Bachmann Video: What a Long, Strange Clip It’s Been

May 30, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Bachmann Video: What a Long, Strange Clip Its Been

THE PR VERDICT: “D” (PR Problematic) for Michele Bachmann.

US Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a lot of things, but predictable isn’t one of them. The Minnesota Republican has once again made headlines, this time with the unexpected announcement that she won’t seek re-election in 2014.

The Tea Party darling’s reasons for stepping down are murky, and her announcement only made the waters more turbid. The first mistake was in dropping her bombshell via a YouTube video, an indication that she didn’t want to face questions about her decision or her future plans. Then there’s the video itself. Against an odd Chariots of Fire-style musical backdrop, Bachmann begins by rambling about term limits, then launches into a list of reasons she’s not retiring: certainly not because she faces a tough re-election campaign against a candidate she narrowly defeated last year, or because of a federal inquiry into possible misuse of her presidential campaign funds. In the remaining seven minutes of the video, she bashes the Obama administration, slams the “liberal media,” and rattles off a laundry list of issues she’ll continue to support or fight in her remaining 18 months in office.

Political swan song or groundlaying for another presidential bid? It’s impossible to tell. Bachmann says the country is on the wrong track and in the worst shape she’s ever seen, yet there is no opportunity, political or otherwise, that she won’t consider in the future. More than one copy editor must have smiled in appreciation at New York magazine’s headline, “Michele Bachmann Retires as President of Crazyland.”

THE PR VERDICT: “D” (PR Problematic) for Michele Bachmann. The Minnesota congresswoman befuddles, per usual.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: If you’re not going to say anything, say it as succinctly as possible. Bachmann announced her retirement, yet her constituents still have no clue why she’s leaving or what the future holds. It may well be that she doesn’t want to reveal all at this time, but a concisely worded press statement issued through her office would have accomplished the same goal without a move that only added to her already bizarre reputation.

To watch the video, click here.

Filed Under: Lowest Graded, Media, Politics, Regulatory Matters Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Mr Cruz Goes to Washington

February 28, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Mr Cruz Goes to Washington

THE PR VERDICT: “B” (Good Show) for Sen. Mark Cruz.

The latest storm to descend on the U.S. capitol is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who blew into town two months ago and has stayed on the front pages ever since. A freshman to the Senate, Cruz’s brash behavior has rankled colleagues on both sides of the political aisle and caught the attention of the press. The New York Times called him “an ornery, swaggering piece of work” , while the New Yorker is asking “Is Sen. Ted Cruz Our New McCarthy?” More Republican-friendly venues, such as the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard, have lauded the 42-year-old’s unconventional starting term.

Freshmen senators traditionally begin their terms quietly, sitting practically unnoticed on committees and casting votes, lemming-like, along party lines. Not so Mr. Cruz. In the news most recently for spitting fire over former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary, he successfully stalled Hagel’s nomination for several weeks. The Texas upstart is creating waves.

Media outlets are divided on their opinions of Sen. Cruz, but they’re all talking about him. During his campaign, the Texas Republican told constituents he was going to shake things up in Washington. So far, that’s one campaign promise he’s kept.

THE PR VERDICT: “B” (Good Show) for Sen. Ted Cruz. At the beginning of the year, almost no one outside Texas (and even many in the Lone Star State) knew who he was, and now everyone has something to say about him.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Make a splash at the outset. Congress is a big, noisy place and it can be hard to distinguish oneself amidst 535 people intent on doing the same. Unlike the more raucous House of Representatives, the Senate is considered a thoughtful and well-mannered chamber, and it’s too early to tell whether Mr. Cruz’s strategy will serve him well. Ultimately, the junior senator from Texas will need to form alliances to get votes to go his way, but so far his PR impact has been substantial enough to make his colleagues realize one thing: ultimately, they will need to court him as much as he needs to court them.

