terry Moran over-heard the comment and reported it via Twitter. When the White House objected, Moran took down the Tweet, but by that time it was flying around the Internet at light speed, probably providing a temporary boost to the President's approval ratings.

But what cover exactly does the mysterious "off-the-record" provide?

Kelly McBride argues on Poynter online that off-the-record means just one thing -- that a journalist can't attribute information or a quote to the source, and in fact will go to jail rather than give up the identity of the source. Furthermore, she asserts that she has

"qualms about ever letting the president of the United States go off the record. He's the most powerful man in the world... I suspect that the status of the conversation between CNBC and Obama was unclear to everyone involved. Reporters often conduct a casual conversation before or after an official interview. That's how reporters and sources get to know each other. But that's not the same as off-the-record, and the president of all people knows that."

That's the problem -- "off-the-record" can mean so many things in different circumstance. (Which is why in media training we always tell executives never to assume anything is off the record.) As a media relations professional, there may be times when you need to speak off the record -- but only with a journalist you know and trust, and only after specifying the ground rules.

For example, "off-the-record" can be thought to mean:

• Side comments shared before the reporter turns on the recording device cannot be used in the story. Often the person being interviewed assumes this privilege is in place even if it hasn't been specified -- a common mistake made by executives (including the nation's Chief Executive, see above). Color provided during this "warm-up" period when the source has his/her guard down can definitely shape the opinion of the journalist in subsequent reporting. Even if a joke in poor taste or sarcastic comment doesn't find its way into the story, it may color the reporter's view of the speaker. WHEN IN THE PRESENCE OF A REPORTER, YOU ARE ON THE RECORD. REFRAIN FROM SAYING ANYTHING YOU DON"T WANT TO SEE PRINTED OR AIRED.
• The reporter can use the information or quote in the story but not attribute it to the source. Sometimes this means the reporter can use the quote but will attribute it only to an unnamed person within your company or organization. Sometimes it means the identity of the source cannot be qualified in any way. Make sure you and the journalist agree on this important distinction.
• The reporter can't report the information or use the quote at all -- it can only be used to help guide the journalist's subsequent reporting. This understanding, sometimes called "deep background" is very rare. Obviously, journalists will seldom agree to such a restrictive arrangement. Yet this is what many executives (and PR people who should know better) think they are getting when they quickly ask: "We're off-the-record, right?"

Sources sometimes cloak their identity in order to slam a political or career rival or someone they're mad at. This is unscrupulous cowardice and journalists demonstrate questionable ethics when they enable such behavior.

But speaking "off-the-record" can provide necessary cover for a source who fears retribution. For example, "whistle blowers" raising legitimate concerns that have fallen on deaf ears within an organization. Or a PR person providing information "off-the-record" to dissuade a journalist from writing an erroneous story at a time two organizations are wrestling in private and have committed to not "negotiate in the media."

Bottom line: Begin from the assumption that you are on the record. When special circumstances necessitate going "off-the-record," do so only with a journalist you know and trust (note: you can't go "off-the-record" when speaking to a group of reporters), and only after making sure you both agree as to what you mean by it.

- Jon Harmon

Don't let Congressman's rude shout-out distract from issues that need full debate

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) was clearly out of line in yelling "You lie!" at President Obama , interrupting  the President's televised speech to the joint Houses of Congress last night. There is no place for such rude and disrespectful behavior in a formal gathering of the nation's leaders. Wilson was right to quickly apologize, saying he was caught up in the emotion of the moment.

Republican leaders should follow up on the controversy by respectfully pressing the President on the issue that sparked Wilson's shout-out. Addressing his critic's charges, Obama clearly stated in his speech that health care benefits would not be extended to illegal aliens. And he has adjusted the numbers of uninsured he references to exclude aliens.

The President is not lying, Joe. But perhaps he also isn't giving up so easily on his conviction to extend health care insurance to everyone living in this country. 

Could it be that Democrats plan to move forward sometime in the next three years to grant amnesty to "undocumented aliens" in the U.S., granting them full citizenship? They would then qualify for "free" health care, like other low-income citizens, that would be available when reforms take effect in 2012. (Of course, they would also gain the right to vote and would almost certainly vote overwhelmingly Democrat, grateful to their benefactors. That prospect has to have Republicans worried.)

The direct costs for these 12 million or so additional recipients of "free" health care have not been calculated into official projections, let alone the indirect costs associated with a supply-demand curve thrown out of equilibrium by the sudden surge on the demand side.

