15-Seconds Blog

We've Moved!

2014-01-08T09:31:00.001-05:00

Looking for the 15-Seconds Blog? We have a new address. Please follow this link to our new home.

While you are at it -- check out the new, improved 15-Seconds website here.

Safeway Bags Some Bad Publicity

2013-12-30T07:39:00.000-05:00

Clean up on aisle one. Safeway made a mess for themselves.

Dominick's is (or was) a chain of food stores in the Chicago area that dates back to 1918. The outfit has gone through several changes of ownership and in 1998 it was bought by Safeway. Apparently things haven't been going that well because Safeway announced a couple months ago that they would be closing 72 Dominick's stores and laying off more than 6000 people on December 28th.

One of the employees about to get canned -- a young fellow named Steve Yamato -- made a humorous SciFi video which showed dragons, monsters, asteroids etc squashing Dominick's employees and he titled the mini flick: "Thanks Safeway." Then he posted it on YouTube.

When Yamamoto arrived for his last day of work -- he was told that he was suspended. Huh? He (and 6600 other people) were going to be cashiered anyway - but Safeway decided to mop the floor with him as an example for remaining employees perhaps.

The result? Stories on all the major Chicago TV stations, the Huffington Post, and in the local papers guaranteeing Yamamoto's video reach that it wouldn't have achieved in a million years. All Safeway needed to do -- was nothing --and the story and Yamamoto would have gone away. But instead they made a real mess of things.

Check out one of the TV news clips here:

To view the full Safeway smackdown...see the video below.

h/t John McCandless

The Show Must Go On

2013-12-28T11:26:00.000-05:00

The head of a stagehands union dropped the ball when asked to comment about a story in the New York Times.

The thrust of the story is that set schleppers can make a ton of money. How much? The five full-time stagehands at Carnegie Hall each pull in more than $400,000 a year -- more money than the President of the United States.

The Times story goes on in some detail about the staggering sums earned by members of Local 1 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

What caught our eye was this part of the story where the journalists tried and failed to get James J. Claffey Jr, he union's boss, to comment. Here is Claffey's response:

While I can appreciate your obligation to report to your readers,” he wrote in an email, “I sincerely hope you can appreciate my obligation to represent the membership of Local 1. The story you wish to do will not serve my union or my members well.”

Claffey is essentially admitting that the facts don't look good for his side -- so he is refusing to play a role. Bad move.

We're betting applications for apprenticeships at Local 1 are about to skyrocket. But in any case Claffey blew a chance to serve his present union members. His asserting that commenting would not be good for his union all but admits that his members practically rip off the arts.

A scene from a stagehand strike earlier this year

Our rule is that you can always find something useful to say. He could have simply stated:

"Our members are appropriately compensated because their ingenuity and creativity adds to the sparkle and thrills that customers demand when they attend world-class theatrical productions."

We preach that yo do not have to hold a news conference -- or answer every question a reporter might have but you should not remain mute -- or it will go over with a thud.

Benghazi Silence Is Not Golden

2013-12-11T20:09:00.000-05:00

Apparently it seemed like a good idea at the time - stonewalling media questions about Benghazi.
Now? Not so much.

A story in the Washington Examiner, by Paul Bedard, this evening tells of some State Department emails that the watchdog group Judicial Watch just received./ The documents date back to the days just after the assaults on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 which resulted in the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

According to the report, the State Department was informed that their little known security contractor Blue Mountain Group (BMG), was being chased by the press in the days after the attack. One of the emails from a State Department contracting officer had this advice for BMG:

"Thank you so much for informing us about the media inquiries. We notified our public affairs personnel that they too may receive some questions. We concur with you that at the moment the best way to deal with the inquiries is to either be silent or provide no comments,”

How'd that work out for them?

Here we are 15 months after the tragedy -- and there remains a raging controversy over what happened that night in Benghazi. There is enormous confusion over what happened and why.

If you were running the State Department in the days after the attack -- you would not want all your contractors and anyone with a view on the subject to begin holding ad hoc press conferences - but you also wouldn't want to send a signal that everyone should just shut up.

It would have been far better to reach out to BMG and find out what they knew -- quickly identify and train a knowledgeable person to be a spokesperson (ensuring that that person knew how to provide factual information without engaging in opinion or seeking to influence on-going investigations.)

Instead, the field was left open to anonymous sources -- some accurate perhaps and others certainly not. By abdicating the responsibility of putting out reliable information -- they created an atmosphere where a former BMG employee, Dylan Davies, could get a book deal and con CBS's 60 Minutes into airing a bogus report on the night's events.

Clearly this was an enormously difficult situation to handle. There were diplomatic and intelligence activities involved, political implications, and the deaths of four Americans. But by hunkering down and waiting for the smoke to clear -- those in charge only ensured that the situation would remain clouded in accusations and distrust.

Don't Complain About Good Publicity

2013-12-04T12:13:00.000-05:00

Lots of people complain about bad publicity -- but bitching about good ink is rare.

Bill Clinton accomplished that in a recent interview on the new Fusion TV network.

