Posts Tagged ‘Associated Press’

Obama Takes Key Public Relations Steps In Tug Of War

Friday, May 17th, 2013
tug-of-war

The political tug of war between the Obama administration and Republicans has returned to its insane level of rhetoric that we remember prior to the November elections.

Some Republicans argue the administration misled the public about Benghazi to help ensure a victory in November. Some Democrats argue Republicans are making something out of nothing to tarnish Obama and Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential run in 2016.

Republicans want to know who knew what about the IRS. The administration also criticizes the IRS but points out the president does not run the agency.

And both sides of the aisle express unhappiness with subpoenas related to the Associated Press.

Some of the media seem to be complicit in a reality game show atmosphere, working side-by-side with politicians on whom can deliver the most sensational sound bites. These “scandals” raise some important discussions, but good grief. If only some politicians would work to solve our everyday problems with the same zeal that they try to call hearings and speak craziness into microphones.

For a moment, take off your political team’s bloodied uniform and acknowledge some of what’s really happening: In general, the administration wants to downplay any links to these issues as much as possible. On the other hand, some Republicans want to make these issues seem as dreadful as possible and portray the government as a stalker peaking through your bedroom window at night. Call it high stakes marketing far beyond the traditional press release. If some of these microphone huggers really wanted the truth, they would wait for their hearings to finish fleshing out the facts before demanding justice with their scary words.

The media are already analyzing how these current issues might impact Obama’s legacy without acknowledging our tug of war may likely have moved on to something new in six months. But Obama is taking some important steps for crisis communications:

  • He showed concern about the IRS issue by saying, “Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I’m angry about it.”
  • He took action by accepting the resignation of the top person of the IRS.
  • The White House released e-mails related to Benghazi.
  • He brought back legislation to help legally protect journalists.
  • He answered questions at a news conference.
  • He for the most part keeps his composure.
  • He asked Congress to help improve security at American embassies.

I’m not saying he’s right. I’m saying those are some of the moves you make when opponents say you’re wrong.

Of course, others might share examples pointing out the administration put itself in this PR mess in the first place. Fair enough. But these latest steps help the president reach his larger goal of refocusing attention to his agenda. He is building a dam against gushing water. But some water will always leak through. His critics also have public relations firms armed with strategies. Even if Obama registered tomorrow as a Republican and shouted “pretty please with a cherry on top,” critics know to share phrases such as:

  • “We demand more information.”
  • “We reject the apologies as insufficient.”
  • “This is politics at its worst.”
  • “He is not going far enough.”
  • “We are determined to get answers.”

So the tug of war continues with almost everyone landing in the mud. Some politicians hope to score points. The media hopes to improve ratings. Too much of the public is desperate for details that prove that the opposing party is truly the scum of the Earth.

And I, of course, write a blog, tired of grown-ups who can’t solve problems or controversies without acting like the sky is falling and it’s the other guy’s entire fault.

Politics And The Media: Is The Paul Ryan Pick Any More Important Than Preseason Football?

Tuesday, August 14th, 2012

 

Politics And The Media:  Is The Paul Ryan Pick Any More Important Than Preseason Football?

When your football team plays well during preseason and a rookie quarterback shows promise, you almost can’t stop your optimism from rising. Then a football Grinch hauling a bag of stats and history reminds you of past Super Bowl champions which endured horrendous preseasons. Before you pick yourself back up, he slaps you down again, explaining the 2008 Detroit Lions went 4-0 in preseason, then finished 0-16 in the regular season.

Friends and experts remind us every year how preseason holds such little significance. And every preseason, if our teams win those practice games, we can’t help but believe the victories bring higher meaning.

Every four years, when a presidential candidate announces his VP pick, the media analyzes the choice until someone waves a new shiny object in front of their faces. In 2008, people first told us McCain handed Obama the election by selecting Sarah Palin. Then pundits indicated Palin might help launch McCain to victory after she fired up the convention and connected with plenty of regular people. Today, some argue Palin eventually lost McCain moderate votes. But I’ve heard no one state she outright cost McCain the election or led Obama to victory.

Even before Romney chose Paul Ryan, I joked on social media how history proves VP picks make all the difference in the world. When NBC News and the Associated Press the night before the official announcement reported Ryan’s selection, I prepared the question:  Will Paul Ryan make a significant impact on the election?

“No,” began the first response to me from a local attorney. “He doesn’t move the needle at all in this polarized electorate.”

