Bending Light

Light Rays on Saturdays: Obama v Romney... Study Their Time At Harvard Grad Schools

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:12:00 +0000

After all the histrionics, debates and fabricated hoo-hah, the match-up for the presidency in 2012 will be precisely what everyone has expected all along: President Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney. If you want to truly understand the nature of these two men, study the one thing they have in common: Harvard University graduate schools. These New York Times’ features – one from January 2007 exploring Obama’s time at Harvard Law and the other from December 2011 assessing Romney at Harvard Business – provide tremendous insights into the personalities and characters of the candidates.

By now, you have had your fill of the “look back,” “look ahead,” “best of,” “top 10” and “what to watch for” stories that inundate us at the end and start of every year, in every medium and media. There’s no evidence that many people pay attention to the vast majority of these stories. It’s breezy filler designed to fill space between ads and give editors and reporters well-deserved time off during the holidays. That’s why it was nice to see Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank review the accuracy of his predictions for 2011. The annual churn of year-end content would be significantly more interesting if all media held themselves publicly accountable in such fashion.

You’ll hear a lot about the Iowa presidential caucuses this coming week. Political junkies swear the caucuses are important – as a winnowing exercise, as a springboard to voting primaries in other states, as a place for candidates to drop resume bombs on each other, and as a test of retail political skills. Yet the winner in Iowa is seldom their party’s nominee. For a different perspective on the importance of Iowa, read these pieces published in the past week in The Washington Post and The New York Times. Each offers important context about the state that will dominate political news this week.

As we head into a new year, I want to thank everyone for reading Bending Light. Somehow, it manages to get about 150 to 200 page views per post, and I’m very grateful to know that you're out there. By far, the two most popular posts since Bending Light launched two months ago have been on Jerry Sandusky’s decision to interview with Bob Costas and the five things reporters and PR people have in common. The “Light Rays” compilations on Saturdays also seem pretty well-read. Thanks again for making Bending Light a choice in your online buffet.

I wish Happy New Year to you all! See you in 2012.

Daily Detente: Five Things The Media And Public Relations Have In Common

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:50:00 +0000

When was the last time you saw a front page story in the Washington Post (or any other top tier media outlet) in which press secretaries and spokespeople complained about the tactics, attitude and/or work habits of the reporters they deal with every day?

Just about as often as Newt Gingrich admits mistakes, I would imagine – as in, never.

Another Day At The Office For Jay Carney

No, you won’t often see national stories casting reporters in a negative light. But at least on an annual basis, you will see stories like the December 22 Post piece about White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and his staff, headlined, “Journalists complain the White House press office has become overly combative.”

It was a classic inside-baseball, warning shot across Carney’s bow – a lump of coal as he headed into what will probably be his last holiday break before the 2012 campaign makes life a round-the-clock nightmare. Given that Carney and his staff manage the flow of information to and from thousands of reporters around the world each day, it’s amusing when the complaints of “some reporters” trigger 1,400 words that can be summed up as: A few of us don’t like the tone by which we are being held accountable for the stories we are producing.

Two second tier reporters complained on the record. Others did so anonymously. But a majority agreed Carney is better than his predecessor, Robert Gibbs, who endured similar stories until escaping to greener pastures. Two leading reporters, including Jake Tapper, essentially told their colleagues to suck it up. And, some academic historians reminded us that griping between the media and institutional spokespeople isn't all that new.

Having been the focus of a similar mish-mash as a public sector communicator late in the last century, I want to say for the record that the relationship between PR people and members of the media should always remain professional. No one should be subjected to curses in writing or verbally. The best PR people adhere to the Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics (and journalists have an ethical code too.)

There is a dynamic context that affects both sides of the communications see-saw, but reporters and PR people have more in common than they think.

We Are Doing More With Less. There are fewer reporters and fewer editors working in the established, professional media today, and those that remain are working harder than ever before in a highly competitive, 24/7 online world. The media may not realize that PR people face the exact same pressure demands, and that responding to media inquiries is not our only task.

We Are Human Beings. I often remind clients that reporters are people too. They have families, elderly parents, children, bills to pay, relationships, health issues, good days and bad days. The same is true for agency and client-side communications professionals. Everyone has a job to do, but it’s not always easy to wall off your personal and professional lives.

We Would Like to Remain Employed. Like everyone else in this economy, we are all just one business decision or bad break away from unemployment. Every reporter and PR professional with more than three years of experience is well aware of the dozens of former colleagues who have been laid off. Reporters used to deride PR as “the dark side.” You don’t hear that snicker too often these days.

We Both Suffer From Bad Actors. There is less professionalism in journalism because, frankly, everyone has become a reporter in the wireless world. Anyone with Internet access can pretend to be a reporter, analyst or (even better) commentator and – with some ingenuity – reach thousands of people who may or may not know the difference. And there are equally amateurish PR people who send mindless pitches, who lie, who obstruct.

We Are Advocates Whose Goals May Not Intersect. Many government reporters justify their behavior because taxpayers pay the salaries of spokespeople. Positioned as stewards of the public interest, they expect public sector communicators to act as their facilitators. But spokespeople also act as reputation managers for their clients. As Bob Dylan wisely noted, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody.”

There is and always will be a natural, healthy tension between the media and public relations. Neither profession is particularly popular. Given the complexity of the relationship, our collective goal should always be détente. If we can turn the lights off at the end of the day content in the knowledge that we have been respectful and fair to each other, isn’t that enough?

Why This Blog Is Called 'Bending Light'

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:00:00 +0000

In the past few weeks, many readers have asked why this blog is called "Bending Light." Looking back at the readership data, I realized that only a handful of people saw the very first post. So, to answer the question (and to buy some time for holiday shopping), here's a reprint from October 24...

What light shows us (or what the absence of light hides from us) is not the present; it is the past.