The former president complained to host Jorge Ramos about the media's obsession with whether Hillary Clinton will run for his old office. Check out the clip here:

There are politicians all over the country who would kill to have the major media speculate obsessively about whether or not they are running. Let's face it -- if the media are talking and writing about that -- they think you are a plausible candidate.

The Clinton's, no doubt, are happy to have the media cover the issues they want to talk about -- but don't like everything to be put into the genuine context of a possible presidential run. Telling the media they are putting the emphasis on the wrong thing is a sure loser.

Predictably, reporters, like some from the New York Times, didn't think much of the criticism.

Crazy idea! RT @nickconfessore ...If HRC doesn't want to be covered as a likely 2016 candidate, she could just say she's not running.
— Amy Chozick (@amychozick) December 3, 2013

Trying to control what the media cover and how they cover it is an old and futile habit. In his first year as President Clinton tried to dictate news coverage through his then-staffer George Stephanopoulos and it was a disaster. The current White House is trying to do the same thing with similar results.

Instead of complaining about the coverage, Clinton would have been better off to simply say something like: "There will be time enough to consider that kind of stuff later, right now she and I think it is important to focus on yada, yada, yada...." without including the gratuitous shots at the media.

It could have been worse, though. In response to the question "Is Hillary running?" He could have answered: "It depends on what the definition of "IS" is."

Ex-SEAL Wounded in Media Encounter

2013-11-25T17:01:00.000-05:00

Navy SEALS are the best trained military men on the planet -- in every skill except giving media interviews.

Dave Cooper - Navy SEAL Foundation

The Virginian-Pilot newspaper reported on Friday that Dave Cooper, president of the Navy SEAL Foundation, has been placed on administrative leave following a recent interview mishap.

Cooper is a highly-decorated former SEAL who retired last year and had been leading the non-profit foundation that assists Navy SEALS and their families for only one month.

According to the Virginian-Pilot, Cooper is under fire because of an interview he gave to U.S. News and World Report in which he was questioned about his former outfit the Navy Special Warfare Development Group (aka DEVGRU) and popularly known as "SEAL Team Six."

The U.S. News article quotes Cooper saying some cheeky things about his fellow SEALS, e.g. that they have "a tendency to break the rules and a healthy disrespect for authority" and he appears to endorse a book by fellow-former SEAL Matt Bissonnnette. The article suggests that he thinks while the book "spilled classified information with dangerous effects" at least the authors "beat out other senior officers from spilling the same story without the same accuracy." We note that those phrases are the article author's, however, and not quotes from Cooper.

Apparently some people were unhappy enough with Cooper to put him on administrative leave (although the Foundation declined to comment about personnel matters.) But Cooper confirmed that he was on ice in an e-mail exchange with the Virginian-Pilot. In explaining himself he makes the following assertions:

* The article is a "gross misrepresentation of what (he) said"

* The article was supposed to focus on the Navy SEAL Foundation (which is barely mentioned in the piece)

* He was told he would have an opportunity to review and approve his quotes before publication (which did not happen)

As a result, Cooper says he spoke "casually and perhaps carelessly" and at times "in jest."

He says that some of the comments attributed to him were not made by him at all but says that his actual comments were "simply too glib, perhaps even too arrogant."

U.S. News & World Report says its story was "accurately reported" adding that they "have no further comment."

There are dozens of lessons to be learned from this incident. Here are a few:

* Cooper needed more training before facing live fire from a reporter. It is understandable how someone who has distinguished himself in battle would be fearless about simply chatting up a reporter (Cooper reportedly holds the Silver Star, six Bronze Stars and a chest full of other medals) -- but this is a new world for him with real (albeit bureaucratic) dangers.

* The SEAL Foundation needed a better prepared public relations person to assist Cooper. A pro could have told him that a national news organization is going to be much more interested in Cooper's past job than in his present one running a non-profit. His expectations should have been more realistic. A pro would have told him not to allow himself to speak casually and carelessly -- and would have called a time out for some course correction if Cooper veered off message. An experienced hand would have known that it was most unlikely for a reporter to offer to clear quotes in advance - if there was such an offer -- he should have gotten it in writing. And a pro would have recorded the session so that if Cooper were badly taken out of context they would have been able to prove it.

* U.S. News could learn a few lessons too. We think it is unseemly for a news organization to flatly state that "we will have no further comment" on anything. We suspect they don't want to get into a fight (of any kind) with Cooper -- and would like the issue to go away. But "no further comment" sounds mighty defensive.

It should be stressed that even the worst reading of Cooper's comments make them pretty mild stuff. Compared to the mis-steps of people much more accustomed to dealing with the press -- his remarks strike us as well below anything which would merit him losing his job. The country and the Navy SEAL Foundation need men like Cooper and we are sure he will have absorbed the lessons of his encounter with the media. The retired Master Chief could certainly master the skill of doing media interviews -- he just needs a little more training and some patience from his bosses.

Who's Giving Alec Baldwin PR Advice? The Mayor of Toronto?

2013-11-15T17:07:00.000-05:00

Actor and TV talk show host wannabee Alec Baldwin seems to be self destructing before our eyes. It seems like an hourly event when there is a new example of actor bad boy demonstrating that he must have 30 Rocks in the head.