Now wait one second! I hear Ryan proposes big ideas on reforming Medicare and those ideas may scare senior citizens, who I’ve always heard are one of the most dependable voting blocks. The lawyer responded, “Old people are not usually undecided.”

Then I talked on the phone with a friend who has worked on Democratic campaigns. My friend assumed Ryan would change the focus of the presidential race but stopped short of predicting he would actually change votes. Fine. Ryan brings different issues to the forefront. But I want to know if Ryan will change anyone’s mind. Bring in the political reporter:

“He will turn it from a referendum on Obama into an ideological contest with the Democrats,” the reporter told me. “I think this makes it easier for Obama to win. Ryan’s plan is simply too radical for the electorate. Ryan wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program. That is a bridge too far for most people.”

I asked, “So you think Ryan’s pick will change a significant amount of votes?”

“Yes,” he responded. “A turnoff to a lot of middle income people. And no Latino votes.”

Then I heard from a TV anchor:  ”Yes, he just locked up Florida for Obama.”

It sounds as if Paul Ryan may prove me wrong and play a significant role after all. Should I conclude VP picks don’t necessary help you win but they can certainly help you lose? Before I sign off on this, I want to hear from a PR consultant who is a Republican.

“He was almost forced to take Paul Ryan to fire up his conservative base,” he said. “The only impact I’m thinking he’ll have is he can swing some states in the Midwest.”

Swinging some states could be very significant in a close race. And what are we to believe about voters’ initial reactions to Ryan? A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows Ryan scores the lowest initial ratings from Americans of any vice presidential pick since Dan Quayle. On The Flip Side, Mitt Romney, after announcing his VP pick, took his biggest lead in the Gallup daily tracking poll (2 points.)

So let’s review. Ryan doesn’t move the needle at all. Ryan helps Obama win. He helps Obama win Florida. But he helps Romney win some Midwest states. Write all this down or capture a screen shot. I find these scenarios genuinely interesting. When the election is over, I’ll ask my same respected colleagues the question again. If Paul Ryan helped decide this election, then I will view VPs much differently and better understand why the media gets so hyped up about them. In the meantime, I need to watch a tape-delayed broadcast of my football team’s first preseason game. I understand our rookie quarterback played fairly well against second and third team defenses. I’m starting to wonder if we can make the playoffs.

SB1070: How The Media Faired Under A Full-Court Press Of Pressure

Monday, June 25th, 2012

SB1070:  How The Media Faired Under A Full-Court Press Of Pressure

A few months after arriving as a TV reporter in Phoenix, I was working the nightshift when the U.S. Supreme Court announced in the evening its decision on Bush v. Gore. Someone assigned me to do a newsroom live shot explaining one of the country’s biggest judicial decisions ever. I’m proud of my education, but I am not a legal scholar. I spent the first few months at the station covering crime and weather. My prior assignments there involved stories such as chasing dust storms or pointing live on TV to trees swaying in the weather. Those reports did not help prepare me for this story.

Before my live shot, I watched national correspondents discuss the ruling and read the AP wire. I needed to hear their insight to ensure I said something logical when I hit the air with my own assessment. I learned this:  The experts on the national level were even struggling to properly discern the court’s ruling on such short notice.

I once remember watching a reporter on national television fumbling through a court’s decision in her hands, trying to report its meaning before anyone gave her a chance to significantly look through it. The problem is this:  When the U.S. Supreme Court releases a landmark decision, few media outlets are going to report “The Court has released its decision. We will report that decision once we have a moment to make heads or tails of it.”  Media are eager to report the Court either upheld or struck down the law. And as the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s SB 1070 again reminded us, rulings are not sports games. Decisions don’t always offer a clear winner or loser.

I followed news of the decision on Twitter:

At 7:22am, A Tweet from The Associated Press stated the court “strikes down most of the crackdown on illegal immigrants.”

At 7:26am, the Los Angeles Times referred to it as a “split decision.”

At 7:27am, the BBC Tweeted the Court “upholds some” of the law.

At 7:30am, a local reporter wrote the Court “upholds key portion …”

At 8:30am, a Tweet from The New York Times’ stated “High Court Rejects Part of Arizona Immigration Law.”

You always can quibble with wording. Tweets using words such as “strikes down” and “rejects” probably led some of the law’s critics to believe the Court agreed with them. Tweets using the words “uphold” likely led some of the law’s supporters to assume the Court agreed with them. But overall, credit these media outlets, or in some cases these individual reporters, with realizing under strict deadlines that this decision is not a slam-dunk victory for either side. I’m sure someone can find examples of poor reporting I’m unaware of. But the rush to cover other big stories in the past has left behind bad examples of making factual or misleading mistakes in a quest to make the news first.