When you see the sun, you are seeing it as it was eight minutes ago. Moonlight isn’t really moonlight; it’s actually sunlight reflecting the moon as it was two seconds ago. When you marvel at the night sky, your mind is processing an image that no longer exists at the source. What you see is a scatter of light that began travelling toward your eyes anywhere from thousands to millions of years ago.

Distance is not the only distorting influence; the stuff through which light passes also alters what you see. This is called refraction, and it magnifies objects under water; creates rainbows; makes it appear as if stars twinkle. The sky is blue because of the way gas molecules in our atmosphere interact with light from the sun.

Optics (the study of light) is an excellent analogy for communications. It follows many of the same principles. Successful strategic communications – communications that moves people toward a specific goal – relies on three core ingredients:

Proximity -- How relevant it is.

Medium -- The way it is delivered.

Context -- The way it will be received.

Think of a prism. On the left is the content. This is the light source -- the information, facts or point of view you wish to make relevant and compelling. Near the middle is the medium – the channel, the words, the pictures and/or the video through which the content must pass. On the right is the audience – the target who will absorb the spectrum of content based on their own subjective context.

The goal of strategic communications is to create a vision that compels an audience to act. The action may be laughter, protest, trust, purchase, etc.

Studying, informing and moving opinion is what I have done my whole adult life as a journalist and as a public and private sector professional.

That’s why this blog is called “Bending Light.” Together, we’ll put on our eyeglasses and analyze modern efforts to shape reality through effective communication.

Three Key Next Steps For Massachusetts's Newest Industry: Legalized Gambling

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:43:00 +0000

Massachusetts launched a new industry yesterday – the biggest start-up in the Commonwealth’s history – and while most start-ups don’t need intensive strategic communications until later in their evolution, reputation management will be critical to the success of this new venture from day one.

The new industry is legalized gambling, a multi-billion-dollar enterprise that many believe will eventually take its place among Massachusetts’ traditional economic engines – tech, life sciences, healthcare, higher education, financial services, etc. In this business model, the state is the chief executive officer and chief ethics officer; every taxpayer is a shareholder; and, every community is a stakeholder, directly or indirectly, for better or worse.

As a quasi-public enterprise overseeing privately run subsidiaries, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) will act as a hybrid board of directors and regulator, responsible for fulfilling the promises of the business but also acting as the eyes and ears of the citizens. The communications challenges it faces are immense and serious.

Here are three important steps for a successful launch of this new venture in the first quarter of 2012:

1. The remaining board and staff appointments are critical. Stephen P. Crosby’s appointment as MGC chairman is, in the words of the state’s most prominent gambling watchdog, “inspired.” The four other upcoming picks, which include one each from Attorney General Martha Coakley and Treasurer Steven Grossman, must be equally so. The group’s staff – legal counsel, financial analyst and law enforcement – must be experienced and beyond reproach.

2. A clear, common sense mission, vision and values must be articulated. Honesty, transparency and accountability are the lenses through which the MGC’s conduct must be viewed. Crosby would do well to use the start of 2012 (weather be damned) as an opportunity to travel to every region of the state to speak with business and civic groups and the media about his principles as chairman.

3. Every detail of the process must be converted into a scalable, interactive web site. This should be done as soon as possible. Each facet of the siting process, the fees, the regulatory oversight, the responsibilities of potential developers, etc., should be laid out through easily accessible navigation and plain English. No secrets. The site should feature public engagement capabilities that include social media and the ability of citizens to ask questions and get answers.

Crosby’s appointment yesterday was, by most accounts, a good start and he won deserved kudos. He immediately struck the right tone, stating: “My job and eventually the job of the commission is, first and foremost, to maximize the public good and to minimize the unintended consequences.’’

It won’t be easy. Before and after Gov. Deval Patrick tapped Crosby, some of the state’s most influential reporters were already cynically chattering on social media as to when the first indictments would be handed down. In Foxborough last night, a town meeting on a casino proposal featured not joy, but anxiety and tension. And for Patrick himself, short of his historic appointments to the Supreme Judicial Court, the roll-out of gambling will be a milestone of his political legacy, like it or not.

Polls have consistently shown that most citizens, bouyed by pleasant memories of trips to Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun and Las Vegas, support legalized gambling as a hypothetical concept. Where those perceptions will stand when reality takes hold five years from now hinges almost entirely on how the MGC behaves and performs, especially in its 2012 launch phase.

Light Rays on Saturdays: Occupy, FOX News and Content Creation

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:07:00 +0000

The Occupy movement never seemed very strategic, as discussed here previously. Correcting economic unfairness is an admirable goal, but how exactly does squatting on public land suggest a solution? Occupy’s lone success (thus far) was to generate a national discussion in October and early November among virtually every opinion leader and editorialist in the nation. Beyond that, a lot of people were left camping out, waiting for orders that never came. It will be interesting to see if the “movement” can define and push a specific action plan in time for the 2012 elections.

What’s left to say about FOX News? Today’s New York Times adds to the legend, discussing in detail the channel’s behavior around the Iowa caucuses. Here’s what people need to understand: Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have built a network that doesn’t bother compete for viewers like others do. FOX owns its audience’s hearts and minds. It engages them on an emotional, sociological and/or ideological basis. FOX’s brand loyalty comes from being an utterly consistent reaffirmation of “the truth” for millions of people who feel the world is out of control. They don’t see their values reflected elsewhere, so they turn to FOX News for succor. You don't have to like it; just don't ignore it.

There’s no shame in putting “content creation” on your resume. It may drive a particular demographic of reporters nuts, but welcome to the modern news and information buffet that has empowered consumers with unlimited and unfiltered choices. Another example of the dynamic occurred this week when former Digitas CEO Laura Lang was named to run the media holdings at Time, Inc. David Carr, the New York Times media reporter, explained it exceptionally well. Still don’t get it? Read this piece by Dow Jones reporter Damian Ghigliotty.

