Force For Good Communications

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

Media look for simple angles in crisis coverage

When media are in a rush to deadline (and when aren't they?), journalists look to simplify complex situations. In a crisis, news media will look to industry "experts" for a quick read on causes and trends and quickly settle on the angle that becomes the prevailing media archetype for that tragedy..

Let's look at a number of recent tragedies involving aircraft:

• The "Miracle in the Hudson", the emergency "landing" of a US Air Airbus this past January in the chilly Hudson River -- attention focused on the phenomenon of bird-strikes. (Another subtext that quickly emerged in this tragedy averted -- pilot as hero).
• A month later, coverage of the crash of a Continental Connection regional jet near Buffalo, N.Y. at first focused on pilot fatigue and then narrowed to a focus on under-paid pilots flying regional carriers' jets, including subsequent Federal NTSB hearings.

• The disappearance over the Atlantic June 1 of an Air France Airbus created a frenzy of speculation that faulty air speed monitors might have been at fault. Carriers rushed to inspect and replace air speed monitors on their Airbus jets.
• The latest air tragedy involving a helicopter and small plane at low altitude over the Hudson has focused attention on the crowded airspace above Manhattan and other places served by sight-seeing helicopters and small aircraft.

Once conventional media wisdom has settled on the angle to be explored, questions will begin to ask "what did you know and when did you know it," as in the Air France tragedy. The facts are by no means all in, but coverage has centered on a single angle for several days and viewers and readers are getting bored. So media turn to question executives at the company in the middle of the tragedy who surely knew about the "problem" much earlier and should have taken action to avoid the accident. (I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this case, so I'm not making any judgments about how Air France execs acted or should have acted. But it's a lesson learned that media will jump in with tough questions for management long before the dust has settled.) 

In an emerging crisis, identify possible lines of inquiry journalists may pursue as they scramble to find the angle that fits your situation. Connect with experts inside the company who may understand causal factors behind the crisis. Working with authorities as appropriate, help steer media away from angles that clearly are red herrings.

But be careful not to speak definitively until the facts are really known. Again and again, this trips up crisis managers -- remember: Much of what you know to be true in the first hours of a crisis will turn out to be untrue. Stay calm and stay on message even as journalists press for confirmation of the simple angle that neatly characterizes your messy situation.

- Jon Harmon

Avoiding a choice between the lesser of two evils; communicating 'in the gray'

We like things simple. Black and white. But few issues that matter are so cut and dry.

Successful issue management often calls for the difficult task of communicating "in the gray."

In a corporate environment, we too often clam up in the midst of uncertain times. Lawyers caution against comment and risk-adverse leaders are all-too happy to take the advice to the extreme. A skillful leader will win trust and boost the confidence -- of employees, investors and other stakeholders -- by providing some measure of the challenges being faced and the relative prospects for success in the future. Avoiding hollow promises or insincere platitudes, the leader gives stakeholders a sense of just how serious the issue is and his/her relative confidence in a positive resolution, emphasizing what needs to be done immediately to move the ball forward. Constituents understand and forgive the lack of specifics if the leader has built up good will in the past with candid and accurate communication.

That's what it means to communicate "in the gray."

Media relations in such an environment can be even trickier. The mass media gravitate to simple "archetypes" or story lines. When a villain is readily apparent, media will naturally assume the competing person (or idea) is virtuous.

Life is often more complex than that. World events in the news show the difficulty of choosing between the ready-made alternatives:

• The recent election in Iran was almost certainly rigged. Peaceful protesters there call for international support against a repressive regime. But the Obama Administration has rightly been cautious in its response, even in its somewhat more vocal condemnations more than a week after the election, not wanting to provide credence to accusations of U.S. interference in Iranian affairs. Nuance is seldom cheered, and Obama continues to draw criticism for not taking a harder stance. Further complicating the issue is the unhappy choice between the two top candidates. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is clearly an enemy of peace and freedom, but the leading opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi is no true reformer -- despite the inclination for many in the Western media to brand him a "moderate." Obama has wisely steered away from showing any support for Moussavi.
  .
  
• Strangely, the Obama Administration has shown no such reluctance to choose sides in another messy conflict, decrying the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya from power in Honduras. But Zelaya's actions that led up to his ouster -- moving to alter the country's constitution to increase his power and to strangle any opposition -- disqualify him for membership in the archetype of duly-elected Democratic leaders overthrown by a revolutionary coup d'etat. In fact, the Honduras Supreme Court had ordered the military to remove Zelaya for his unlawful actions. 