This afternoon Baldwin berated a local Fox News reporter for "almost hitting (his) wife with a microphone" - a near-tragedy the reporter denies. Baldwin proceeded to ask if the reporter wanted to apologize to his wife on camera and when that wish was denied told her to "Get the f***" out of here."

The incident follows another flair up this morning where he confronted another WNYW reporter telling him he was in his way and "you are going to have a big problem" if he was still there when Baldwin returned with his wife and kid.

This of course followed a previous incident where the actor chased a paparazzi down the street while reportedly hurling homophobic slurs. Initially Baldwin denied calling the reporter a "faggot" as the recording appears to show -- and claimed to have merely called him a "fat head." He has now copped to calling him a "c***sucker" which he belatedly learned is offensive.

You would think Baldwin would be having a good week -- since a woman charged with stalking him was convicted in court...although his victory was marred by a friend saying that Baldwin lied in court.

What is our PR advice to Baldwin? The same as we would offer to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford who shares the self-destruction gene. Get out of town. Now.

Neither man seems capable of controlling their rage nor able to think before lashing out. The price of fame is media attention. Don't want cameras outside your house or reporters asking you questions? Fine. Get a mountain cabin and live like J.D. Salinger. That may not be fair but it is the world we live in.

As it is, it is only a matter of time before Baldwin does something stupid(er) and ends up in an adjoining cell to his stalker.

CBS's Black Eye

2013-11-08T13:46:00.000-05:00

CBS has more experience exposing other organizations' shortcomings than explaining their own -- but that is no excuse.

The network did not distinguish itself in handling an apparently bogus report they aired on 60 Minutes.

In case you missed it -- on October 27th the network aired an interview with a man they called "Morgan Jones" who told a compelling story of what he said were his actions in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. "Jones" (whose real name is Dylan Davies) was a security contractor and has a new book out called "The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There."

Set aside the fact that 60 Minutes forgot to mention that the book was published by an outfit part of their own corporate family -- the story had bigger problems. Jones claimed, among other things, to have scaled a 12 foot wall around a U.S. diplomatic compound in the middle of an attack, leveled an insurgent with a rifle butt blow to the face, and personally viewed the body of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens at a Benghazi hospital. It turns out these assertions may well be contrary to the facts.

The story started to unravel on October 31 when the Washington Post reported that the CBS story was quite different from a written report Davies had apparently filed with his employer just three days after the attack.

At the 15SecondsBlog we don't give advice to the media -- we give advice to those being questioned by journalists -- but in this case CBS quickly found itself on the receiving end of journalist's inquiries.

Their first response when challenged was to simply say that they "stood by their report." Hardly a compelling response. You can't imagine 60 Minutes letting some government agency get away with that as a defense for some action.

Then correspondent Lara Logan told the New York Times on November 2 that she and her colleagues "worked on this for a year" and while admitting they erred in not mentioning the corporate connection with the publisher -- otherwise defended the accuracy of the report.

On November 6, 60 Minutes Executive Producer Jeff Fager issued a written statement saying "We are proud of the reporting that went into the story and have confidence that our sources, including those who appeared on 60 Minutes, told accurate versions of what happened that night."

But on November 7, the New York Times reported that Davies "gave the F.B.I. an account of the night that the terrorist attacked the mission on September 11, 2012 that contradicts a version of events he provide in a recently published book and in an interview" with 60 Minutes.

CBS told the Times they were "surprised to hear about this" and the next morning Logan appeared on CBS This Morning to issue an apology and say that "We were wrong. We made a mistake," adding that they will apologize on their broadcast Sunday night and correct the record.

Update: CBS and Fager, to their credit, did subsequently give interviews to outside media on the debacle...even adopting our "black eye" terminology (an admittedly obvious line). Fager called it "as big a mistake as there has been" in 60 Minutes' 45 year history. We still think CBS was too slow with their apology and, as yet, has failed to adequately explain how the mistake was made -- a necessary step in repairing their damaged reputation.

H/T Media Matters

Obamacare PR Disaster - Harlow on Varney & Co.

2013-11-06T12:08:00.001-05:00

White House Sneer Tactics

2013-11-04T17:12:00.001-05:00

If there is anything worse than the roll-out of the Obama-care website, it has been the White House PR tactics in responding to that disaster.

First they claimed there really were no big issues with the Healthcare.gov website other than a few "glitches" from a system overwhelmed by its popularity.

Then they claimed they had no data on how many people across America had signed up. Turned out they did -- and on the first day the number was: six.

Eventually they admitted that there were some problems with the website and blamed it on the contractors who built it but strongly denied that there was any issue with Affordable Care Act implementation itself. They stood behind the President's refrain: "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it."

When that fell apart they blamed the insurance companies.

Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney took to sneering at and mocking ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl for asking tough questions.

When you are embattled and are taking fire for mistakes that your organization committed -- the last thing you should do is pick a fight with the media. The White House ought to be taking an approach of saying: "this is complicated -- our communications have not always been as precise as they should have been -- we are working to fix it and ask the public's forbearance because getting healthcare right is incredibly important."

