Mr. Media Training

Last week, right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh called a 30-year-old woman a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

The woman, Sandra Fluke, is a law student at Georgetown University. She testified before House Democrats last month that Georgetown, a Catholic university, should be required to continue paying for contraception as part of its insurance plan, instead of receiving a “conscience waiver,” which would allow them to not to.

In response last Wednesday, Mr. Limbaugh said:

“What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

The next day, he doubled down on his remarks, saying that Fluke is "having so much sex, it’s amazing she can still walk," and continuing:

“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

He continued his attack on Friday, saying:

“She’s having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth-control pills that she needs. That’s what she’s saying.”

“Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?”

Not only were Limbaugh’s comments disgusting, but they revealed a complete lack of understanding about birth control. He seems to believe that birth control pills are “pay for play” – that the price a woman pays for contraception is based solely on the amount of sex she’s having. And he seems completely clueless that millions of monogamous couples, including many married ones, use birth control. It goes without saying that he also doesn’t understand that many women use contraception for medical purposes, such as to help alleviate the severe discomfort caused by painful menstruation.

By the end of last week, numerous advertisers dropped his show. Mr. Limbaugh quickly did something he rarely does: he apologized. Sort of. But his apology continued to misstate the facts:

“In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom.”

That “apology” was another smear, reducing concerns about women’s health to something that should remain a private concern between couples in their bedrooms. By this afternoon’s program, he had already lost nine advertisers, so he went a little further:  

"Those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point I was trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize. I do not think that she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words."

But moments later, he said, “In fighting [liberals] on this issue last week, I became like them.” So Limbaugh has not only failed to issue an apology that didn’t simultaneously serve as a swipe, but also to acknowledge his own dishonesty regarding contraception itself. And the fact that his “sincere” apology came not during his three days of withering comments, but only after advertisers started fleeing, calls into question how genuinely remorseful he feels.

Still, all of that begs a question: How profusely can he apologize if the very concept of apologizing is contrary to his brand? Is he the rare case in which an unequivocal apology could actually hurt him more than a half-hearted apology?

AOL is one of the many advertisers that dropped Limbaugh's program this week

I’ve listened to Mr. Limbaugh on and off for 20 years (usually when I’m on a long drive in a rental car on company business). How many times has he railed against liberal apologists who apologize for our nation’s policies or actions? How many times has he sneered at a politician who backed down and apologized instead of fighting defiantly?

As a result, he stuck himself between a rock and a hard place. On one side, he has angry advertisers who are fleeing his show and demanding a stronger apology. On the other side, he has an audience that expects defiance instead of even a whiff of remorse. And that’s preventing him from going as far with an apology as most crisis counselors – including myself – would advise.

In the end, I suspect Limbaugh will survive this episode, a bit worse for the wear. But hopefully it sends a message to other talk show hosts that this type of misogynistic language comes at a hefty price.

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

Earlier this week, I discussed the “four media untouchables” – small children, the elderly, animals, and the disabled.

I offered an example from a former client, a water company executive who was about to turn off the water for a wheelchair-bound customer who was three years past due on his water bills. Despite being well within his rights to cut off the service, doing so might have created a P.R. nightmare for the executive. After all, the media would have presented the big, bad water company as the mean-spirited Goliath, whereas the wheelchair-bound man would be viewed as a sympathetic David.

My advice to the water company executive? Keep the water on. He might be well within his rights to cut it off, but doing so would potentially create a much bigger problem for the company.

A few readers wrote me, wondering how the executive could have handled the situation if he had decided to cut off the water anyway.

David wrote:

“It would not be abusive for the company to turn the guy’s water off; especially, since he owed it a ton of money, he refused to pay anything, and he refused to speak with the company…If I were that exec, I would have said something like, "My job is to protect profits. I can’t alone decide to have all the other customers of my company involuntarily subsidize a customer who refuses to pay his bill. Our company has established a bank account to receive donations to pay for service to this disabled customer. Anyone who wishes to donate to it may do so."

That’s a reasonable start, but I’d be concerned that the executive saying that his “job is to protect profits” would only reinforce the perception of the unfeeling Goliath.

