Helen Thomas – Oh Dear. What Did She Say?

Just over a week ago, we  heard the bombshell announcement that the “Dean of the White House Press Corps” had suddenly retired.

Famous for asking tough questions, Helen Thomas found herself unable to answer one without severely tarnishing a reputation spanning 67 years and 10 U.S. presidents. Her declaration to Rabbi David Nesenoff that the Jewish people should “Get the hell out of Palestine” and return to Germany, Poland or America  hit the internet and set off a firestorm she obviously felt her career couldn’t withstand. Executives at Hearst Newspapers agreed, despite  having employed her as an opinion columnist. The talent agency Nine Speakers Inc. dropped her as a client. Craig Crawford who co-authored Thomas’s book Listen Up Mr. President says he will no longer work with her.

Thomas’s exchange with Nesenoff occurred at the White House’s Jewish Heritage Celebration Day event . Nesenoff was there, video-camera in hand, ready to chat with attendees about their views on Israel. Whatever our personal feelings about  her comments, I now wonder how the incident informs our work as public relations practitioners. What do we tell executives, organizational leaders and other spokespeople? What’s the best advice to public figures who navigate a world in which their words can come back to them in a thousand different directions and NOTHING is truly off the record? I put those questions to  public relations professionals on LinkedIn. Here are a few of their responses:

“Always, always conduct yourself in every conversation as if there is a tape recorder, blogger or journalist in the room. You can speak your mind, but know that there will be consequences…” – Mark Campbell

She of all people should know that none of her remarks while talking to someone with a microphone are off the record. – Charlotte Tomic

“The Helen Thomas debacle certainly touches the PR world because her employer had to deal with the fallout from her anti-Jewish comments.” – Jeff Siegel

Helen may have fallen victim to two major flaws: believing she was bullet-proof due to her legendary and beloved status … and perhaps a skewed sense that age entitled her to say whatever she chose to with impunity. – Elizabeth Flynn

Ms. Thomas has, of course, apologized for her remarks, saying “They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect … “  Still, many agree her mea culpa is too little, too late.  

Washington insiders and other observers claim to have been aware of  Thomas’s views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for years. I strongly suspect that she’d often expressed the same sentiments she revealed to Rabbi Nesenoff. In a perfect world,  public figures of all stripes would  be ready to give proper, well-reasoned and authentic answers to tough questions. They’d be able to do so at any time, without damaging themselves or their organizations.  Back home in reality, we won’t always achieve perfection with the  people we train or advise, but we should give it our best shot. The 21st century media landscape is too varied and complex to do otherwise. The notion that an individual’s spoken words are confined to a specific time, place or intent is dead. YouTube killed it.

The Power of Words

A friend of mine is reading John Grisham’s bestselling novel The Appeal. It describes a powerful, special interest group’s effort to buy an elected judge. Grisham spoke frankly about his assessment of the “real life” potential for this scenario while promoting the book in 2008.  The central theme is disturbing enough, but it’s not the only part of the plot that can keep you awake nights. My personal favorite is the characterization of a shadowy, PR firm that uses its considerable resources to shape the political environment in favor of a particular candidate.  No price tag is too high, no message is too inflammatory and no image is too deceptive to use in placing their man on the bench.

My friend and I recently traded thoughts on The Appeal.  Our conversation, news reports about the high anxiety among average Americans and the Oklahoma City Bombing anniversary leads me to reflect once again on the power of words. They do have power, tremendous power. Whether we are wordsmiths, pundits or politicians; those of us who stake our careers on communication can’t simply embrace that premise when it suits us and reject it when it doesn’t. How often do we use words and images to appeal to our audience’s most unflattering instincts; then try to disown those messages when someone takes it all too far? Psychiatric “profilers” tell us Timothy McVeigh was motivated, at least in part, by the same over-the-top, distorted, anger-filled rhetoric that seems to galvanize many people today.

I spent much of my TV news career listening to a constant drum beat from consultants. “Know your viewers. What’s in the story for them?” ”Will it grab their attention?” “Does it scare them?” ”Will it p&%s them off?”  The more of those questions we answered in the affirmative, the better. “Why should they care?” asked the consultants,  ”You have to make them care.” 

Please don’t misunderstand. I think “audience-benefit” is and should be the hallmark of effective communication. But I also believe that in our efforts to “make them care,” we too often fail to be careful.

A Crisis Conundrum

 

It’s happened again!

I write that first line with a chuckle because it’s one of many clichés news managers tried their best to pound out of me and other young reporters early in my TV news career. But today the well-worn phrase simply  fits. I’m once again stunned by a major organization’s inability to carry out  a proactive, crisis communications strategy. Of course, the latest disaster involves Toyota.