Instead they have stumbled on every step. At 15-Secondsblog we take no position on the efficacy of the Affordable Care Act - but the Obama-care PR program is on life support. Mocking reporters in the White House briefing room is a prescription for disaster.

Off-the-Record: You Are Fired

2013-10-21T20:38:00.000-04:00

There are lots of things that should be done in secret -- but making an example of someone is not one of them. The Associated Press got that wrong today when they reportedly fired a reporter and editor over a recent badly mangled story.

At issue was a story we blogged about on October 10th when AP erroneously reported that VA gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe appeared to have lied to federal investigators.

AP based their story on some documents which said that a person with the initials "T.M." may have lied -- and they jumped to the conclusion that T.M = Terry McAuliffe. Wrong guy. Oops.

AP almost immediately retracted the story and veteran journalist Bob Lewis, who wrote it, tweeted that the mistake was his and he took responsibility for it.

The error was mine and I take responsibility for it. http://t.co/2tGpw7Ye0n
— Bob Lewis (@APBobLewis) October 10, 2013

Apparently AP agreed. arious news organizations today report that AP has fired Lewis and also canned Dena Potter, an editor who handled news for Virginia and West Virginia.

The Huffington Post reports that they contacted Potter -- who referred them to an AP spokesman -- WHO DECLINED TO COMMENT citing their policy of not discussing personnel matters. Hello?

The whole point of firing someone for an enormous mistake is to restore public confidence in your institution and to send a signal to other employees that egregious errors will not be tolerated.

Lewis is, by all accounts, a very experienced and capable journalist. But AP does neither him nor Potter any favors by giving them the ax on background. More importantly -- they do their organization and journalism in general no favors by being anything less than completely transparent.

Grimm's Hairy Tale

2013-10-16T14:19:00.000-04:00

The New York tabloids are all atwitter over allegations that Congressman Michael Grimm (R, NY) recently sequestered himself in a wine bar bathroom with a lady friend for "17 minutes."

The Owl's Head, Bay Ridge, NY

The story, first reported in Brooklyn Magazine, and leaped upon by the N. Y Post and the N.Y. Daily News comes complete with anonymous sources speculating that the former FBI agent turned Staten Island Congressman was not performing constituent services -- but was having sexual relations with that woman -- whatever her name was.

Other unnamed patrons were reportedly unhappy -- not only because the Congressman had effectively shutdown the bar's sole restroom.

Stories today say that Grimm issued a statement via email which said:

"I will not dignify this absurd distortion of the facts with a response."

Rep. Michael Grimm

He went on to say that the allegations were a "Democratic-led smear campaign."

Our advice in situations like that is that IF you feel a need to respond -- you need to respond fully. The old "I will not dignify this" ploy (as we pointed out in a post last year) usually translates to mean "it is true and embarrassing."

The N.Y. Post story quotes "a source close to Grimm" as saying that he merely went to the Owl's Head head to check up on a friend who was upset and denying any inappropriate activity. If so --we think Grimm should either ignore the story entirely -- or revise and extend his remarks to offer a full denial -- rather than the non-denial denial that he issued yesterday.

The Rush to Get It Wrong

2013-10-10T13:13:00.000-04:00

The perils of the modern media age were on full display in Virginia last night.

At 9:45 p.m. the usually responsible Associate Press posted a story that said that VA Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe may have lied to federal investigators looking into a scam to steal death benefits from terminally ill people. AP cited documents released in a federal fraud case.

The article said that McAuliffe's campaign "did not immediately respond to email and phone requests for comment about the allegation."

McAuliffe's political opponents DID respond almost instantly -- gleefully calling attention to the story.

The problem was that the story was wrong.

Incredibly, AP based the allegation on the fact that the documents said someone with the initials "T.M" may have lied to the feds. While McAuliffe has had connections to Joseph Caramadre, the perpetrator of the scheme, (and who is now in prison in Rhode Island) -- a close reading of the documents would show that "T.M" had to be someone else.

But AP didn't have time to read the material closely - they were too anxious to get it first to get it right.

One hour and 38 minutes after the story was posted -- AP withdrew it.

Here's the full retraction on the @TerryMcAuliffe story from the @ap #vagov pic.twitter.com/x4luIumOGg
— Jordan Fifer (@JordanFifer) October 10, 2013

The reporter who made the mistake tweeted that the error was his and he took responsibility for it. No word on whether he is still employed at AP.

The saga reinforces several of our standard teaching points, such as

-- organizations cannot waste a minute when responding to serious allegations in the modern media environment.
fact checking if not dead, is on life support -- even by-the-book news organizations like AP throw caution to the wind when they think they have a big story and
Bad stories have legs. (McAuliffe's opponents who promoted the bogus AP piece -- later tweeted essentially "You can't blame us -- McAuliffe is the kind of guy who MIGHT do something like that"

But nobody for a second thought McAuliffe wasn't capable of that AP story, which is something too.
— Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) October 10, 2013

"T.M -gate" also raised the question: How hard should you push back?