Ted wondered:

“What if the media took the opposite approach and covered the story as ‘company acting slothfully and wastefully?’ While decidedly better than David vs. Goliath, a quick second favorite story theme is the organization as bureaucratic, confused and lazy. For instance, the media could write that while other customers are nickel-and-dimed, this person is allowed to face no consequences. What message would that send to people who work hard each month to pay their bills, even when they are facing financial hardships?”

That’s an interesting thought, and I like the approach it suggests, since it would help the executive articulate his concerns in the context of his primary audience, his customers. Therefore, I might add the best parts of both answers, and try something like this:

“We have great concern for this man, which is why we have tried to contact him for three years. But it takes two sides to have a conversation, and he has refused to speak to us. In the end, we have an obligation to protect the rates that every other customer pays – and if we allow customers not to pay for years at a time, it forces us to raise rates for everyone else. We don’t think that’s fair. But we’d still like to help this man, so we’ve set up a private bank account for concerned members of the community to help him through their donations. I’ve started the account by personally donating $250. You can find more information about where to contribute on our website.”

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

A few years ago, I provided media training to an executive who worked for a private water company that provided water to a few hundred thousand local residents.

One of their customers hadn’t paid his bills for three years. They sent him dozens of past due notices and numerous letters trying to make him aware of a program they had for low-income residents. He refused to respond. But he kept using their water.

Normally, they would have cut off his service after a few months. But they kept it on for one reason: the man was paralyzed and in a wheelchair. After so many attempts to speak to him, they finally decided enough was enough. Paralyzed or not, he was using a service that cost money to provide, and he wasn’t willing to communicate at all with the company.

The water company decided to cut his water. And the executive wanted my advice on the best way to handle any negative press that resulted from their decision.

The advice I offered wasn’t what he wanted to hear. “Keep the water on,” I said.

Here’s why: The media would inevitably cover this as a David vs. Goliath story – the big, bad water company versus the poor, disabled man. The visuals in the television story would show the exterior of the water company headquarters building and a well-dressed corporate spokesperson, butted up against the man’s modest home and his aged wheelchair.

Worse, the media could have easily said something like this:

“The water company says it had no choice but to turn off Mr. Tucker’s water since he owes them $4,300. But that’s a drop in the bucket for the company. Last year, CEO John Smith made more than $1.2 million in salary and stock options.”

To make the inevitable P.R. headache that their decision caused go away, the company would probably end up reversing its decision and restoring the man’s water anyway. Plus, they would have tipped their hat to every other disabled resident in the community that they, too, could stop paying their bills and get away with it. Instead, the right decision was simple. Keep the water on.

I thought of that story when I came across an excellent post by Jodie Heisner, president of Arizona-based Bottomline Media Coaching. In her piece, she argues that:

“When it comes to public opinion there are four groups that I consider untouchables, that is if you do or are accused of doing anything wrong to a member of one of these groups you are pretty much up the creek without a paddle. The groups are: small children, elderly, animals and the disabled.”

She’s right. And to help make her point, Jodie shared this clip from a local news station about the abusive behavior of one company toward a woman with cerebral palsy:

So tread carefully with those four groups. They’re usually portrayed by the media as the story’s David – which means that you’ll be portrayed as the big, unfeeling, awful Goliath.

Click here to read a follow-up post about this topic, based on a couple of reader comments.

*Note: I changed the example at the beginning of this post slightly to protect the client’s confidentiality.

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

An incident involving a controversial performer earlier this week brought up a question I’ve been thinking about for a while: when should a public figure – a CEO, a sports star, or an entertainer – stop using Twitter?

Here’s the background: Chris Brown is a 22-year-old R&B singer who’s burned up the charts over the past few years with seven top ten hits. He’s a fabulously talented entertainer who dances as well as he sings.

Of course, there’s a good chance you know who Chris Brown is even if you’ve never heard his music. He’s the guy who badly beat up the singer Rihanna, then his girlfriend, in 2009. According to the police report:

“He took his right hand and shoved her head against the passenger window…[Rihanna] turned to face Brown and he punched her in the left eye with his right hand. He then drove away in the vehicle and continued to punch her in the face with his right hand while steering the vehicle with his left hand. The assault caused [Rihanna’s] mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the vehicle.”

