Should You “Get Approval” For Tweets During A Crisis?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on September 7, 2014 – 9:40 pm

By now, you may have heard about the controversial tweets Cee Lo Green—the Grammy Award-winning singer and former host of NBC’s The Voice—sent after pleading no contest late last month to a disturbing charge leveled against him.

According to MTV, Green “entered a plea of no contest for the felony count of furnishing a controlled substance of MDMA/ecstasy to a woman without her awareness during a dinner in 2012.” MTV’s report continues:

According to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, Green slipped the drug to a 33-year-old woman while the two were at a restaurant…the woman, who hasn’t been named, alleged that she woke up to find herself naked in bed with Green in her hotel room.”

Cee Lo Green

Green would have had enough of a challenge restoring his reputation after pleading no contest to drugging a woman and being accused of rape. 

But the tweets he sent last week—particularly the one below that Green quickly deleted but other Twitter users shared—turned a tough crisis management issue into a career-threatening one:

Cee Lo Raped Remember

 

In this tweet captured by BuzzFeed, Green reinforced that view, appearing to suggest that a woman who is drugged cannot, by definition, be raped.

Cee Lo Green Rape Tweets

 

Green later apologized, but in a manner that tried to distance himself from his words (the comments weren’t “attributed” to him—he made them).

Cee Lo Apology

Green has paid a heavy price since this controversy erupted. His reality show on TBS, The Good Life, was canceled. He was also removed from the lineup at a Louisiana music festival and from another concert sponsored by the U.S. Navy.

All of that gets me back to the headline of this post, which asks this question: Should you “get approval” before tweeting or posting to social media when you’re immersed in a crisis?

By approval, I don’t mean that you have to obtain approval from some central authority, but rather that you form a voluntary agreement between yourself and someone else—a manager, an agent, a spouse, a trusted business partner—that you won’t post anything on social media until you receive and consider their feedback.

Had Green done that, any manager, agent, or partner should have had the sense to tell him to sign off and walk away for a while. Instead, he tweeted in the heat of emotion, when his rational brain didn’t prevent him from compounding his original acts of terrible judgment.

My suggestion for those who find themselves in crisis mode? Don’t post anything to social media without seeking the opinion of a trusted ally first.

Cee Lo doesn’t have to listen to me. It’s just too bad he didn’t listen to his own lyrics from his hit song “Crazy”: “Think twice, that’s my only advice.”

 Like the blog? Read the book! The Media Training Bible: 101 Things You Absolutely, Positively Need to Know Before Your Next Interview is available in paperback, for Kindle, and iPad.

 

 


Tags: , ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 5 Comments »

Bad PR: A “Fun” Pitch For “National Beheading Day”

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on September 4, 2014 – 5:07 am

The Islamic militant group ISIS released a video on Tuesday showing the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff.

At about the same moment, a PR team representing the Fox television show Sleepy Hollow sent out a media pitch promoting the impending release of the program’s first season on DVD.

The media pitch, as captured by the excellent media website JimRomenesko.com, is below.

Headless Day Two

From: JJ Mariani (sleepyhollowdvd@thinkjam.com)
Date: Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:49 PM
Subject: Sleepyheads Celebrate Headless Day – eCards Available

Hi –

Heads will roll as sleepyheads celebrate Headless Day today, September 2. On this National Beheading Day, viewers everywhere can share in the fun as fans prepare for the release of Sleepy Hollow: Season One on Digital HD now and arriving on Blu-ray and DVD September 16.

We hope you like them and are able to share them with your readers! If you share via your social media platforms, please tag them with #HeadlessDay!

Just 90 minutes later—after realizing their bad timing—the PR team sent an apology:

Dear journalists,

We apologize for the unfortunate timing of our Sleepy Hollow Headless Day announcement. The tragic news of Steven Sotloff’s death hit the web as the email was being sent.

Our deepest sympathies are with him and his family, and we don’t take the news lightly.

Had we have known this information prior, we would have never released the alert and realize it’s in poor taste.

Please accept our sincerest apologies.

Best,
Sleepy Hollow Team

Headless Day One

Read that apology again. The Sleepy Hollow PR team is blaming the incident on bad timing—how could we have known an American journalist would be slain at about the same moment we clicked the “send” button?

But claiming to be a victim of bad timing is laughably false. Days before Mr. Sotloff’s execution, his mother released a highly publicized anguished plea to spare her son from being beheaded, as ISIS had warned he would be. And just two weeks ago, American journalist James Foley was also beheaded by ISIS, cause enough for this ad campaign to have been jettisoned.