In this case, much of the media, in how they initially portrayed the ruling, appear to have made the right decision about the decision.

What do you think of that story’s reporting? Did you see errors I didn’t?

Media Training: Talk To Bloggers And Journalists Even If Your Hair Is Full Of Shampoo

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

Media Training: Talk To Bloggers And Journalists

 

  1. Pick up the phone:  My phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number and considered ignoring it. Was another financial expert calling to persuade me to allow him to manage my money after talking to him for only three minutes? I picked up the phone. A reporter was calling. He wanted to talk to people who were inspired to start their own businesses by the economy.
  2. Make time:  The journalist called as I was walking out the door. I could have explained I was busy. I didn’t. Cell phones have a cool feature:  They allow you to continue calls without a wire staying connected to the wall. Cell phones have speakerphones. You can drive somewhere, with caution, while continuing a conversation. My phone’s battery was running low. I could have told the journalist to call back. I didn’t. I gave him a new number to call. His battery was low, too, and he needed to call back in about 20 minutes. When I called people for interviews when I reported on TV, individuals and big companies gave me countless excuses on why they couldn’t talk to me. (My favorite excuse was how bringing a camera in their store would disrupt customers.) Make yourself available. If people told me they didn’t have time to talk to me for a news story, I moved on to the next business to interview. I was on a deadline. I didn’t have time to wait and make myself convenient for someone’s schedule. If you want media attention, re-arrange your schedule. Do some quick thinking. Don’t miss an opportunity.
  3. Leave the shampoo in your hair:  When the reporter called back later, I was in the shower, my hair full of shampoo. I turned off the water, left the shampoo in my hair and wiped the suds away from my forehead so they didn’t drip into my eyes or onto the cell phone while I tried to put together coherent sentences. I didn’t tell the reporter to call back. He was on a deadline.
  4. Be open:  I didn’t fully enjoy my last two years as a TV reporter. The environment and the job were no longer for me. I didn’t sugarcoat this. Anyone can draw a pretty picture. PR pros and CEOs shoveled a lot of BS my way when I asked questions. Be transparent on why you made the decisions you made. Being honest makes you real. Being real makes you more interesting.
  5. Be personable:  Some people are very guarded when talking to bloggers or journalists. They sound more like robots than humans. Be personable. I talked to this journalist about his family. We discussed issues important to us. We talked about journalism. I learned he once lived in the same city as Loren. I found out he once lived near where I grew up. Again, be real.
  6. Don’t ignore small media:  The journalist may have interviewed me for a story so small, readers may need a magnifying glass. I don’t care. When I was a TV journalist, I sometimes covered great stories I found in smaller publications. You may see a story yourself the first time on the network news or written by the Associated Press, but sometimes those reports were first covered by journalists in smaller markets. And small blogs, publications or media outlets all have loyal readers, viewers and listeners. You’re not too big for small media … even if your hair is full of shampoo.

Twitter is more than just a tease

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

photoThese Tweets are common from the media:

“Tonight on [station name].” That line is followed by a tease to get you to watch or listen to an upcoming newscast. The Tweet ends with “Plus video you have to see!”

If a Tweet successfully persuades you to watch a newscast or visit a website, that might add to a media outlet’s ratings or clicks. That, in turn, is good for the bottom line. And that opens up an interesting debate.

Is social media simply another sales tool to drive you to a more traditional-type website, newscast, or in the case of business, brick and mortar store? Or should something such as Twitter offer people real, tangible information that benefits without needing to click a link or pick up the remote?

Keith is experimenting with this concept. Recently, he has more often used Twitter and Facebook to provide information on breaking news and possible investigations. His followers don’t need to click on anything to understand what’s going on (unless they wish to see a picture or video from the scene.). His followers don’t need to wait until the 5pm news to get the gist of what he’s talking about or the answer to a tease. He’s almost functioning as a small (a very small) version of the Associated Press. He’s his own newsroom. This is in contrast to acting like a promotions or sales department.

Whether it’s a reporter like Keith or a small business, the goal of providing real information without the selling aspect is to establish a relationship or connection that ultimately helps the bottom line. You’re thinking long term. You’re not thinking short-term satisfaction.

As always, the answer to this debate is probably somewhere in the middle. Maybe a mix of both techniques is the way to go. But I feel safe to say Twitter is more than just a tease.

Subscribe via email to our blog, join us on Facebook & follow us on Twitter.