Clearly McAuliffe's folks needed to knock the story down instantly -- but once AP retracted, what should their stance be? Some might say that by making a big deal of it they will only invite more attention to other ethical charges that are harder to disprove -- and if they go after the AP reporter who screwed up they will seem mean spirited.

Our take is that the charge was so explosive and potentially damaging that they need to make an example of it. They should say reporters are human and make mistakes -- BUT where were the editors who should have caught it? And what was the sense of this rush to get things wrong? They also should use the opportunity to attack their opponents for similarly not bothering to find out the facts before crying wolf. In their case -- "T.M." stands for "Twitter Mistake."

Loaded Questions Deserve Loaded Answers

2013-10-03T08:51:00.001-04:00

Nothing good is coming out of the current government shutdown -- except perhaps this good example of how not to answer a tough question.

Senator Harry Reid and other Democrat leaders held a news conference on the Hill yesterday. CNN's Dana Bash asked if the Dems would support a Republican initiative in the House to provide continuing funding for the National Institute of Health (NIH.)

Reid starts out by saying that the subject was addressed well previously. He should have stopped there or dug deep into his media training bag and bridged to one of his prepared talking points.

But when Bash injected "If you could help one child with cancer, why wouldn't you do it?" Sen. Chuck Schumer, who was standing next to Sen. Reid, asked Bash, "Why pit one against the other?" After which, Sen. Reid injected, "Why would we want to do that?" Doh!

Reid went on to talk about how he has 1100 constituents who work at an Air Force Base in Las Vegas who are sitting and home and have problems of their own. He should have instantly recognized that it is not wise to compare people who are furloughed for a few days with kids with cancer.

Check out this clip:

Reid and his staff should have anticipated that something like the NIH question was coming. He should have had a prepared answer that would not allow his critics to take his words to suggest that he doesn't care about kids with cancer. (The Drudge Report headline for the story was: "Why Would We Want to Help One Kid With Cancer?")

We know Reid didn't mean to diss dying kids. His supporters are now attacking the media for taking his words "out of context" - but the problem is he set himself up for the fall. It is not just conservative media who reported on the apparently heartless comments -- CBS News and CNN (not bastions of the right) were among those to point out Reid's gaffe.

To compound his error -- Reid then attacked the reporter for her "irresponsible and reckless" question. The only thing reckless and irresponsible was the answer.

We Interrupt This Commercial for a Program

2013-09-18T16:31:00.000-04:00

When you do a media interview -- you don't have to answer all of their questions -- but you should answer some. The train wreck of an interview below shows what happens when the interviewer -- and the interviewees goals and expectations don't meet.

If you are using your celebrity to peddle some message, at a minimum you need to let the media ask you a little about whatever it was that made you famous in the first place.

Mets pitcher Matt Harvey missed that point.

Ex-QB Blindsided by SI Interview

2013-09-12T12:23:00.001-04:00

Famous athletes are accustomed to having reporters follow them around looking for quotes. But Aso Pogi, who played quarterback for Oklahoma State University for a couple years -- more than a decade ago is hardly a big name.

Sports Illustrated is rolling out a five-part expose on OSU football. The segments (not all of which have been posted yet) are titled: "The Money," "The Academics," "The Drugs," "The Sex," and "The Fallout." Even without reading it -- you can guess it is not a puff piece.

SI says the series is the result of a ten-month investigation. But Pogi is among those who claim the magazine rushed to judgment.

Pogi, who is now a youth pastor at the United First Methodist Church in Lawton, OK, says he was teaching Bible study last week when SI journalist Thayer Evans showed up unannounced wanting to speak about (OSU) Cowboy football.

According to the Tulsa World:

Pogi says he "was like, ‘man, we’re doing bible study.’" And figured (the story) was something about current OSU football, so he said "‘why don’t you just step in my office real quick and we’ll see what’s going on.’"

He now says that he never understood that he was granting an interview. There was no note pad and no tape recorder evident. Evans spun a tale about misdeeds from days gone by and Pogi says it was all news to him.

But when the story came out this week he is quoted in it confirming things which he says he did not say -- and that his comments were taken wildly out of context. Unless Evans had a hidden microphone -- we'll never know.

But the incident drives home one of the basic rules -- NEVER do an interview cold -- without taking time to research who the interviewer is, what he or she wants, and refreshing your memory on the facts. If the interview is about anything contentious -- insist on recording it yourself for your own protection.

Pogi had a perfect out -- "Hey, man. I am teaching Bible study here. Send me an email with what you want to talk about and perhaps we can set something up."

Not An Actual Church Sign

If the reporter claimed that he was on deadline -- the perfect response would be "How long have you been working on this story?" (Answer close to a year.) "And you come to me with zero time to decide if I want to participate? Obviously I am not very important to your story -- so maybe next time."

OSU supporters now say that many of SI's sources are disgruntled players who were dismissed from the team -- some of whom are now in prison. That doesn't make their information necessarily wrong -- but it makes it suspect.

Presumably the University had advance knowledge that the series was coming -- and owed it to their former players to give them a heads up.

Broken Off-the-Record

2013-09-09T18:55:00.002-04:00

FishBowl DC has a post out today showing (in a huge surprise to absolutely no one) that even respected national reporters can't agree on what "off-the-record" means.