It’s possible that the PR team wasn’t up on the news and wasn’t aware of these beheadings. But even if that’s the case—and I suspect I’m giving them and the executives who approved these ads far too much credit—anyone dealing with such gruesome material should, at the very least, have done a quick Google search before hitting send.

The PR team apologized for the wrong thing. They weren’t victims of bad timing but of their own terrible judgment. And until they acknowledge that, their apology accomplishes nothing.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

 


Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 2 Comments »

A Perfect Example Of A Great Press Conference

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on September 2, 2014 – 12:02 am

Last week, an audio technician for the television program Cops was killed by friendly fire while filming a robbery at a Wendy’s in Omaha, Nebraska. 

The Omaha police chief, Todd Schmaderer, delivered an almost perfect press conference—one that stands in marked contrast to the shameful media interactions in Ferguson, Missouri—that should be studied by PR professionals as a terrific example of how to communicate in crisis.

PR pro Dave Statter, who writes the excellent STATter911 blog (and wrote about this story first), called this “one of the most effective and timely presentations following a police involved shooting I’ve witnessed.” He’s right.

Chief Schmaderer did many things right in this press conference. Below, you’ll find the five things that stood out to me most.

 

1. He Struck The Perfect Emotional Tone

Chief Schmaderer spoke in human terms throughout the press conference, saying, “It’s as if we lost one of our own…the tears and the hugs that I got when I got to the hospital, I could feel the pain of the officers.”

When asked whether he regretted his decision to allow Cops to film in Omaha, he gave a genuinely reflective answer, one that indicated that he had spent some time agonizing about that question:  “Personally, I’ll have to live with this forever.”

In a particularly classy move, he expressed condolences not only to the Cops production member who was killed, but to the family of the suspect, who was also killed during this incident.

2. He Treated The Media As An Ally

Chief Schmaderer treated the media with complete respect—and in return, the press treated him with complete respect. He also set the rules up front, asking reporters to identify themselves, instructing them to speak loudly enough for the microphones to pick up their questions, and letting them know he intended to begin with local reporters.

When he inadvertently skipped a reporter, he expressed remorse: “I want to make sure the Omaha World-Herald gets a question, I can’t believe I forgot you Maggie, I’m so sorry.”

 

Omaha Shooting

 

3. He Was Completely Open

Early in the press conference, the Chief said that, “We are striving for unprecedented transparency in this incident.” He lived up that pledge, giving an extended opening statement filled with specific detail and answering every question directly.

When he was unable to answer a question due to the legal process, he used a technique I call commenting without commenting: “While I can’t show the video—it’s evidence and it’s needed for the Grand Jury—we did provide still photos to show what the officers had encountered to the best of our ability.”

4. He Got In Front Of a Potential Controversy

The suspect who was killed by the officer’s bullet(s) was carrying an Airsoft Gun which, according to Wikipedia, is a replica “designed to be non-lethal.” Chief Schmaderer appeared to be aware that headlines could read something like, “Suspect With Fake Gun Killed By Police,” so he showed photos of that replica gun to make clear that responding officers had no way of knowing whether or not it was real. 

5. He Conveyed a Sense of Complete Competence

Chief Schmaderer’s tone-perfect performance gave me—and likely many other people—confidence that he’s the right person to lead this investigation professionally.

That leads to an important point about crisis press conferences: Press conferences often serve as a proxy for how competent a spokesperson is not only as a communicator, but behind the scenes as a leader. Leaders who are great at the behind the scenes portion of their jobs—but who are not great public communicators—may be perceived as lousy leaders. Chief Schmaderer, on the other hand, earned the benefit of the doubt and, as Dave Statter wrote, will “ultimately have a positive impact on the reputation of the Omaha Police Department.”

Don’t miss a thing! Click here to instantly join our mailing list and receive our latest posts each week.

 

 


Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 1 Comment »

August 2014: The Worst Video Media Disaster

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on August 28, 2014 – 6:02 am

Whatever your feelings about Michael Brown’s shooting and the resulting protests in Ferguson, Missouri, you should be concerned about a police department that threatens to murder peaceful bloggers, aims semi-automatic assault rifles at videographers, and arrests journalists without provocation. 

The Ferguson police department’s bullying of reporters is not the biggest part of the Ferguson story. But as many people noted, if that’s how the department treats people who have a megaphone to the world, it’s unfathomable to think how they must treat local residents who don’t.

By employing often terrifying tactics, the Ferguson Police Department (and some officers from surrounding jurisdictions) reacted to the protests with some of the most shocking mistreatment of journalists I’ve witnessed in many years on American soil.