Corporate life can be messy, too. Constituents who find one course of action particularly unappealing will seek a quick and simple alternative. When there is no easy solution, no clear-cut winning move, don't fall into the trap of endorsing the lesser of two evils. Treat your constituents as adults. Talk about the unpleasant situation without promising an easy fix. Often that means the company itself must act as a game-changer to rise above the flawed choices that appear to be the only alternatives.

- Jon Harmon

Swine flu takes a bite out of pork industry: perception, reality and "efficient markets" myth

The pork industry is desperate for politicians and the media to quit referencing "swine flu." But A-H1N1 doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it?

The World Health Organization, the Food Standards Agency and other authoritative agencies the world over continue to tell the public that this strain of flu is not spread by the consumption of infected pork. But pork sales, and the stock prices of pork sellers such as Smithfield Foods, are down sharply.

It's not hard to see why the public isn't taking any chances with the "other white meat." The media has, of course, clamped onto the storyline of the swine flu outbreak as a deadly menace of potentially Biblical proportions, often invoking the memory of the global flu pandemic of 1918 that killed tens of millions worldwide. Of course, medicine has advanced a bit since then..

(Meanwhile, countries such as Russia and China, have used the scare to enact protectionist trade barriers to North American pork exports. Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh comrade?)

So while the reality is that pork is safe, the widespread perception is that pork is best avoided, at least until the flu scare passes. This is not a trivial distinction. Perception drives consumer behavior.

There are still those on Wall Street (and perhaps your IR department?) who cling to the notion of the "efficient market." Press coverage, good or bad, according to this theory does not affect stock prices because the stock market is super-efficient at sorting through hype and nonsense, driven only by the facts, ma'am. Proponents of the efficient market theory look down their noses on media relations practitioners' quaint fascination with positive story placement and the moderation of negative stories. "It doesn't matter," the old-school IR types sneer, "the market is efficient."

Even if you still believe that Wall Street is all-knowing (an absurdity in post-meltdown 2009, if you ask me), you still have to concede that financial markets must respond to changes in consumer demand. Consumers are bombarded with far more information than they can process so they often make decisions based on superficial impressions and perceptions. Perceptions drive consumer behavior.

So yes, it's incredibly important that a corporation's messages be succinct, clear and memorable. That's true when you are brand-building and it's even more true when you are defending a brand in a time of crisis.

- Jon Harmon

Future of journalism? With newsrooms shedding jobs, where are j-school grads going to work?

The lasting effects of the credit crisis-fueled recession are widely over-stated. Too often pundits and others with a microphone (or mouse-pad) extrapolate conditions from the past quarter or two into the infinite future. In most cases, they will be proven wrong when they say that changes in behavior are permanent.

Time magazine's cover story, "the New Frugality," argues that tough times are changing forever the way Americans spend and save. We'll see. It's a little too early to say just yet. Remember in early March when we were told by every financial authority that stock-market dynamics had changed for good and that we should get used to lower annual returns when the bull market returns -- and don't expect to recover losses for 10-12 years? Six weeks later the S&P 500 is up 25% from the March 9 low. (But don't take that as a sign that big returns are back for good, either. This morning, a big selloff is sweeping the market. That could change by this afternoon ... or signal the Bear is back, maybe even for a whole week or more.)

The change you CAN believe in are fundamental shifts that were already underway Before the Fall of Lehman Brothers (BFLB). The auto industry, for example, was dealing with over-capacity, high commodity prices and other increasing costs including massive legacy health care obligations. The twin blows of very sharp spikes in fuel prices last summer followed by the liquidity crisis knocked the wheels off the auto companies -- and then the recession spread and sales really dried up. The result is a tremendous acceleration of change throughout the industry. And, this we can be certain of, the auto industry ISN"T going back to BFLB.

Another trend that the recession has accelerated is the demise of the newspaper. Craig's List and similar sites had already taken away the lion's share of a newspaper's most dependable revenue -- classified advertising. Circulation numbers were already in free-fall. But then the recession led to wide-spread cuts in corporate advertising dollars that have devastated display ad revenues, along with further reductions in subscriptions brought on by consumer's "new frugality."

In 2008 alone, 15% of newspaper newsroom jobs were eliminated, according to the NY Times in "J-Schools Play Catch-Up." The article details how journalism schools have added courses on the future of journalism in the Internet age including how-to courses such as "Multi-Media Story-telling." (Not sure what took so long. Force for Good readers will recall "Next Practices: Story-telling Wins Out," from March 2007).

The J-school's new-found emphasis on the future is long-overdue. Enrollment numbers continue to be strong at most university j-schools; many show increased enrollment since the economic clouds rolled in. Where are all those j-school grads going to work?

The next generation of grads are going to have to help find new solutions -- both in monetizing on-line news sites of major news organizations and in creating new outlets for professional journalists. And time is running short.