Toby Harden, the bureau chief of London's Sunday Times, opines that he could "use the information but not attribute it to anyone by name or affiliation or quote it directly." (To many people -- that would be known as "deep background" not off-the-record.)

Susan Page, the Washington Bureau Chief, USA Today, comes closer to the appropriate definition (in our view) saying to her: "...'off the record’ means you can’t use the information in a story and you can’t use the information in reporting – for instance, going to a second source and asking him or her to confirm what you learned off-the-record from the first source." But she adds that often the source THINKS they as asking for "deep background" - the Harden version of off-the-record above and after some conversation reporter and source can agree on the material being used somehow.

The lesson for 15-Seconds clients is that it is VERY dangerous to enter into these kinds of negotiations. The safest thing is to always remain on the record. If you must go on background -- have an explicit conversation with the reporter every time you do so -- and make absolutely sure that everyone agrees on the attribution.

The risk of a reporter taking the Harden approach (above) and thinking your off-the-record comments are really on background is too high to justify going off-the-record in most cases.

Misunderstanding ground rules has destroyed countless careers of government officials and business leaders. Leveraging that misunderstanding has made the career of a handful of prominent journalists.

School Superintendent Truant at Media Event

2013-08-31T16:34:00.000-04:00

The Superintendent of Schools in Franklin, MA needs some remedial media training.

According to Fox 25 TV in Boston, there is an ongoing investigation of a male teacher accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with a female student.

When the station asked about the matter, Superintendent Maureen Sablonski issued a written statement saying:

It's a pity and we've all felt very sick and devastated. It's a breach of trust. Parents send their children to us and, if an adult makes a bad choice or blurs the lines, it impacts us all as educators..."

We'd give that a C+ grade. It is good that she expressed concern -- but she should have thrown in at least one "If true" -- just to avoid convicting the teacher before a trial.

But our real heartburn came with what happened next. Apparently, Sablonski held a news conference but instructed the media not to take video of her face. Amazingly, they complied and only showed the back of her head.

Sablonski When She WAS Showing Her Face

The Sup's explanation for the bizarre order was that the story was not about her -- and therefore her face was unneeded.

Her inexplicable action resulted in Fox 25 doing a five minute segment asking what she had to hide, whether she had some sort of phobia, and questioning her judgment. Note: five minutes is an eternity in TV. The segment ran twice as long as the original story about the accused creepy teacher. Take a look

Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

Public officials are paid to stand up, face the public and (when necessary) the cameras to explain their institutions. Sablonski acted like a Mafioso entering the witness protection program rather than an official charged with the proper management of a school system.

For ducking the cameras -- she earned an "F"

George Zimmerman Shoots Self In Foot

2013-08-24T16:34:00.001-04:00

A jury has judged George Zimmerman innocent. But nobody has declared him smart.

TMZ reported yesterday that the man who killed Travon Martin recently took a tour of the place which manufactured the gun used in the shooting.

TMZ even has a photo from the ill-advised tour.

Even Zimmerman's attorney couldn't mount a defense for this action. Yahoo News reports this statement from Shawn Vincent, a spokesman for attorney Mark O'Mara:

“We certainly would not have advised him to go to the factory that made the gun that he used to shoot Trayvon Martin through the heart,” he said. “That was not part of our public relations plan.

Zimmerman's brother Robert defended George's right to visit the gun manufacturer. But just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

It is possible that Zimmerman was trying to send a message with his visit. The manufacturer, Kel-Tec Firearms, issued a statement which suggested that Zimmerman wanted to purchase another of their products, a tactical shotgun often used for "home defense." Perhaps Zimmerman was trying to signal anyone who was planning on doing him harm that he would not be defenseless.

TMZ

If so, there are many better ways to send that message then to go glad handing at the gun factory.

When you have been portrayed negatively in the press -- you need to go out of your way to not play into the stereotype with which you have been labeled.

George's field trip to the firearm factory is as dumb as if Paula Deen had elected to go to a minstrel show -- or Anthony Weiner to a strip club.

MSNBC Sink Hole Swallows Four Northeastern Cities

2013-08-15T19:07:00.001-04:00

MSNBC says it is "the place for politics." They never claimed to be the place for geography.

On Tuesday the network aired a story about an upcoming bus tour for President Obama and they included this graphic of his planned stops.

Let's hope the White House doesn't rely on MSNBC for navigation -- because the network placed all four cities in the wrong place on the map...including the late Tim Russert's beloved Buffalo.

Fortunately, the journalists at New York Magazine conducted an investigation and found the misplaced cities.

When the error was pointed out to him, MSNBC afternoon host Martin Bashir tweeted that it was just "an honest geographic mistake." What a relief. For a while we thought it was a "dishonest geographic mistake."

The incident is just one more reminder that journalists are increasingly rushing to fill so much air time, internet real estate, and the like -- that incredibly bone headed mistakes are happening at an ever increasing rate.

If "an honest geographic mistake" is the best thing that Bashir can come up with -- it makes you wonder what the real reason was behind the metropolis mix up. Perhaps, like the folks at KTVU-TV who were spectacularly WONG recently, they were relying on a summer intern.