Boston Globe Reporters Predict The Future: Their Gamble Could Be Your Opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:33:00 +0000

God bless Boston Globe Sunday Business Editor Robert Gavin. About a year ago, as the Globe’s economic reporter, Gavin pulled the story assignment that most major beat reporters confront every December: Predict the future.

Art by Leo Acadia for Jan. 2, 2011 Money & Careers section.

This is the month when industry reporters “look ahead” to next year, talking to sources and using their expertise to offer audiences a sense of what to expect, trends, potential newsmakers, etc., in the year to come. Some reporters also produce “look back” stories, recapping the past year on their beat and, hopefully, offering some analysis.

Reporters and editors are people too, with families and friends. They want time off at the holidays like everyone else. These look back/look ahead pieces can be written and laid out well in advance, allowing the media to fill pages with staff content while giving reporters a year-end break.

For business and enterprises, these stories represent an opportunity to pitch experts and analysts who can comment on what lies ahead for an industry or segment. The pitches rarely work if they are self-promoting. Don’t expect a profile of you or your organization. Instead, be satisfied to position yourself as a thought leader and perhaps become a source for future stories.

What was unusual about the Globe’s effort to forecast 2011 was the lack of experts cited in the spread of stories penned by Gavin and his colleagues – Jennifer B. McKim, Robert Weisman, Scott Kirsner, D.C. Denison and Casey Ross. That’s gutsy.

“The recovery will speed up as jobs are created,” was the headline on the piece penned by Gavin, who said the economy “will gain enough momentum by the second half of the year to spark substantial job creation and bring down the stubbornly high employment rate.” Right about now, he wrote, “workers, businesses and investors will start to believe that conditions are headed for long-term improvement.”

Oh, how we wish he was correct.

The U.S. unemployment rate did drop in November to its lowest level in two and a half years, but one reason was that 315,000 adults simply stopped looking for jobs. Other data and surveys – by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, by the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, by the Globe’s own poll – confirm an overcast economic sky with only occasional sunny breaks.

To be fair, there was absolutely no way that Gavin, who is very smart, could have foreseen the Europe’s failure to act to stem an ongoing debt plague; the decision by most large corporations to hoard cash rather than invest in hiring; the do-nothing attitude of Congress; the chill of new banking regulations, etc. If macroeconomics was easy, we all could play the stock market like Rain Man could count cards.

That’s why reporters often quote experts as intellectual shields to support their prognostications. The other Globe fortune tellers focused on smaller slices of pie and fared better.

McKim’s story predicted the “Massachusetts housing market will remain stable in 2011.” Massachusetts Association of Realtors data seems to back that up.

Weisman’s piece said it was “a safe bet 2011 will be another year of consolidation” in the Massachusetts biotechnology industry. A safe bet indeed.

Kirsner spoke to “about a dozen local entrepreneurs, angel investors, venture capitalists and investment bankers” to devise his “take on the people, companies and technologies that will be making news in 2011.” The headline on his piece focused only on “electric vehicles, video games and clean energy,” but the story was incredibly detailed and confidently named names.

Denison took on technology, predicting a 2011“surge” in the number of technology start-ups in New England. The roulette wheel is still spinning on that one.

Ross called for “a steady increase” in the volume of commercial construction and was proven right in rental housing and biotech-related facilities.

Prediction stories are thankless if low-risk tasks. With the exception of stock-picking stories, few consumers (or editors, for that matter) check to see how close reporters came to reality a year later. The January 2, 2011 “Money & Careers” section of the Sunday Globe would have been forgotten had it not been used to cushion holiday ceramics headed for my attic.

But they are a mainstay in editorial calendars and, with smart pitching, represent an annual opportunity for rapport building, positioning and thought leadership. Look for them again anytime from Christmas Day through New Year’s Day.

Mitt Romney In The Media Sun: Can GOP Voters Like Him If They Don't Trust Him?

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 13:55:00 +0000

It’s a big weekend for Mitt Romney – the weekend he finally lets voters see him as a person, a human being, a father with a family, a husband with quirks, a guy with an IPod and a big appetite for cereal.

In fact, you now have four excellent opportunities – Mitt Moments – to understand the former Massachusetts Governor from four very different but equally insightful perspectives:

Mitt Moment 1: “A Mitt Romney You Haven’t Seen” is the topic of a big spread in Parade magazine this weekend. It’s online here. Fresh from his boy’s weekend in Italy with George Clooney, venerable presidential consultant David Gergen says he “still wondered what made Romney tick.” To his credit, Gergen confronts Romney’s Mormon faith, which many see as a hidden concern for GOP voters.

The Parade profile is a must read for every voter. But don’t stop there. Read what Gergen himself has to say about the interview in a separate Parade piece and in an online column on CNN. It speaks volumes that the nation’s most influential political consultant-analyst-author-commentator “still wondered what made Romney tick.” Romney ran four years ago and it’s only a month before the start of the GOP primaries, but Gergen concludes: “We can’t tell yet what kind of president Mitt Romney would be.” Ouch.

Mitt Moment 2: “Why Don’t They Like Me” is the subject of a five-page Time magazine cover story dated December 12 (available online if you subscribe.) Authored by none other than Joe Klein, the five-page piece examines the familiar litany of potential misgivings that bedevil Romney – flip-flops, Mormonism, technocratic, etc.

Klein has openly complained that he did not get the same access to Romney, his family and his campaign that Gergen was granted. His resentment may have seeped into his writing, giving the piece a negative slant. Reportedly, the Time article says of Romney: "The question always remains: Who is he really? Do we have any clues as to what he actually believes?" Sounds familiar.

Mitt Moment 3: "Building a Better Mitt Romney-Bot" is the unflattering headline of today's New York Times Magazine cover story, a comprehensive assessment of Romney's strategic choice to be portrayed as "a fixer" rather than a regular guy.