Among other incidents, police ordered two journalists from The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, who were working at a nearby McDonalds, to leave—and arrested them when they didn’t move quickly enough.

Wesley Lowery, the arrested Washington Post reporter, claimed that he was assaulted by officers:

Wesley Lowery

 

Chris Hayes, who hosts a primetime program on MSNBC, was threatened with Mace by a police officer—while he was on the air.

 

The Huffington Post compiled several tweets from journalists in Ferguson, including these:

Ferguson Tweets

 

An officer pushed CNN’s Don Lemon while he was live on the air—and carrying a CNN microphone that made clear for whom he was reporting.

 

Then there was this report from the CNN wire:

“Police in Ferguson, Missouri, deliberately fired tear gas and rubber bullets at a television news crew Wednesday night, Al Jazeera America reported.

Photos and videos from the Al Jazeera America camera crew were widely shared in the wake of Wednesday’s incident, which Al Jazeera called an ‘egregious assault on freedom of the press that was clearly intended to have a chilling effect on our ability to cover this important story.’

The images showed a tear gas canister exploding close to the Al Jazeera correspondent Ash-har Quraishi, who tried to shield himself from the smoke.

Was it intentional? Quraishi’s crew members seem to think so.

‘We were clearly set up as press with a full live shot set-up,’” producer Marla Cichowski said in an e-mail. ‘“As soon as (the) first bullet hit the car, we screamed out loud, ‘We are press,’ ‘This is the media.’”

And perhaps most shockingly, there was this video of a police officer from nearby St. Ann who refused to identify himself, aimed a semi-automatic assault rifle at peaceful videographers, and threatened to kill them.

To be clear, this isn’t a post about every police officer in Ferguson; nor is it a larger critique of police officers, who play a critical role in protecting life and property. This is also not a post that presumes that this shooting was unjustified; the police officer is entitled to due process. But if one believes in the importance of law and order, as I do, one must also be concerned when a law enforcement agency seemingly does everything in its power to prevent reporters, through threat of force, from exercising their Constitutional right to cover a story.

The Ferguson PD took a difficult PR challenge (the shooting of Michael Brown) and turned it into a disaster (the perception of a lawless department operating without rules). At the very least, one would have thought that officers would have had the sense not to deepen their department’s perception problem by making homicidal threats on live television.

I expect that crisis communications professionals and media trainers who work with law enforcement will be using Ferguson PD as an example of what not to do for many years.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.


Tags: , ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 3 Comments »

July 2014: The Worst Video Media Disaster

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on July 31, 2014 – 6:02 am

A grand jury indicted Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice in March for third-degree aggravated assault. The indictment stems from an incident that took place in February, in which Rice allegedly knocked out his then-fiancée, now wife, Janay Palmer.

The video below, posted by TMZ, appears to show Rice dragging his unconscious fiancée out of an elevator. 

The National Football League announced last week that it would suspend Rice for the first two games of the season—a penalty that many football fans, women, and other humanoids who care about things like not abusing women—found infuriatingly unserious.

For context, the NFL has suspended dozens of players for four games or more for violating the League’s drug policy. Smoke a joint? Miss four games. Knock your soon-to-be-wife out cold? Just two.

Rice’s boss—Baltimore Ravens Head Coach John Harbaugh—responded to the controversy last week with a flip tone that only served to inflame the situation:

”There are consequences when you make a mistake like that. I stand behind Ray, he’s a heck of a guy, he’s done everything right since, he makes a mistake, alright? He’s going to have to pay a consequence.”

Calling Rice’s conduct a “mistake” that was committed by a “heck of a guy” was tone-deaf—one wonders if Harbaugh would have given domestic abusers Ike Turner, Charlie Sheen, and Chris Brown the same benefit of the doubt (probably not, unless they could run for a touchdown). But his concluding comment was the reason I named him this month’s worst video media disaster:

”I think it’s good for kids to understand that it works that way, and that’s how it works. That’s how it should be.”

Give us a break, Coach. Don’t try to wrap this incident within a virtue. The only lesson you and the league have taught kids is that you will be welcomed back to the game with open arms by your coaches and teammates—and receive millions of dollars in 2014—as long as you sit out for two weeks.

If there’s any lesson here for kids aspiring to become a member of the NFL, it’s that it would be less consequential to beat your wife than it would be to smoke a joint.