Here’s what Rihanna looked like after he was done with her:

Afterwards, Brown hired a crisis management firm, repeatedly apologized for his actions, and said, "Words cannot begin to express how sorry and saddened I am over what transpired." His tour of contrition likely didn’t persuade too many people, but it at least appeared to be a step in the right direction.

Well, not quite. He was soon back to his old ways.

In December 2010, he sent out an anti-gay tweet that taunted a fellow musician who claims to have been molested by his manager. 

In March 2011, after an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, he damaged a window, angrily confronted ABC producers, and stormed away from the building shirtless after being asked about the incident. Afterwards, he tweeted:

Brown deleted that tweet shortly after sending it. So you would think he’d know to better than to tweet before thinking. But after winning his first Grammy Award last Sunday, he tweeted (and quickly deleted) this:

Chris Brown’s actions seem to confirm that he’s not particularly committed to reforming his behavior or doing what it takes to earn any form of public redemption. As the expression says, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and Mr. Brown’s past suggests we can expect more negative headlines along the way (though hopefully not of the domestic abuse kind).

But this post is only nominally about Chris Brown. The bigger question is this: does there come a point at which a public figure must stop tweeting as a key component of reputation management?

In Chris Brown’s case, I’d submit that his refusal to quit Twitter – despite his track record of saying controversial things over the social network – confirms his lack of seriousness about personal rehabilitation. If he’s willing to give nothing up, the public can only conclude that he’s the same man that beat Rihanna three years ago.

On the other hand, consider Anthony Weiner. After being caught in a sexting scandal last June, Mr. Weiner – a serial tweeter – suddenly stopped. He hasn’t sent out a new tweet since June 1, 2011. And his Twitter silence seems to be a critical step toward an eventual image rehabilitation, since it demonstrates an actual sacrifice and change in behavior.

Same thing with singer John Mayer, who shuttered his Twitter account, along with its 3.7 million followers, shortly after telling Playboy that his penis discriminated against black women.

Same with Ashton Kutcher, who turned his Twitter account over to his management company after sending out a tweet that complained about Joe Paterno’s firing but said nothing of the victims. 

In the final analysis, Twitter can be a great avenue for stars to communicate with their fans and enhance their personal brands. But when their communications go awry, quitting Twitter may be a critical step toward regaining their image.

If you like my blog, please stay in touch! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.

He’s at it again.

You may remember that last month, Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas refused to attend a White House ceremony celebrating the Bruins’ championship. At the time, he posted his rationale on his Facebook page (he believes the government has grown too large).

Mr. Thomas followed up with another post to his Facebook page last week, this one standing with the Catholic Church over the Obama Administration regarding contraception:

“I Stand with the Catholics in the fight for Religious Freedom.

‘In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.’ — by Martin Niemöller, prominent German anti-Nazi theologian…”

As you might imagine, the media had questions about his post. But in this remarkable interview, Mr. Thomas refused to answer any “personal” questions that didn’t have to do with hockey:

Mr. Thomas makes the case that his views live in his “personal” life and that he shouldn’t have to answer for his provocative personal posts in his “professional” life.

Let me be clear: Thomas has the right to say whatever he wants. But this article isn’t about his rights. It’s about his refusal to accept that there is a predictable cause and effect when dealing with the media.

If you make controversial statements, reporters are going to ask about them. The media don’t draw a neat line between “personal” and “professional” lives, and no one man has the power to change the way the media operate. Mr. Thomas’ behavior suggests that he wants the right to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater and then refuse to answer any questions about his actions afterwards.

Nor can Mr. Thomas credibly say he’s making those statements in his “personal” life. His Facebook page isn’t restricted to friends and family – the moment he allows fans to enter his network, he’s no longer communicating solely in his “personal” life. Cultivating and communicating with one’s fan base is, at least to some extent, a professional activity.

Mr. Thomas can continue to speak out as he wishes. It’s a free country, as he would say, and he has the right to say what he wants. But I wish he would recognize that his statements come with a price. Reporters are going to ask him about his comments, and they’re going to write their stories with or without his participation. (In fact, a defensive “no comment” answer followed by a walk-off makes it a better story.)