"Mitt Romney’s campaign has decided upon a rather novel approach to winning the presidency. It has taken a smart and highly qualified but largely colorless candidate and made him exquisitely one-dimensional: All-Business Man, the world’s most boring superhero," says author Robert Draper, who describes Romney as a man "puzzling his way to victory."

Mitt Moment 4: “Focus Group Weighs in on Campaign 2012” is a CSPAN question-and-answer session with suburban Republican voters in northern Virginia recorded Thursday, December 1. Less convenient than either the Parade or Time spreads, this focus group – facilitated by the legendary pollster Peter Hart – is a must-see for political junkies. It’s uncut and a great demonstration how focus groups should work.

A majority of the GOP focus group participants said they are prepared to vote for Newt Gingrich over Romney right now, despite concerns about the former House Speaker’s three marriages, ego and insider record. There was a feeling that Romney is the kind of guy who would buy his way to the front of any line. Unfortnately for Romney, some of the nation’s most important reporters and editors watched the whole session play out behind a two-way mirror.

The focus group folks are not exactly in love with Gingrich, who is getting his own dose of reality this weekend from influential conservatives George Will and Charles Krauthammer. But the frank views of real Republican voters are eye opening and worth two and a half hours of your time. The show also should be required viewing for any die-hard Democrat who still doubts President Obama can win re-election.

Trust is the most important ingredient in communication strategies that hinge on the personal brand of one leader. People will give your ideas, your business plan and you a fair hearing (and maybe even the benefit of the doubt) if they feel they can trust you as person.

It's not that Romney is disliked; it's that he is not trusted, especially among the Republican base. Those unwilling to support him by now are not likely to be swayed by his get-to-know-me-as-a-person push. They will view it as they view him – manufactured and forced. He has to overcome the misgivings of the base before he can appeal to independents and moderates in the general election.

There is growing skepticism he will get that chance.

Beware Barney Blarney: Three reasons the race to succeed Barney Frank is unpredictable

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:27:00 +0000

Congressman Barney Frank’s decision to retire at the end of his current term has set in motion a spectacle of political punditry that should vastly improve the sale of hip boots at Cabela’s during the course of the next 11 months.

Hundreds of reporters, consultants and political operatives will be eager to tell you how the race to succeed Frank will turn out; after all, politics is a professional sporting industry in Massachusetts.

Here are three reasons why you should keep your own counsel:

The 4^th Congressional District is brand new. Some out-of-state Democrats are claiming the 4^th CD is solidly Democratic. They are right on paper, but wrong in reality. A previously unknown state senator named Scott Brown won wide margins in almost all of the smaller towns of the district, overwhelming Coakley’s advantages in larger, liberal communities, like Newton, Needham and Brookline, on his way to winning a seat in the U.S. Senate. Even without Frank on the ballot, expect the GOP to use him as foil for national fundraising and riling up right-leaning independents.

The race for the open seat will occur in the context of a presidential election. The Brown-Coakley affair was a special election. Voter turn-out in this contest will be exceptional and the Republican presidential nominee will make an important difference. If it’s former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican congressional candidate will benefit the most. Jobs and the economy will be a dominant issue, but no one can predict the trickle-down atmospherics and secondary issues this far out. Candidates will need to lean toward their party base in the primaries then shift toward the center for the general election.

The field will be crowded with no shoo-in. Thanks to Brown’s upset, there are dozens of relatively unknown candidates who think they can win this seat – mayors, state reps, state senators, operatives, etc. This is not a mass media district. There are wealthy, executive communities to the north, bedroom communities in the center and blue-collar, working-class communities in the south. Retail tactics will be critical – local organization, local endorsements, local media, shoe leather and handshakes.

All things considered, the early line would appear to favor a moderate who can connect with voters on a personal level, and who offers a strong record of constituent services and proven results on a grassroots level.

Frank’s high profile will draw national media attention to the race, overshadowing the state’s other open congressional seat representing Cape Cod and the Southcoast.

But beware the Barney Blarney. The national pundits may try to make this race about ideology, but we live in pragmatic times and most voters are looking for non-partisan or bi-partisan solutions to the practical challenges this Congress can’t seem to tackle.

The initial epitaphs on Frank and his career in public service will be the subject of a future post, but the most thoughtful and interesting take thus far appeared in the Lifestyle section of today’s Washington Post.

That piece may make Frank chuckle, but this farewell in the Herald News in blue-collar Fall River will make him proud.

Light Rays on Saturdays: Mitt's Hair and a Modern Definition of PR

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:53:00 +0000

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was at the center of two big stories this week that demonstrate how political communications has devolved into something resembling professional wrestling.

With President Obama visiting New Hampshire, Romney bought a tiny bit of local TV to air an ad attacking Obama’s handing of the economy. Romney aides also delivered the commercial to reporters. One little problem – the featured Obama quote was really a paraphrase of something an aide to Senator John McCain said during the 2008 campaign. Romney and his aides shrugged off the deluge of criticism.

Misleading and unethical, the ad had little to do with hurting Obama – it’s no secret the economy is his weak spot. It was primarily designed to earn Romney the “See, I can be a tough guy” merit badge among the GOP influencers who have yet to embrace his candidacy. Democrats may use the ad to bolster their attack on Romney as a cold, valueless, flip-flopping, say-anything-to-win candidate.

The other big Mitt story? One thousand words on his hair on the front page of Friday’s New York Times. The Times even interviewed the “barrel-chested, bald Italian immigrant” barber, who “agreed to share some of the secrets” of Mitt’s hair. Are you ready to be blown away? No dye. No product. And, sometimes Romney trims it himself.

How many of you are saying: “Wow. I honestly don’t give a flying follicle about this?”

Was there no other feature to fill that hole on the Times’ front page? If a candidate were to change his/her hair in the midst of a campaign, that might justify page one on a slow day. But Romney hasn’t. Ever. And while Democratic strategists may see his hair style as a weakness, it has yet to be shown that most potential voters share that view.