The future of news media is uncertain, to say the least. But, safe to say, it is never going back to the old way.

- Jon Harmon

Rhetoric of pompous certitude: "You don't get it."

As promised in my last post, some thoughts on the concept of "getting it" ...

Several jobs ago I worked for a corporate vice president who would sometimes suddenly end a discussion with subordinates by disdainfully declaring: "You don't get it!"

It was the ultimate put-down and one you couldn't argue against. If you didn't get it, what use were you?

Of course, there is no official arbiter of what it is exactly that we are to "get." So it is by the very act of shouting out the fact that we "get it" and others "don't get it" that demonstrates our moral or intellectual superiority.

Not a great system to determine right from wrong, if you ask me.

There appears to have been a dramatic uptick in the use of the various forms of "getting it." People from both ends of the political spectrum are quick to declare that they "get it" and those who oppose them don't. Four examples come quickly to mind:

• Populist appeal, political variety -- While campaigning for President, Barack Obama would often declare that John McCain "doesn't get it." More recently, in his speech to Congress Feb. 24, Obama stated: "So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you -- I get it."
  
• Populist appeal, commercial variety -- Saturn, the car brand, began running ads a couple of months ago with the tag line "At Saturn, we get it." A few weeks later, the Obama Administration sacked GM Chairman Rick Waggoner, because Waggoner wasn't acting with enough urgency to restructure the mammoth auto company that has been on the life support of billions in loans from us taxpayers. Wagonner's successor immediately announced an accelerated and more aggressive shake-up of GM, including the termination of the Saturn brand, proving that the only thing that Saturn (and Wagonner) got was the ax.
• There is only one side of the argument that counts -- A coalition of evangelical Christians and conservative influentials have banded together to launch "WeGetIt.org" dedicated to subservience to God and a deeply skeptical attitude toward claims of global warming. Obviously, this rhetoric is directed at Al Gore who famously dismisses criticism of global warming claims by saying: "The debate is over."
  
• Your side is wrong because you don't get it -- Fox TV's military analyst David Hunt's book They Just Don't Get It promises "The truth about what we can and must do to protect ourselves." The book's title takes clear aim at liberal media elites everywhere.

There are no shortage of other examples. All this self-righteous certitiude has gotten rather tedious. Get it?

- Jon Harmon

Liberal Media Bias Is Real

Sometimes liberal bias in the mass media is so blatant it needs to be called out. An AP story from last weekend followed up on an allegation first reported in the Washington Times along with a caveat meant to impugn the credibility of that news organization:

The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, reported Friday that Obama told Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in June that an agreement between the United States and the leaders to allow U.S. troops to stay in the country after 2008 should not go into effect unless it had congressional approval.

Later in the same wire story, other news organizations are referenced without disclaimer:

The Obama campaign has repeatedly said that the Illinois Democrat repudiates the Weather Underground's activities. … Many news organizations -- including The New York Times and The Washington Post -- have found that the association between the two men was not close.

How is this fair and impartial reporting?  Shouldn’t this have read: “…The New York Times and The Washington Post, two liberal newspapers…”

- Jon Harmon

Whole Foods Launches Investigation, Puts Hold On Mackey's Blog ... and Then Mackey Apologizes

Hopefully last in an impromptu series ...

Latest developments in the saga of John Mackey, CEO (at least for now) of Whole Foods, and his ill-advised seven years of using an alias in thousands of postings touting himself and his company (and taking countless shots at his smaller competitor, Wild Oats, before he launched a take-over attempt of the same company) on a Yahoo! chat-board for stock investors:

• Whole Foods Board of Directors finally reacts to growing pressure and appoints an independent committee to look into the matter. (Actually, the press release calls it an "independent internal investigation." That oxymoron implies the committee's work is window-dressing while the Board waits to see how hot this is all going to get.) The Board action follows the SEC opening its own investigation, which clearly will be the investigation to watch.
• Whole Foods shuts down Mackey's blog in which he has for months been sharply attacking the FTC as it acted to block the take-over, er I mean merger, with Wild Oats. Mackey also used the blog as a forum to tout himself as the paragon of transparency -- with no irony intended, as long as his secret identity as "rahodeb" went unrevealed.
• Mackey issues terse, reluctant apology.

Although media and blog criticism was remarkably muted at first, as I noted last Friday, Mackey's ethical transgressions were too great to be dismissed as a prank.

What more is there to say?

- Jon Harmon

Had Mackey Worked For Wild Oats, Would His "rahodeb" Postings Have Violated Ethics Policy?

Update to the John "rahodeb" Mackey story ...

I noted on my previous post that I have tried to contact the media relations people at both Whole Foods and Wild Oats for comment. Wild Oats was first to respond.