When they ask Thomas about his statements, it creates a distraction for his team, begging this question: When should a team player subordinate his public statements to the greater interest of his team? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Like our blog? Don’t go yet! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.

After beating charges of larceny and fraud in 1987, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan famously asked, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”

I thought of that phrase last week when the co-anchor of Fox’s Good Day New York, Greg Kelly, returned to work after rape charges that had been filed against him were dropped.

Ray Donovan asked his question rhetorically, but I wondered what the answer to his question was in Greg Kelly’s case. How should he go about getting his good name back?

I forgot to mention one other factor complicating this case. Mr. Kelly’s father, Ray Kelly, is the New York City Police Commissioner, leading to conflict of interest concerns. (The case was investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in an effort to remove such an obvious conflict.)

Fox Host Greg Kelly

Here are the facts of the case, as summarized on Wikipedia:

“Kelly was being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office after a woman walked into the 13th Precinct on January 25, 2012, and claimed he raped her in her law office near South Street Seaport. The woman who accused Greg Kelly of raping her also claimed she became pregnant as a result of the alleged sexual assault. The accuser told police that she was passed out when Kelly allegedly sexually assaulted her on October 8, 2011, at her law firm. Kelly, through his attorneys, denied the allegation. His lawyers turned over text messages between Kelly and the woman that they believe undermined the woman’s allegation. They claimed the encounter was purely consensual. On February 7, 2012 all allegations of rape were dropped against Kelly.”

After being cleared of the rape charges last Tuesday, Mr. Kelly released this written statement:

"I am thankful that the investigation established what I’ve known all along, that I am innocent of the allegations that were waged against me….Thank you to the thousands of Good Day New York viewers who expressed positive support through social media.…And I am grateful to everyone at Fox 5, especially Rosanna Scotto, my co-host. I will always remember her kindness, and I look forward to soon resuming my post on Good Day New York next to her.”

When he returned to his co-hosting duties on Friday, he made the following on-air statement:

“Folks, thank you, it was a tough couple of weeks, obviously for a lot of people. And I’m very, very grateful for all the support I had here at Fox 5, the support from my family, friends, those I care about. And the viewers, of course, they’ve been just great. The people who watch this show and have weighed in through social media with positive remarks, thank you very much. It’s great to be back. I’m especially grateful to this lady who sits next to me every day, Rosanna Scotto. You ready to get back to work?”

Greg Kelly with Co-Host Rosanna Scotto

I have no way of knowing what transpired between Mr. Kelly and his accuser. But based on the district attorney’s statement, I’m willing to give him the presumption of innocence.

If I were falsely accused of rape, I would want to scream from the mountaintops that I was wronged. My instinct would be to do dozens of interviews, protesting the injustice of the false charge and the damage it did to my reputation.

But Mr. Kelly’s instinct not to do that is right. He’s handled this crisis well, briefly but directly acknowledging that something happened, but quickly moving on. Time will diminish the negative impact on his reputation – he wasn’t married (there’s no scorned spouse in this case), and the investigation was dropped quickly. 

The public tends to forgive scandals of sexual misconduct: As examples, Marv Albert, Bill O’Reilly, Kobe Bryant, and Ben Roethlisberger were also accused of (or committed) acts of sexual harassment, assault, or rape – and their careers have continued to thrive.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to not protest too much. Mr. Kelly’s approach is right, and is the best path toward eventually getting his good name back.

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

CNN suspended pundit Roland Martin this afternoon for offensive tweets he sent out on Super Bowl Sunday.

After seeing an ad starring soccer star David Beckham in his underwear on Sunday, Mr. Martin tweeted:

Earlier in the day, he had tweeted:

"Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to doe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdata**"

When numerous people called Mr. Martin out for his tweets, he blamed them for their own ignorance, claiming his tweets were anti-soccer, not anti-gay:  

“@glaad @CNN well you’re clearly out of touch and clueless with what I tweeted. Way to assume, but you’re way off base.”