Mitt’s hair is certainly a story of some sort. Any candidate idiosyncrasy or notable character trait is fair game. But 1,000 words on page one of a newspaper read daily by world leaders? People say the media reflects the society it serves, but I wonder what role the media can play in raising our expectations of presidential candidates and presidential issues.

Speaking of raising expectations, the Public Relations Society of America has rolled out a campaign to engage PR practitioners in redefining the profession for the 21^st century. (Disclosure: I have paid PRSA membership dues for a decade and serve as an unpaid editorial advisor to the Public Relations Strategist magazine.)

There are a lot of good reasons for campaign to redefine PR, not the least of which is that the current PRSA definition: “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” That’s just plain awful. The PRSA’s web-based campaign also will stimulate engagement among professionals worldwide.

There has been tremendous change in our trade this century – the rise of social media has dramatically altered the “who, what, where, when and why” of content creation, distribution and sharing. The dynamic interplay of news and information in shaping knowledge, opinion and preference has never been more complicated.

It would be nice to be able to succinctly distinguish PR from marketing and advertising, but the PRSA also needs to be careful about giving too much weight to modern tactics. We need not redefine our role much beyond what Edward Louis Bernays demonstrated in the 20^th century. The tools change but our job is to influence audiences to adopt and act on a client’s point of view.

Media Coverage of Occupy Wall Street: Bigger Stories Obscured

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:43:00 +0000

The media has nothing to be ashamed of in its coverage of the Occupy movement. The question now is whether they will start digging into the complex issues that have been obscured by the headline-grabbing civil disobedience.

Sunday’s New York Times "Media & Advertising" section featured not one but two different articles about the difficulties of satisfying everyone when it comes to reporting on the ongoing multi-city, mass sit-in for economic fairness.

Occupy Boston seen from The Fed.

The first story examined criticism at both ends of the political spectrum – and the protestors themselves – of how journalists have portrayed Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Occupy nodes active in cities throughout the country. “Lacking a list of demands or recognized leaders, the Occupy movement has at times perplexed the nation’s media outlets,” the story concluded.

Nearby in the same section, Times reporter David Carr analyzed what might lie ahead for the movement once its tent-city encampments are dismantled. “In addition to the 5 W’s — who, what, when, where and why — the media are obsessed with a sixth: what’s next? Occupy Wall Street, for all its appeal as a story, is very hard to roll forward,” Carr wrote.

Those stories followed a November 13 column in which Times Public Editor Arthur S. Brisbane surveyed journalism experts for ideas about how to improve the paper’s coverage of “the seemingly formless mass of a movement that pointedly eschews leadership and formal demands.”

Brisbane’s best idea was buried amid a lot of hand-wringing: “In its future coverage, The Times should examine how these issues are changing America, giving rise to movements like Occupy Wall Street and its ideological counterpart, the Tea Party.”

(In reality, polling by the University of Massachusetts Lowell has found that supporters of OWS and the Tea Party share an ideological bond in their collective distrust of Wall Street, large corporations and the government in Washington. But that’s a post for another day.)

Media of every type, as well as influential columnists and editorial writers, have given Occupy plenty of white space and air time since the first demonstration on September 17. But without coordinated activities, spokespeople, a well-defined set of goals or even a common set of concerns, coverage of Occupy has naturally varied from city to city and protestor to protestor.

The real story – the story audiences could benefit from seeing, hearing and reading – are the many chapters in the book of economic pain that this nation has endured for the last four years. Household income trends. Profits outstripping salaries. The responsibilities of CEOs. Skyrocketing college tuitions. Pick one, or name your own.

These are not easy stories to report. There is a multitude of indisputable data that needs to be brought to life through the lives of real people coast to coast. But it would be an exceptionally powerful populist news agenda for the media as we approach the 2012 election year.

Covering the protests to date has been like interviewing tailgaters in the parking lot without analyzing the game inside the stadium. Here’s hoping the media realizes that Occupy is less of a movement and more of a symbol of larger issues.

Does Congress Care About Its Reputation Management Problem?

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:42:00 +0000

It’s not easy for an elected body to manage its reputation.

The actions of a few can reflect badly on the whole. Keeping members on the same page and moving in the same direction takes smart leadership. Ideological and personality schisms have to be respected and bridged. There are very few decisions that vast majorities agree with, so making a decision makes enemies.

Even with those excuses in mind, the current Congress has set new standards for failed reputation management. The most recent New York Times/CBS News poll gave Congress single digit favorability – a historic low. A Washington Post chart shows that impressions of our legislative branch have sunk well below those of lawyers, banks, President Nixon during Watergate, and even Communism.

A horrifying column in today’s New York Times demonstrates exactly why.

Former star political reporter Thomas D. Edsall, now a journalism professor at Columbia University, explains that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the “Super Committee”) is failing to reach an agreement not because it can’t, but because failure would produce a more desirable political outcome.

“Winning the trifecta — House, Senate and White House — in 2012 is a game changer. We would be in the driver’s seat,” a top Republican Congressional aide explained.

Sure, an impasse would hurt millions of Americans and stick a knife in our already feeble economy recovery. But it would help one party seize greater political power next year, so who cares, right?

No one is naive enough to believe that politics can be eliminated entirely from the act of governing. In fact, politics is part of the constructive tension that makes democracy work, assuming the parties keep the public interest ahead of their self interest.

But American cynicism toward Congress has reached a record low because people can see very clearly that “doing the right thing” hardly even factors into the decision-making. It’s highly unlikely that any adult living outside the Beltway can name a single piece of legislation the current Congress has passed in 2011.

“Doing the political thing” seems to be the only motivation of either party and, as a result, there has been no perceptible action on dozens of very real problems – starting with our economy.

There are four forces that can begin the long process of improving Congress’ reputation, hopefully in a way that benefits the citizens that members of Congress claim to represent.