Proponents of amnesty understand that the time is not right to push forward openly, preferring to wait until:  1)  a preliminary health care reform law is in place; 2) the economic cycle has moved well into recovery, including lower unemployment, so mainstream America will be far less anxious about any perceived threats to their job security; 3) the Tea Party/Town Hall anger has run its course.

But an open and far-sighted debate is exactly what is needed.

Clearly the issues at stake are complex and need to be thought through carefully. The U.S. needs to reign in exploding health care costs. And the country should act to extend coverage to citizens who cannot presently afford health care insurance. And America needs to find a fair, compassionate and pragmatic solution to address the millions of illegal aliens living here. 

 

- Jon Harmon

Whole Foods' Mackey sparks whole new controversy

The last time I wrote about Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, I was highly critical of his ill-advised posts to an investor chatboard, under the assumed name "rahodeb," that talked up Whole Foods' prospects and trashed Wild Oats, a competitor that Whole Foods would later attempt to take over (leading to questions of whether Mackey had deliberately tried to drive down the stock price of Wild Oats in advance of the take over). Mackey at first dismissed the controversy, then was pushed reluctantly into apologizing, while Whole Foods had launched an investigation into the matter and shut down Mackey's blog.

Two years later, Mackey is still CEO of Whole Foods. And he was back in the news, controversial in an entirely new way that has raised my respect for the man immensely.

In August, Mackey wrote a thoughtful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare," that I rate as the most intelligent and cogent proposal yet offered on reforming health-care in America. Mackey's plan focused on meaningful reforms to cut costs, which would enable coverage to be extended to the uninsured without added to the exploding national debt or expanding government bureaucracy.

The reaction from the left was swift and stunning. Progressives felt betrayed by a company that serves a customer base that undoubtedly leans toward the progressive (i.e, liberal) side of the political spectrum. How could Mackey speak out against health care reform as they have defined it?

As ABC News put it: "Many say Mackey was out of line to opine against the liberal base that has made his fortune possible."

The Whole Foods Boycott was launched on Facebook within days with this rationale: "Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives. Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods' anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities."

Pretty strong stuff. What ever happened to freedom of speech and the idea that truth emerges from the vigorous debate of opposing points of view in the marketplace of ideas?

From a brand-management stand-point, Mackey's high-profile opinions seem ill-advised. When a brand is closely connected to a lifestyle that tends to be synonymous with a certain world view, espousing an alternative world view can be expected to rile customers and damage the brand. It isn't likely that conservatives will adopt Whole Foods as their grocery of choice, adopting an organic lifestyle in sympathy for Mackey's views on health care -- although according to the Christian Science Monitor, some are doing just that: "Conservatives have rallied to Mackey’s side, and members of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition are being urged to flood the parking lots and aisles of their local Whole Foods store and stage a 'buycott.'" I don't expect this counter-reaction to have much staying power.

Wholeboycott.com claims it registered 23,000 supporters in the week after the boycott was announced, and that Whole Foods' brand favorablility had taken a 10-point hit.

Mackey surely knew that his op-ed wouldn't sit well with progressives. Apparently he chose to voice his convictions on a politicized issue because he genuinely wanted to advance the debate and despite the ramifications. As an individual thought-leader, his principled stand is admirable -- and wholly unexpected given his prior rahodeb wackiness. But as the most prominent member of management of a company catering to a liberal clientele, his outspokenness does not advance the value of the brand and his shareholder bosses may want to shorten his leash.

*   *   *

The White House is making no effort to lower sky-high expectations for President Obama's speech on healthcare reform to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night. On the contrary, the speech is being billed as a critically important moment for Obama to take control of a debate (that has clearly gone off the tracks). It is classic Obama -- play to his undeniable strengths as an orator and use a highly visible speech to sort out a controversy. (Just as he responded to the ruckus over Reverend Wright last year during the campaign by delivering a forceful speech on race relations.) 

The format is almost perfect -- Obama is at his best delivering a momentous speech, addressing Congress showcases the President as the true leader of the nation, television captures it all, and there is no Q&A time for journalists or town hall attendees to ask difficult questions. Almost perfect, but not quite. Obama' won't be helped in his critical tak of winning over the hearts and minds of middle-of-the-road moderate America by the backdrop behind him: VP Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cheering him on. Biden is at best neutral but Pelosi is a powerfully negative personality to much of America, with one of the lowest approval ratings among national politicians.

- Jon Harmon