John Harbaugh Ray Rice

Here’s an exercise you can do that shows why his response failed: Press play on the two videos above simultaneously. Does Harbaugh’s response seem even remotely congruent with the video of Rice dragging his lover off the elevator? Or does it come across as blithely dismissive?

What should Harbaugh have said? How’s this:

“Domestic abuse is a serious situation, and our team has absolutely no tolerance for it. Ray needs to pay a price for his actions—and he will not be welcome back onto this team until he does. People may debate the severity of his suspension, but what’s not up for debate is that fact that we agree wholeheartedly that he deserves to be punished.”

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

 


Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 1 Comment »

Did A High School Principal Plagiarize A Graduation Speech?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on June 24, 2014 – 6:02 am

The Roosevelt Union Free School District in Long Island, New York doesn’t mess around when it comes to plagiarism. According to its Code of Conduct, plagiarism is among the worst offenses, punishable by a suspension of up to five days: Roosevelt Plagiarism Policy

That policy, however, was written for students. What happens if a principal is the person guilty of plagiarism?

According to Yahoo News, Roosevelt High School Principal Steven Strachan appeared to plagiarize a graduation message to seniors from a fellow principal in California. After the message was printed, Strachan apparently asked permission to “quote” from the California principal, but that principal refutes some of Strachan’s claims. It’s important to note that the message was far more than a simple quote, and it wasn’t attributed at all.

Even more embarrassingly, Strachan ended his message with an address to the wrong school and mentioned the wrong academic year, writing: “Congratulations to the Albany [California] High School Class of 2013.” For his part, Strachan blames a clerical error, telling Newsday:

“I sincerely apologize to the Roosevelt community and to the class of 2014 for the inadvertent clerical error causing mistakes to be printed in the 2014 yearbook. An unedited draft of my remarks was accidentally published rather than the final version, and I take full responsibility for the oversight.”

That excuse seems to be the new de facto response issued by plagiarizers; an Australian PR executive who appeared to plagiarize from my website earlier this year used the same excuse.

Two things make this story even worse.

Steven Strachan

1. Principal Strachan released the statement above through Zimmerman/Edelson, a PR firm, instead of issuing the statement personally.

As a result, he appears to be hiding behind a PR firm—and as of this writing, he appears not to have commented on this issue personally. The language in the statement is tepid and, to my eyes, unbelievable. A sincere apology doesn’t blame other people (unnamed people who caused the clerical error); use distancing passive language; and label the incident an “inadvertent…oversight.”

2. A member of the school district’s leadership team blamed the media for covering the story.

According to Newsday:

“Alfred T. Taylor, vice president of the Roosevelt school board, told the paper that the incident was an ‘unfortunate mistake that occurred’ and surprisingly said that ‘It’s unfortunate that somebody thought it was newsworthy.’”

It appears to me that Mr. Taylor should consult his own school district’s policy toward plagiarism and explain, specifically, why this principal should be dealt with less severely than a student who committed the same action.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below. 

A grateful tip o’ the hat to reader Art Aiello; Steven Strachan photo via Yahoo News

 


Tags: ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 6 Comments »

Dear Monica Wehby: Sorry, But You Can’t Polish This Turd

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on June 12, 2014 – 6:02 am

Dr. Monica Wehby is Oregon’s Republican nominee for a seat in the U.S. Senate.

According to Politico, she was accused “by her ex-boyfriend last year of ‘stalking’ him, entering his home without his permission and ‘harassing’ his employees, according to a Portland, Oregon police report.”

A Los Angeles Times report found that her behavior wasn’t confined to a single incident: “Wehby’s ex-husband and former boyfriend both [called] police and [accused] her of harassment in three separate episodes over roughly six years.”

These are difficult charges for any political candidate to contend with, and Dr. Wehby has struggled to put these incidents behind her. But her latest attempt at damage control was rather brazen.

Monica Wehby

According to The Associated Press, Wehby said:

“‘I think that the thing to learn from that is that I am a person who will stand up for what I believe in,’ Wehby said of the police reports. ‘I’m a person who doesn’t easily back down. I will fight for Oregonians with very strong conviction. I’m a very committed, determined person.’”

Did Dr. Wehby just try to sell her alleged stalking as a virtue by suggesting that the same traits that led two former partners to call the police would be useful in her role as a U.S. Senator?

Her blatant attempt to spin those police reports brought two rather crass phrases to mind: She’s trying to “polish a turd” and “put lipstick on a pig.” (To be clear, the “pig” in that analogy is not Dr. Wehby, but the stalking allegations themselves.)