Congressional leaders, specifically House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, can realize that it’s time to act to save the institution. The President can make congressional inertia a central issue of his re-election campaign. The public can get fed up enough to affect change. Or, members of Congress themselves, if there are enough of them with courage, can demand Boehner and Reid get off our dime.

Ironically, the key to overcoming partisan inertia in Congress may be politics itself. With elections scheduled 11 months from now, members of Congress may soon reach a bi-partisan agreement on the ultimate political motivation -- survival -- and start getting something (anything?) done.

No one wants to play for the worst team in the league.

Twitter Is Becoming A Main Course In The Modern Media Food Chain

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:44:00 +0000

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism is ordinarily an incredible resource for understanding modern media trends, but its most recent study asked the wrong questions about how mainstream media outlets use Twitter.

Pew’s content analysis found that the top news organizations use Twitter predominantly as a one-way promotional tool for their own content, meaning that the media’s institutional Twitter accounts churn out links that take followers back to news and features stories, videos, photos, etc. This confirms the obvious.

More and more of us get our news, especially breaking news, delivered online. Busier schedules and more multitasking have fueled a greater reliance on mobile devices – the best vehicle for Twitter. At the same time, with print circulation and broadcast viewership declining amid a growing online buffet of news and information, the largest media outlets are working hard to attract empowered, wireless consumers.

Where Pew fell well short of its normally high standards was with its deduction that “individual reporters were not much more likely than the news institutions to use Twitter as a reporting tool or as a way to share information produced by those outside their own news organization.”

Not only was the data sample too small -- an examination of the Twitter feeds of 13 individual journalists – but the conclusion flies in the face of the reality that PR professionals see every day on their own feeds.

Reporters are increasingly using Twitter as a listening tool through activities that are invisible to anyone watching their public habits. They are developing story ideas and new angles from individual posts and trends they see. They are receiving story pitches through Twitter (usually through private direct messages). They are connecting with sources that lead to offline conversations and relationships. They are identifying consumers to interview and quote. They are using Twitter to maintain a rapport with private and public sector spokespeople.

Those activities are and always have been the bread and butter of the best journalists, all of whom are naturally reluctant to chat openly about their methods. In the “old days” (like 10 years ago!), reporters could be reporters by getting on the phone and getting out of the office and into neighborhoods. Today, far fewer mainstream reporters are being asked to produce far more content and produce it faster.

Twitter gives them a new way to get their jobs done, while building the personal brand that is so important to stand out in the social media clutter.

It’s no accident that more and more media outlets are publishing the Twitter addresses of their reporters and editors. The primary reason is commercial. Media are trying to transition to an online business model. But they also want more and better stories and tips. In a World-Wide Web of choices, great content remains the key to differentiation that builds audience and loyalty.

Enterprises, industries and institutions should not rely on this unusually shallow Pew analysis for direction on how to integrate social media tools into their media relations strategy.

Twitter has a guide for journalists using its channel, and Facebook has one too. It won’t be long before better studies show what hundreds of reporters and PR pros already know: Twitter is an increasingly appetizing source of nutrition in the media’s food chain.

Denial Is A River: What Were Joe Amendola & Jerry Sandusky Thinking?

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:39:00 +0000

It's hard to imagine alleged Penn State child molester Jerry Sandusky as the victim of anything except perhaps a mental illness. Today, he is clearly the victim of some bad legal and communications advice.

Sandusky and his attorney, Joe Amendola, last night gave an exclusive interview to NBC’s Rock Center with Brian Williams. Sandusky needed to do something to anchor himself against a rushing river of bad facts and anger, but today he is further downstream.

Sandusky acknowledged showering with young boys and touching their legs. He said he “horsed around." He said he "enjoys" young people but denied being a pedophile. Amendola said he expects several alleged shower victims to deny that his client assaulted them, telling CNN: “Jerry Sandusky is a big, overgrown kid. He’s a jock. The bottom line is jocks do that. They kid around. They horse around."

It's doubtful that many 67-year-old “jocks” will verify that touching young boys on their thighs in the shower as commonplace. Not only do most reasonable men and women find Sandusky’s admissions disturbing, but even the conduct he acknowledged might constitute a criminal misdemeanor.

Sandusky and Amendola had hoped their media appearance would work to give the jury pool another side of the story, portraying the hulking former linebacker somewhat sympathetically and offering hints at a credible explanation for the disgusting accusations against him.

It didn’t work. The decision was an incredible miscalculation. The weight of the allegations is massive. The intensity of the media scrutiny is white hot. There are shoes left to drop, including more alleged victims coming forward to authorities.

Legendary defense attorney Roy Black represented William Kennedy Smith in a similarly intense case. Despite unrelenting, global media scrutiny and his client’s desire to publicly defend himself against a rape charge, Black held his fire.

He assured the public that his client would be found innocent once all the facts were known. He prepared for every court appearance. He let his written court filings raise doubt about Smith’s accuser, knowing that each one would become public and would be covered. And when it came time for jury selection and trial, he orchestrated compelling communications inside and outside the courtroom that maximized every opportunity to portray Smith in a positive light.

A jury quickly found Smith not guilty and he went on with his life.

If Sandusky and Amendola felt a burning desire to go public, they either should have prepared better by developing and delivering strong, credible messages or they should have settled for a written statement and enlisted friends and family of Sandusky to speak to his good character.

Based on the outcome, this communications effort was a bust. Amendola should have called a different play for Sandusky.

Light Rays On Saturdays

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:37:00 +0000

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry did the only thing he could do to overcome his worst-yet debate embarrassment. He joined in the fun.

Perry’s appearance on The David Letterman Show, where he narrated a self-deprecating Top Ten list, was a very smart move. He also received a helping hand from health and science influencers, like the New York Times health columnist Tara Parker Pope, who quickly generated an expert analysis recounting other famous brain freezes and noting that “countless memory lapses like these happen to the rest of us every day.”