“@DrMChatelain @notjustsexuality well that shows how ignorant you are. I rip on soccer all of the time. Learn to pay attention!”

His tone changed dramatically on Monday, posting an apology to his website:

“Based on several tweets I made on my Twitter feed on Super Bowl Sunday yesterday, I have been accused by members of the LGBT community of being supportive of violence against gays and lesbians and bullying. That is furthest from the truth, and I sincerely regret any offense my words have caused.”

“As I said repeatedly, I often make jokes about soccer in the U.S., and my crack about David Beckham’s commercial was related to that and not to anyone’s sexuality. To those who construed my comment as being anti-gay or homophobic or advancing violence, I’m truly sorry. I can certainly understand how someone could come to a different conclusion than the one I meant.”

CNN pundit Roland Martin

That’s a pretty good apology, but it strains credulity. I have no way of knowing what Mr. Martin was thinking when he sent those texts, but their meaning appears rather self-evidently homophobic.

My conclusion is buttressed by a 2006 article by Mr. Martin, which argued for gay conversion therapy:

“My wife, an ordained Baptist minister for 20 years, has counseled many men and women to walk away from the gay lifestyle, and to live a chaste life.”

He also defended comedian Tracy Morgan last year after the comic cracked that he would stab his son if he found out he was gay.

I’m not the only one who doubts Mr. Martin’s explanation. CNN isn’t buying it either, saying in a statement this afternoon: 

“Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive. Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”

What should Mr. Martin do now? Assuming that CNN and I are both right in our conclusions, Mr. Martin should admit that he has indeed viewed homosexuality as inferior, that his tweet was reflective of that belief, that he understands how hurtful his words were, and that he pledges to continue working on himself. In crises, the public is usually more willing to accept a sincere admission and pledge to change than a defensive denial.

Just ask former CNN host Rick Sanchez, who lost his job after his own insensitive comments. Or Helen Thomas. Or Ed Schultz. Or Don Imus. 

Like our blog? Don’t go yet! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.

What types of people do you trust?

That question, posed by the PR firm Edelman in its annual Trust Barometer, gives companies and organizations valuable insight into the people who should – and shouldn’t – be speaking on their behalf. To help understand what types of people are most trustworthy, Edelman surveys “informed publics” between the ages of 25-64 in 20 countries.

The following numbers reflect the percentage of people who deemed these people “extremely” or “very” credible:

1. 68%: Academic or expert
2. 66%: Technical expert in the company
3. 65%: A person like yourself
4. 50%: A regular employee
5. 50%: NGO (non-governmental organization) representative
6. 46%: Financial or industry analyst

But one additional number caught the eye of eagle-eyed reader and crisis pro Chris Syme, who sent in this terrific question:

“I noticed one of the big shifts in this year’s Edelman’s Trust Barometer was CEO trust–down from 50% to 38% (people asked if they would trust info from a CEO). In light of this slide, do you recommend training a CEO to be primary spokesperson in a crisis?”

Her question made me think of another survey I often read, one that finds that voters regularly tell pollsters that they hate Congress, but like their own member of Congress. Similarly, I’m not surprised that people don’t trust CEOs in the aggregate, but the more important question is whether they trust an individual CEO.

And the answer to that question, as unsatisfying as it might be, is “it depends.”

Some CEOs are terrific on-camera – credible, sincere, and immediately likeable. I’d hate to take them off the list of being a primary spokesperson because a study said that their peers aren’t trustworthy.

So yes, I’d continue to train them as a primary spokesperson. But I also wouldn’t ignore the data that show that 66% of people deemed a technical expert as highly credible, or that 50% of people found a regular employee highly credible. For certain crises, a media-savvy technical expert or regular employee might fit the bill better than the CEO.

Crisis pro Jane Jordan-Meier offers a few additional tips for selecting the right spokesperson in a crisis, one of which is to select a spokesperson who can bring their heart and their head to the response.

By the way, only one group rated lower than CEOs. Only 29% of respondents deemed government officials or regulators as “extremely” or “very” credible.

Have a question about media training or crisis communications that you’d like answered on the blog? Please send your question to Contact-at-MrMediaTraining.com.