Filed Under: Highest Graded, Media, Politics, Politics/Government Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

The PRV Report Card: This Week’s Winners and Losers

January 18, 2013 by Leave a Comment

The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersPR WINNER OF THE WEEK: “A” (PR PERFECT) TO Oprah Winfrey. First, she beats out the US Anti-Doping Administration, to whom Lance Armstrong should technically be confessing. Second, she gave tantalizingly vague quotes (to BFF Gayle King on The Early Show) about the interview, never quite saying he confessed, never quite saying he didn’t. We all know now that he did; as one pundit put it, “Oprah Winfrey doesn’t get on a plane and fly across the country for nothing.” But she knows better than to give away the candy store. Millions will tune in to watch Lance squirm, thereby giving Oprah’s embattled network OWN a whole new audience, and parent company Discovery breathing space about previously low ratings.

The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersPR LOSER OF THE WEEK: “D” (PR PROBLEMATIC) TO the National Rifle Association. The group suggested in a video that President Barack Obama thinks his own children are “more important” than others because they are protected by the Secret Service. The charge is just plain silly, and reinforces the NRA’s PR image as extremist and out-of-touch. Every modern president has mandatory armed protection and the Obama children are obviously a greater target for ne’er-do-wells than pretty much any other children in the world. With the extreme right already locked up, the NRA should be courting moderate gun-rights supporters – the very demographic likely to be rolling their eyes at the video.

 

The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersTHE “THERE’S NO ‘THERE’ THERE PR AWARD TO Mark Sanford. Nothing beats a comeback – even a longshot. In 2009, when he was Governor of South Carolina, Sanford told aides he was going hiking for a week and then mysteriously disappeared. Later, it was revealed that Sanford had taken an unauthorized break from his official duties to visit a TV reporter in Buenos Aires with whom he later claimed to be madly in love. The episode guaranteed a messy reputation, a divorce (from one of the few political wives who refused to stand by her man with a benign smile), and an entry in political folklore. Earlier this week, Sanford announced his decision to run for Congress. Really? No, really? We may be underestimating the American voting public when we say there’s nothing to discuss here. Then again, his new campaign will prove entertaining and underline the obvious truth: Scandal is always more interesting than policy. Let the games begin!

Filed Under: Advertising and PR, Branding, Celebrity, Featured News Stories, Media, Politics/Government Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s Official – Cockroaches More Popular Than Congress

January 9, 2013 by 1 Comment
Its Official Cockroaches More Popular Than Congress

The PR Verdict: “D” (PR Problematic) for the 112th US Congress.

Not just cockroaches, but head lice – and not just pesky insects, either. The 112th United States Congress is lower on the American popularity ladder than traffic jams, Donald Trump, Ghengis Khan, used-car salesmen, and – perhaps most damning of all – Brussels sprouts.

That sounds like a great joke (“What’s more popular than Congress?” “Root canals!”), but in fact, even root canals were preferable to the current Congressional staff of the US government, according to a Public Policy Poll of 830 Americans. In the non-partisan poll, Congress received a mere 9 percent favorability rating. The only things it beat out in terms of dislike were telemarketers, ebola, gonorrhea, bullies, meth labs, and Lindsay Lohan.

Why should Congress care what 830 Americans think? Well, these were only the 830 Americans actually asked; the numbers statistically represent a far greater percentage of people who dislike what’s happening, or not happening, with the fiscal cliff, gun control or the lack thereof, and other pressing matters. Members of Congress, elected by the public may want to take note.

THE PR VERDICT: “D” (PR Problematic) for the 112th US Congress. Cockroaches everywhere are celebrating their boost up the ladder of the loathed.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: A fall from grace is faster than the climb back up. So far, members of Congress have had more PR success in complaining  bitterly about the other side than making lasting progress. Solutions are now preferable. This fall from the grace needs a remedial bi-partisan effort. A landmark agreement on one of the pressing issues facing the nation is what will rescue this reputation. Until then the slide is set to continue.

Filed Under: Advertising and PR, Celebrity, Featured News Stories, Marketing and PR, Media, Politics/Government Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Bachmann’s Accusations Backfire

July 25, 2012 by 1 Comment
Bachmanns Accusations Backfire

The PR Verdict: “D” (PR Problematic) for Michele Bachmann.