“When all goes well, the medial temporal lobe acts like a library’s card catalog system, pointing to the locations in the brain where different parts of the memory are stored and allowing the memory to be recalled. But in Mr. Perry’s case, it appears that something went wrong, and the search turned up the wrong card or looked in the wrong place or was interrupted,” Pope explained in her immensely popular style.

Now if she can just explain why Perry seems to walk and gesture in unusual ways.

The standards for what citizens expect from those who seek to serve as President of the United States have been slowly decomposing for decades now. We’ve come a long way since flawed candidates, like Gary Hart, would either immediately quit in shame or face automatic expulsion over character issues.

Whether or not you like Perry’s politics, he converted a potentially devastating flub into positive, empathetic exposure. An upcoming $1 million national ad buy, if it’s distinctive, could reinforce his staying power.

Following the student riot in support of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, my editor at The Public Relations Strategist, forwarded an interesting piece in Psychology Today on “Sports Fan Myopia.”

In the “Science of Small Talk” blog, Sam Simmons discussed the social behavior that fueled the initial angry reaction of students to Paterno's firing, arguing that it is natural for diehard fans to “warp the picture we see to fit the one we keep in our hearts.”

“Who among us hasn't, at one point or another, overlooked or rationalized immorality in the name of holding firm to sports allegiance?,” wrote Simmons, without in any way condoning what happened at Penn State.

Going forward, it will be interesting to see whether the Unversity can effectively navigate this phenomenon in a way that separates the school's lucrative football program from the scandal.

Meanwhile, expect to see and hear more from Mike Madden, the plain-spoken sports columnist for the Beaver County (PA) Times, who wrote a prescient April column that predicted the Penn State mess.

Madden made the rounds this past week on the major sports radio shows in Boston, which have provided around-the-clock analysis explaining and dissecting the scandal.

Appearing on The Dennis & Callahan Show, he said the next shoe to drop could be confirmation of a rumor that Sandusky ran a child prostitution ring catering to wealthy, perverted donors. If you want to see an intense story go nuclear, that would pretty much be the trigger.

By the way... Guess who benefited the most from the sordid Sandusky saga? Herm Cain. The sexual harassment allegations against him didn’t just get pushed to the backburner; they fell down into the crack between the stove and the counter. For now.

How PR Can Help Penn State Now

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:43:00 +0000

People would be surprised to know how often PR counselors act as management consultants.

Often, those within a complex organization are too close to a situation or too insulated to see what needs to be done, what could been done, and how internal and external stakeholders might react. The blinders can be even thicker when the organization is in crisis. So, smart executives seek the advice of outside communications professionals -- not just for research, ideas and words, but for common sense and perspective.

As the trustees at Penn State prepare to meet today, let's hope hiring great PR counselors is on the agenda.

Penn State’s ability to do the right thing at this moment is suspect and will be for the foreseeable future. It lost its credibility on that score when it failed to act against Jerry Sandusky for more than a decade. It even failed to act seven months ago when a Pennsylvania sports columnist predicted what has now engulfed the University.

Penn State’s need for PR is not just a matter of credibility; it’s a demand of logistics.
Even the most well-intentioned people there are so underwater at this point, they can’t see beyond the next few minutes, never mind assess the right (and wrong) choices. Unless you’ve been in the middle of a crisis like this, it is impossible to appreciate how it can consume every moment – the endless phone calls; the hate mail and hate e-mail; the web site attacks; the angry donors, alumni, professors and parents; the students requesting transfers; the anxious and demoralized staff; the national media descending on your campus; the state, federal and NCAA investigators demanding records.

It’s endless and exhausting. The organization is undoubtedly crippled to point of paralysis under the weight of it all. Even if folks know what to do, they may not have the time, energy or skills to plan and execute it. Outside PR counselors can play an invaluable role – as organizers, facilitators, expeditors, advisors and doers.

For Penn State, the path is clear. Respect the legal process, but act in a big way fast on three parallel tracks. First, disclose who knew what, when and what was done and not done. Then, apologize. Then, put in place new people, new policies, new systems – and a new culture -- to insure nothing like this can ever happen again. And all the while, smart people must be answering the phones and emails.

Wednesday night’s news conference by the Board of Trustees was a great start, and it must continue. People need to hear that those who sincerely care about the University are sickened and angry about this. They need to see a no-holds-barred investigation and housecleaning conducted by an independent, multi-disciplinary board of uninvolved, untainted, prominent Penn State alumni.

Veteran PR counselors can bring focus to this effort and determine the best strategic way to manage emotions and deliver information.

But the actions must come first. The right words will not be enough. Now it is time to do the right thing -- especially since so many failed to do exactly that for so long.

Rupert Murdoch & News Corp: Reputation Irony

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:30:00 +0000

For a short time in July, it looked as if media mogul Rupert Murdoch would go the way of Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Moammar Gadhafi of Libya — another dictatorial strong man forced into a shameful exit by a popular uprising.

In my days as a reporter for the Boston Herald, a Murdoch-owned tabloid, that’s the good-versus-evil slant that I might have put on the story — the jowly, leering tyrant stooped like a vulture over the body of a saintly, murdered 13-year-old girl eagerly trading her blood for profits, an outraged nation mobilizing to demand truth and justice as the sordid details of the scandal spilled forth.

After all, stark contrast sells. Given numerous flavor choices, people are least likely to buy the most vanilla of them. Months removed from its summertime peak, the News of the World drama holds leadership lessons for our profession regarding crisis and reputation management. You can read my take on the News Corp. saga in the latest issue of The Public Relations Strategist magazine.

Great public relations cannot change bad facts. And bad facts continue to trickle forth regarding illegal practices at The News of the World and The Sun – to the point where Rupert’s son, James, is reportedly considering a broader apology when he appears before a committee of Parliament on Thursday.

Since I submitted the Strategist piece in late September, the Murdochs and News Corp. have remained entirely in reactive mode, so I stand by the conclusion: It will be interesting to see whether a media empire so adept at breaking reputations can do what it takes to recast its own.