What ever the reason -- there is no excuse. We tell our clients that in the current environment they must be ever vigilant concerning stories of interest to them -- because if they are counting on news organizations to do basic fact checking -- they will be traveling down the wrong road.

Governor's Joke Bombs

2013-08-10T10:29:00.000-04:00

Governor Paul LePage is not a fan of the media in his state.

While visiting a Pratt & Whitney defense plant in Maine (along with Senator Susan Collins and other politicians) the Governor was plopped into a flight simulator for the F-35 Lightning II - a fighter aircraft to be used by U.S. military.

According to AP, an official showing LePage how the simulator works asked him what he wanted to blow up. The posted video below may start after that comment, however, with the Governor chuckling and saying: "I want to find the Portland Press Herald building and blow it up."

The Press Herald and others were quick to take offense even asking the local FBI rep for his reaction. And the Governor's spokeswoman had to point out the obvious that LePage was joking.

We were struck by a quote from Laura Cassella, a Pratt &Whitney "communications specialist" who threw the Governor under the bus -- or fighter perhaps. She said no one from the company heard the governor state his desire to bomb the Press Herald and "If he did, that's not something we would echo," she said.

The media have a notoriously thin skin and jokes like LePage's are inevitably going to land with a thud. Worse for him -- one of his goals during the visit was to encourage Lockheed Martin -- the defense firm which builds the F-35 to co-locate in Maine near the Pratt & Whitney plant that makes engine parts. The joke took him off message.

While the media's sense of humor is suspect -- we would have encouraged P&W spokesperson Cassella to lighten up. A better course for her would have been to fly cover for the Governor and say something like: "I'm sure, if the Governor said something like that, he was only joking. We welcome his interest in Pratt & Whitney and enjoy a great relationship with all the state's political leadership and news organizations."

Orioles Manager Commits Media Relations Error

2013-08-02T14:30:00.000-04:00

How many times are we going to have to say this? There is no such thing as "off-the-record." Today's validation of that fact comes from Baltimore Oriole manager Buck Showalter.

USA Today on Wednesday quoted Showalter as making a very interesting point about the ongoing performance enhancing drug controversy in baseball. If you haven't followed it -- the short version is that a group of players stand accused of taking banned substances from a now-defunct anti-aging clinic in Miami. The sport is reportedly on the verge of suspending nearly a dozen players for about 50 games. The biggest name involved, N.Y. Yankee Alex Rodriguez, may face a bigger penalty -- 200 games or perhaps even a lifetime ban.

Showalter's view is that the Yankees would unfairly benefit from A-Rod getting the axe. They entered into a very ill-advised contract with the aging slugger many years ago and still owe him in the neighborhood of $86 million. But if Rodriquez is banned, the Bronx Bombers get to keep all that cash in the bank, avoid paying a "luxury tax" which baseball levies on teams that over spend.

"If (Baseball Commissioner) Bud (Selig) lets them get away with that, they’re under the luxury tax. If they can reset again, they can spend again, and I guarantee you, in two years, (Orioles star catcher) Matt Wieters is in New York,”

Showalter is probably right -- but why would you tell your fan base that one of their favorite players will probably ditch them soon for Broadway?

Turns out he hadn't meant to do so. COMCASTSPORTSNET. reports today:

Showalter says his comments weren't "meant for public consumption." Talking to reporters after the fact he said: "You guys know, we sit around and talk all the time about baseball issues because we all kind of love our game and we look at things and we talk about it. Unfortunately, somebody decided to put it out there publicly,” he said.
“I said it, and someone decided to print it. It’s unfortunate. What are you going to do?”

There is only one thing to do. Don't say it.

Showalter could have made the same point without using his own player as an example. It is interesting to note that no one ever complained about having boring comments which they meant to be off-the-record published by mistake. Say something colorful and the likelihood of a journalist misunderstanding the ground rules goes up exponentially. Just ask Anthony Weiner's spokeswoman.

We are not arguing for people who talk to the media to try to be boring -- just the opposite. By all accounts, Showalter is good with the media and understands that talking to them is an important part of his role.

But you should save your most colorful and provocative utterances for ones which are well thought out rather than tossing them out in group settings and assume that everyone understands the ground rules.

Put a Fork In Weiner's Flack

2013-07-30T22:41:00.002-04:00

Life can be tough when you are a spokesperson for a person, organization or campaign which is being ripped in the media. The most important thing you can do is project calm under fire.

Apparently that message hasn't gotten through to Anthony Weiner's communications director Barbara Morgan. Admittedly, Ms Morgan is under a lot of pressure. How would YOU like to have "Anthony Weiner's Communications Director" on YOUR resume?

There is an article in the New York Daily News by a former Weiner intern, Olivia Nuzzi, which claims that many Weiner staffers joined the campaign only to get close to the candidate's wife, Huma Abedin, in an effort to parlay that into a connection for the Hillary for President 2016 campaign.

There were a few other shots at Weiner (for example he couldn't remember the intern's names) -- but on the list of accurate and negative things said about the candidate, the article would not break the top 100.