It’s the floor mats or the gas pedals or something … we think. Despite having  a large multi-level, multi-national corporate communications office; Toyota has been unable to get its story straight since the trouble first surfaced around 2005. As with other high-profile PR blunders, the most powerful impulse seems to have been “duck, deny and deflect.”  Now amid a rising tide of driver complaints, a U.S. government-led investigation and more than a dozen fatal crashes linked to the defect, Toyota executives struggle to reassure their  customers and dealers. Their most recent efforts include a statement U.S.-based  executive James Lentz III read from a sheet of paper on the Today Show (he had a teleprompter), a brief, cringe-worthy interview between Lentz and ABC News correspondent Brian Ross and finally a hastily planned news conference in which Toyota President Akio Toyoda offered another seemingly sincere, but awkward apology. According to the New York Times, Mr. Toyoda had previously delegated  the task of reassuring American customers to the company’s U.S. sales arm. The sales guy? Seriously?

The world’s largest automaker is now reeling from a battered reputation and its stock is heading south. PR professionals are watching this all play out with particular interest. They trace the problem to everything from the possible absence of a formal crisis communications strategy, to panicky lawyers, to a Japanese cultural practice that seeks to save face at all costs. I suspect the situation might also show a basic lack of respect for PR/Communications as a business function. I’m curious about few things. What did Toyota’s communications executives know about the size of the problem and when did they know it? Were they in the C-suite working to formulate decisions about the automaker’s response and design ways to articulate that response to millions of  customers who deserve clarity and honesty? If not, why not?

The irony is that  those executives are now expected to clean up this mess. The boss seems to think they need a little help.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Toyota has hired THREE  public relations and public-strategy firms to “beef up” its team.

Relationship Matters

Is Haiti a passing fad?

In the midst of all the suffering in Haiti, it’s a jarring question that reveals some uncomfortable truths. A recent article by CNNMoney.com reports donations to earthquake relief efforts are already slowing down. The American Red Cross says  donations supporting its work in Haiti have dropped 50% since last week.  Pundits blame ”disaster fatigue” and our struggling economy for the trend. But I think it also raises an interesting question for professional communicators.  How do you keep your organization’s message from becoming a flash in the pan? 

Keeping the “relationship”  in public relations is perhaps the place to start.  Communications technology has changed dramatically, but the basic principles have not.  The time-tested questions ask … who is our audience? What are their values? How do we reach them most effectively? But there are more questions to answer as well.  How do we make it easy for them to  talk back to us? How do we inspire them to act? What  can they teach us about our mission? Gone are the days of preaching to the nameless, faceless masses.  

I admire Susan G. Komen for the Cure for a few reasons,  but especially its communications juggernaut. When it comes to breast cancer in particular, and arguably women’s health in general; Komen has owned the message for nearly 28 years. Komen touched hearts and spurred action long before Facebook or Twitter existed. Ask anyone on the street to name the #1 killer of women and eight out of ten people will say breast cancer. It’s a constant source of frustration for the American Heart Association, because  heart disease actually kills more women each year than breast cancer. But Komen spent years cultivating relationships from the community level to A-List celebrities and politicians. The American Heart Association has managed to gain a lot of ground in the last several years by engaging a big audience with its  ”Go Red for Women” campaign.

Building relationships takes time, commitment and creativity. Your audience expects  to feel like vital part of your mission. If you don’t make them feel that way, someone else surely will.

The Worst of Mark McGwire

 

A public relations colleague recently posted a “tweet” inviting her followers to choose the best or worst quote uttered by Mark McGwire during his testimony at the widely reported  hearing on steroid use in Major League Baseball,  conducted in 2005 by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform. So here goes.

 @KarlynLothery – The worst quote … “Well Sir, I’m not here to talk about the past. I’m here to talk about the positive and not the negative.” 

The comment irritated me then and irritates me now. McGwire sounded more than a little bit evasive and arrogant, as if he was somehow entitled to dictate the terms of his testimony before a United States Congressional Committee.  I realize he felt he had some personal and professional interests to protect, but he only succeeded in postponing the inevitable. This sounds obvious in light of McGwire’s recent revelation, but he would have done everyone a big favor by using his testimony as an opportunity to admit his use of performance-enhancing drugs, condemn their use by any athlete  and offer a sincere apology. What an unexpected, blockbuster that would have been!

Now McGuire is trying to convince us that although he used steroids as a big league hitter, they didn’t help him capture of the home run crown previously held by Roger Maris. Evasion, Denial and Minimization  … the three-headed monster of wrong-headed, crisis communication. For elected leaders, big-time athletes and corporate executives, the message at this point should be crystal clear. When things are already as bad as you can possibly imagine, just telling the truth will never make them worse.

Don’t believe me?  Ask Tiger Woods.