Talk about a double standard. Could you imagine if a male candidate had used a similar approach? It would doom his race, similar to how Todd Akin’s infamous comments about “legitimate rape” led to national ridicule. 

Wehby’s technique of trying to turn a negative quality into a virtue can work in some instances. Ralph Nader turned his curmudgeon-like personality into a more positive image as a “crusader,” and John McCain turned his occasional lack of party loyalty into a more appealing image of being a “maverick.”

But turning stalking allegations into a positive? That’s one step too far—and completely unnecessary, considering that her ex-husband and ex-boyfriend are both reportedly supporting her campaign.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

 


Tags: , ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 4 Comments »

Is “I Didn’t Mean That Thing I Said” A Credible Excuse?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on June 5, 2014 – 5:02 am

Comedian Jonah Hill was caught on video last weekend telling a photographer who was following him, “Suck my dick, you faggot.”

I have big issues with paparazzi (and the outlets that buy their photos) who make a living violating the personal space and privacy of celebrities for profit; that stars snap occasionally in such situations seems like an understandable human response.

But what caught my attention was Jonah Hill’s first apology, in which he said: “In that moment, I said a disgusting word that does not at all reflect how I feel about any group of people.”

Hill’s response seems to fit into the de rigueur crisis response in such situations, which goes something like this: “Although I said what I said, it doesn’t represent who I am or what I believe.” (Hill’s apology on Tuesday’s The Tonight Show seemed sincere, and I doubt he’ll incur much reputational damage.)

Alec Baldwin used a similar approach after unleashing gay slurs last year: “As someone who fights against homophobia, I apologize.” Catch that? Although he said what he said, his words don’t represent his views.

After Mel Gibson made anti-Semitic remarks, he apologized by saying: “Please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite.”

Even (former) disgraced L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling tried a similar statement: “25 percent of my home game are black people and I love them.”

Here’s my question: Does the “What I said doesn’t represent what I feel” approach work? Is it credible?

Alec Baldwin Tweet

In Jonah Hill’s case, it might. He seemed genuinely aggrieved by his choice of words and their impact. And yet…if there wasn’t a place somewhere in him that viewed gay people differently, would he have chosen to lash out by calling someone a faggot? If Mel Gibson didn’t view Jews at least somewhat negatively, would he have used anti-Semitic slurs? Isn’t the language we choose representative of the thoughts we think?

Personally, I’m finding this type of response less and less credible. Michael Richards (Kramer on Seinfeld), who destroyed his career after a particularly ugly rant against African Americans (he repeatedly screamed the n-word at black audience members in a comedy club), may have gotten his response right: “I’ll get to the force field of this hostility, why it’s there,” he said.

That seems to be a more credible approach. I’d rather see a similar type of response in these instances: “Clearly, my choice of words tells me that I have some work to do on myself. Those words are ugly, hurtful, and even dangerous–and I will do everything in my power to understand the source of my prejudices and do the work it takes to extinguish them. In the meantime, I apologize for perpetuating the hurt so many people have endured.”

Does The "I Didn't Mean What I Said Approach" Work?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Crisis Communications | 5 Comments »

Join our email list to get our 21 most essential media training tips

An Amazon #1 PR Bestseller: The Media Training Bible: 101 Things You Absolutely, Positively Need To Know Before Your Next Interview. Learn more.

  • About Mr. Media Training

    The Mr. Media Training Blog offers daily tips to help readers become better media spokespersons and public speakers. It also examines how well (or poorly) public figures are communicating through the media.

    Brad Phillips is the Founder and Managing Editor of the Mr. Media Training Blog. He is the president of Phillips Media Relations, a media and presentation training firm with offices in NYC and DC.

    Brad Phillips

    Before founding Phillips Media Relations in 2004, Brad worked as a journalist with ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel and CNN's Reliable Sources and The Capital Gang.

    Brad tweets at @MrMediaTraining.

    Christina Mozaffari is the Senior Writer for the Mr. Media Training Blog. She is the Washington, D.C. vice president for Phillips Media Relations.

    Brad Phillips

    Before joining Phillips Media Relations in 2011, Christina worked as a journalist with NBC News, where she produced stories for MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC Nightly News, and The Today Show.

    Christina tweets at @PMRChristina.

  • Comments or Tips?

  • Media Requests

    To book Brad Phillips for a media interview, please e-mail Contact@MrMediaTraining.com
  • In The News

    Click here to see media coverage of Brad Phillips and the Mr. Media Training Blog.
  • Media Training

    Click here for more information about our customized media training workshops. To book a media training workshop, e-mail Info@PhillipsMediaRelations.com