All this seems to have been lost on Weiner's spokeswoman, Barbara Morgan, who (unless some prankster was impersonating her) told the blog "Talking Points Memo" that Nuzzi is an attention seeking "bitch" who sucked at her job.

Morgan (who by the way, clearly sucks at HER job) went on to use terms like "f***ing slutbag," "tw*t," and "c*nt,"

Way to go Barbara. Good way to endear the campaign to the voters -- and to convince the public that all this unpleasantness involving Weiner is behind us.

Morgan also threatened to sue Nuzzi (for what is unclear.) Sounds like the tactic that worked so well for Asiana Airlines.

It is (way past) time for Weiner to take his classy act and its supporters -- and head for the exit.

UPDATE: Morgan now says "In a moment of frustration, I used inappropriate language in what I thought was an off-the-record conversation...."

At 15-Seconds, we tell clients there is no such thing as "off-the-record."
.

S.D. Mayor Filner Should Consider Moving On Up to the East Side

2013-07-26T17:48:00.000-04:00

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner is about as good as handling a crisis as he is wooing the ladies.

In case you missed it, about two weeks ago, three of Filner's long time supporters held a press conference to call for his resignation because of "credible" allegations that he sexually harassed women.

In response -- Filner issued a DVD. What? Apparently he wanted to avoid questions so much he wanted to handle his denial via Netflix. In the recording, Filner admitted that he sometimes treated women poorly and intimidated them -- but that a fair investigation would show there was no sexual harassment.

Since then, one-by-one, and then in groups various women have come forward to describe Hizzoner putting them in headlocks, licking their faces, grabbing their rear ends. Perhaps his next DVD should be put out by the WWE.

Soon there was a lawsuit by Gloria Allred -- as inevitable as tomorrow's sunrise.

While all this was going on -- various members of Filner's staff resigned, the twice-married Filner's latest fiancée broke off their engagement and leaders of his own Democratic party are calling for his head.

After a couple weeks of literally running from the press, Filner decided today to face them and speak out. How'd that go? Not so good.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The mayor announced that he would take a leave of absence for a couple weeks in order to receive some "intensive counseling." Then he would return to the job. About that point the PA system failed. When it was slow to return...the mayor beat a retreat until the audio could be restored. Once it was -- he tried the charlatan's trick of trotting out all the lame excuses that you know in his heart -- he would like to offer. Such as...."...it is simply not acceptable for me to try to explain away my conduct as the product of the standards of a different generation." Correct. But he rolls that weak excuse out there just in case.

After completing his statement, Filner turned his back on the media and departed.

Had he faced the press and made a convincing apology two weeks ago, he might have been spared the embarrassment of woman after woman going on TV describing his appalling behavior. Instead he tried to string things out. You can bet whenever he goes out in public for the near future -- the media will be there asking question -- questions he has yet to answer.

So what is our PR advice to Filner? Resign....and move to New York. You may have an elective future there.

15-Seconds Blog

We've Moved!

Looking for the 15-Seconds Blog? We have a new address. Please follow this link to our new home.

While you are at it -- check out the new, improved 15-Seconds website here.

Safeway Bags Some Bad Publicity

The Show Must Go On

Top Ten Media Relations Posts for 2013

10. Cold Fusion Confusion

The 15-Seconds Lesson : Don't pick a fight with the media unless the stakes are enormous

9. Al Gore's Slippery Slope

The 15-Seconds Lesson : Prepare for tough questions in advance and don't introduce negative thoughts yourself.

8. Slimed By the Media

The 15-Seconds Lesson: A dramatic picture or a colorful phrase can often overwhelm the facts.

7. Paula Deen's Leftovers

The 15-Seconds Lesson: You get only one chance to apologize - so get it right the first time.

6. Broken Off the Record

The 15-Seconds Lesson: The safest thing is to never tell a reporter anything that you can't live with seeing in print -- right next to your name.

5. Boeing's Dreamliner Nightmare

The 15-Seconds Lesson: In a crisis you cannot wait until you have ALL the facts. You need to start communicating before your reputation goes down in flames.

4. The Rush to Get It Wrong

The 15-Seconds Lesson: Fact checking is dead in the media whose desire to get a story first sometimes trumps getting it right. Organizations and individuals have to monitor the media and respond instantly when they are falsely accused of wrongdoing.

3. CBS's Black Eye

The 15-Seconds Lesson: When under attack, avoid the knee-jerk self defense statement until you have a chance to investigate. Don't give the answer you HOPE turns out to be true "We stand by our story" until you know if your story stands up.

2. Asiana's Crash Course in Bad PR

The 15-Seconds Lesson - When there is an accident with injuries or death - the first statement and most of the subsequent ones MUST start with a statement of genuine heartfelt sorrow. Hire some local crisis communications expertise -- and remember -- this is NOT about you it is about the victims.

And our favorite media relations gaffe of the year:

1. Duck Tale: New Way to Look Silly Avoiding the Media

The 15-Seconds Lesson: Don't run, don't hide. Get some media training and meet the media with a smile not with a rain coat -- or your desk -- over your head.

Happy New Year from 15-Seconds.