Wild Oats still supports the proposed "merger" of the two companies, says Sonja Tuitele, senior director - Corporate Communications & Investor Relations for Wild Oats. She also noted that her company has an ethics policy prohibiting unauthorized statements about the company to external audiences, including the Internet.

(While Mackey clearly was authorized to speak to media and other external audiences about his company, did anyone at Whole Foods know about his thousands of chatroom postings under the psuedonym "rahodeb?" We'll have to wait to see if we hear from Whole Foods.)

While Tuitele's responses were quite guarded, as one might expect, I applaud her quick response and include the full text of our e-mail interview below:

• Does Wild Oats have an ethics policy regarding company officers engaging in conversations with investors on chatrooms using an alias? and specifically regarding posts speculating about future company stock prices as well as denigrating another company that would later become a take-over target?

We have a policy that prohibits any employee from making any statements about the company to external audiences unless otherwise authorized. This policy does include Internet and blog postings.

• What is Wild Oats' company position regarding John Mackey's Yahoo! postings over the past several years denigrating Wild Oats as a company and calling its stock price over-valued?

We don’t respond to individual web postings about our Company or our stock and believe this is one person’s opinion. We, therefore, don’t have a comment here.

• What was the reaction of Wild Oats' senior management upon learning of the rahodeb postings?

I can’t speculate what senior management was thinking when they learned of this activity.

• Does Wild Oats still support the "merger" of the two companies?

Yes, we believe that the merger continues to be in the best interest for Wild Oats and all of our stakeholders.

• How have you addressed your stockholders' concerns about this matter since the story broke last week?

We’ve reassured them that we still believe the merger is in the best interest of the company and all our stakeholders if it does go through. We also share our strategies as a stand-alone business and the progress we’ve made toward driving improved business results over the last 9 months.

• When will Wild Oats address this issue with a statement on its investor website recognizing that it must surely be the hottest topic on your shareholders' (and employees') minds lately?

We do not believe it is our place to respond with a statement about another company’s CEO’s web postings.  Therefore, we will not be posting a statement on the IR section of our website.

Wacky Mackey Epitomizes Another Media Archetype

Journalists and editors aren't immune to prejudice, of course, and stories written to prevailing media archetypes are the result. Previously I've written about the "David and Goliath" archetype in which the perceived "little guy" is given a free pass on any journalistic scrutiny in his battle against the big, "evil empire" (which may just happen to be the company you represent).

In my previous post, I wrote about the seven-years of anonymous stock investor chatroom rants  by John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, praising his own company and panning the stock of a smaller, rival company that would just happen to become his take-over target. I described the archetypal blinders that seemed to be restraining both mass media and bloggers from going after Mackey (left) with the fury that surely would have been unleashed if, say, the CEO of Exxon or Wal-mart had done the anonymous postings praising himself and putting down a smaller rival in advance of a hostile take-over. As a "good company" committed to social responsibility, Whole Foods earns a lighter treatment than other corporations might. Companies that do the right thing often do earn at least a temporary benefit of the doubt but should not abuse that right. Whole Foods' Board of Directors should act quickly to investigate Mackey's behavior separate from ongoing FTC and SEC investigations. Even if the government agencies decide that his actions were not technically illegal, the company's board should hold Mackey to a higher standard consistent with the high ideals portrayed by Whole Foods.

Back to the media and blog analysis. This Mackey matter illustrates two other media archetypes to consider: "laissez faire" and "wacky Internet Age genius."

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal opines that the SEC shouldn't unleash its legion of ambitious "27-year-old lawyers" investigating what the WSJ sees as innocuous actions by Mackey. This "laissez faire" archetype holds that government regulators should back off interfering with business practices as long as they aren't demonstrably criminal. This archetype is only prevalent in the libertarian press, however, so don't expect blanket exemption from scrutiny if your company strays from the straight and narrow.

The other archetype is a newer one, that of the wacky Internet Age entrepreneur. His or her maverick behavior is excused as part of some mythic genius. We certainly see this archetype played out in much of the "what's-the-big-deal?" blog coverage of the Mackey musings, like this and this.

But being a unique character will only buy you so much slack. As the FTC and SEC continue their investigations, and maybe even the Whole Foods' Board shows a little backbone, Mackey's actions ultimately will be judged against the same ethical standards any publicly traded company face.

It is interesting to look at the coverage today vs. last Friday when the story first broke. Media now are taking a deeper cut, focusing on the SEC investigation and the blogs now are leaning decidedly against Mackey's behavior, such as this one.

Note: I have sought comment on this matter from both Whole Foods and from Wild Oats and will update the Force for Good blog if they respond.

- Jon Harmon