The Lazy Lob: Buttery Communication Goodness

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:48:00 +0000

Many intelligent people do not read the Wall Street Journal because they despise its owner (Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.), disagree with the paper’s editorial perspective, and/or get bored with hardcore business news. Politics aside, they should rethink their position. The news content in “Marketplace” and “Greater New York” offers excellent reporting, writing and analysis. The lifestyle and trend pieces in “Personal Journal” and “Review” are offbeat and intriguing. Joe Queenan’s column today (“Some Expert Advice: Get A Clue”) is just one example. Plus, reading the WSJ is a good way to monitor the conservative intelligentsia.

Today’s New York Times features an interesting story about efforts to thaw the icy relationship between former President Bill Clinton and President Obama (“With New Book, Bill Clinton Makes New Bid to Bolster Obama.”) Clinton is intensely frustrated with the current administration’s obvious failure to effectively communicate the vision, principles and successes of its policies. So he wrote their narrative himself. (“Narrative” is a snotty word for “story.”) Ya gotta love Big Bill. If it wasn’t for a constitutional amendment, he could run for President right now and beat all comers, including the incumbent in his own party. Listen to him Mr. President.

Yesterday’s Bending Light post mentioned Andrea Estes, a colleague during my time as an editor and reporter at the Boston Herald. She was vastly underappreciated there, despite excellent sources and clean writing. When the Boston Globe hired Andrea, she restarted her career back at the bottom of the caste system, covering suburban events. She is now one of the most respected (read: feared) journalists in the city. Take a look at this Google search. Her name has been on every big scandal story for the past five years. The best thing about Andrea? She is invisible. You won’t find her picture. She has no social media footprint. She is not a public speaker. But you’d be a fool to ignore her call or e-mail.

Herman Cain's Hard Lesson in Issues Management

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:57:00 +0000

After I had covered the Gennifer Flowers news conference in New York in January 1992, the Boston Herald sent me and Andrea Estes to Little Rock, Arkansas, for a week to see what we could else we could dig up on then-presidential candidate, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

I came back with a story about Clinton’s honorary membership in what appeared to be a whites-only country club. The Clinton campaign did not seem surprised when I called them for comment, and brushed off Clinton’s role as nothing more than “playing privileges.”

The story ran on page one of the Herald and the Associated Press picked it up. Within two weeks, it had found its way into The New York Times. (There was no worldwide Internet in those days. The only things that spread virally were illnesses, gossip and bad jokes.)

By then, however, Clinton’s famous "War Room" had acted. The candidate apologized succinctly and his campaign defused the issue by rallying prominent African-American friends and supporters.

Nineteen years later, watching presidential candidate Herman Cain flounder under the weight of sexual harassment allegations, you begin to wonder how many scandals it will take for anyone to heed the basic rules of engagement in issues management and crisis communications.

Individuals and enterprises operating in the public spotlight must be prepared to react quickly to their flaws, real or perceived. Accomplishing that is three-step process. Take a hard look at yourself from the perspective of stakeholders. Use those findings to create an uncompromising list of the issues, policies and activities that could be controversial or damaging. Fix what you can and be ready to refute or rebut each item on the list in a compelling, credible and articulate fashion.

It also helps to have a defined, positive identity and brand position in the first place. Clinton had a public record of diversity and inclusion that contrasted with the notion that he might knowingly support discriminatory policies. Cain is now as the former CEO of a pizza chain and is only known for his easy-to-remember tax reform proposal.

Over the years, I have built “black books” for many types of clients - a political candidates, private companies, health care organizations, etc. - who were willing to confront their warts if necessary. They knew an attack or expose might never materialize, but they also understood that, if it did, mitigating it quickly would limit the depth and duration of the wound – particularly at the speed with which information (and misinformation) spread today.

Not all political strategies translate well in the business world, but issues and crisis management is one that does, as Herman Cain has learned all too well.

An Off-Broadway Threat for Personal Device Makers

noreply@blogger.com (Ed Cafasso) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:04:00 +0000

If you’re Apple, or any personal device maker for that matter, the epicenter of your most serious issues management challenge has begun brewing inside a brick building on Lafayette Street in New York City.

That’s where the Public Theater is hosting Mike Daisey in a one-man show entitled, “The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” which runs through November 13.

Daisey, described by the New York Times as “one of the greatest solo storytellers of contemporary theater,” isn't on stage to pay homage to Apple or its late CEO Steve Jobs. He is zeroing in on the legendary company’s supply chain in China, where he went undercover to visit the factories that give birth to the personal technology we rely on each day.

“I’d expected conditions to be bad, to be worse than I’d ever experienced, and I’ve lived a relatively comfortable life. What was shocking to me was the level of dehumanization built into the systems that have been put into place by American corporations in collusion with suppliers,” Daisey told the Theater section of the Times in an interview last month.

The Times' recent review of the production underlined a threat device makers should take seriously.

"The conveniences and pleasures that all these gadgets have brought to our lives have been purchased at the cost of considerable human suffering, of which we remain willfully ignorant or simply choose to ignore," wrote reviewer Charles Isherwood, who said the Daisey's expose triggered a "seismic shift in my consciousness" that left him feeling "a bit guilty and a bit betrayed."

It takes a series of small streams to create a mighty river. Movements that threaten established business models don’t always have their genesis in a top tier media investigative report.

The public backlash against inhumane working conditions in offshore footwear factories, over poisonous lead in imported toys and trinkets, over pesticides on fruits and vegetables, over the calories in fast foods – these and other sustainability crises were borne of grassroots activism that eventually infiltrated the mainstream.

For device makers, it may take more than words to mitigate the reputational risks in their supply chain practices. The reviews of Daisey’s latest show indicate New York’s influential intelligentsia has already begun to second-guess the moral implications of their phones, tablets and PDAs.

Why Bending Light?