Michele Bachmann, former Republican nominee, recently brought to the nation’s attention her concern that foreign agents are infiltrating the very highest levels of office in the US. This is her first major media moment since announcing application for dual citizenship (her husband is Swiss) and quickly retracting after embarrassingly negative outcry from her constituency. Signing a letter she made public, she claimed that the infiltration of the U.S. government by the Muslim Brotherhood was possibly underway and claimed that two prominent Muslims — Huma Abedin, the State Department aide to Hilary Clinton, and Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota — are tied to the organization.

Bachmann, who also sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has used her position there to lend gravitas to her allegations. But the “ouch” moment came when the committee’s chairman told USA Today, ”That kind of assertion certainly doesn’t comport with the Intelligence Committee, and I can say that on the record.” Hmmm… What now, Michele?

Everybody ran for cover. Sen. John McCain denounced the accusation from the Senate floor and joined members of Congress from both sides of the aisle, shutting this news event down. Republican party officials hardly rushed to Bachmann’s defense, with her own state party Chairman “not available” for any elaboration. So far, Bachmann’s office has denied repeated followup media requests. Are they hoping this will simply go away?

The PR Verdict: “D” (PR Problematic) for a mess that still needs to be cleared up. Saying nothing won’t wipe the slate.

The PR Takeaway: As mommie used to say: Clean up your mess! With Bachmann’s accusations described as loony by the media and her congressional colleagues on both sides (who says the government can’t agree?), it is clear this PR missile is only gaining speed in the wrong direction. One voter was quoted in the coverage as saying Bachmann is the “Only one telling the truth” but then again he also claimed that President Obama goes to Martha’s Vineyard to observe Ramadan….. Before Bachmann positions herself as an unequivocal fringe outsider, it might be time to retract, apologize, and simply say this was a mistake. Until she does, the issue is unlikely to go away.

What can Michele Bachmann do to save political face now? Give us your PR Verdict!

Filed Under: Featured News Stories, Media, Politics, Politics/Government, Religion Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The New York Times and When Not To Publish

June 22, 2012 by 3 Comments
The New York Times and When Not To Publish

The PR Verdict: C (Distinctly OK) for The New York Times. (Pictured: Times editor Jill Abramson.)

When does The New York Times decide it won’t publish something on the grounds that it might impinge on national security? It’s a question the paper of record has had to address recently. An angry Congress wants clarification, as do some readers. What to say?

The controversy stems from recent articles published in the NY TImes about President Obama’s “kill list,” as well as the U.S. government’s computer virus warfare against Iran.  Obama’s critics claim the information came directly from the White House in order to bolster the President’s tough image on national security. Obama’s PR says this is dead wrong and that the President is intent on cracking down on staff leaking classified information.

The Times‘s defense? It always consults with government officials prior to publication. The paper confirms that government officials had not asked the paper to spike the two stories in question, and it rejects any suggestion that national security was endangered. “No story about details of government secrets has come near to demonstrably hurting the national security in decades and decades,” is the official quote. Case closed for The New York Times (for the moment).

The PR Verdict: C (Distinctly OK) for The New York Times, whose response still keeps the decision to publish or not in the realm of a high level of discretion. Something more objective might help the debate.

PR Takeaway: Freedom of speech and public interest rest on a continuum of interest and competing concerns. The Times has chosen to portray the issues as relatively straightforward – dangerous to release, or not? Why not talk about the issue as a long continuum with transparency at one end and secrecy on the other. List and weigh factors that might have a bearing on publication. Think of it as a point system; it will undoubtedly be imperfect, but it would change the debate from a discretion-based decision to something more independent and apolitical.

To read more, click here.

Is The New York Times releasing information that could compromise national security, or exercising the freedom of press? Give us your PR Verdict, below.

Filed Under: Featured News Stories, Media, Society/ trends, Thought Leadership Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wall Street Journal’s Cowardly Response

June 11, 2012 by 1 Comment
Wall Street Journals Cowardly Response

The PR Verdict: "D" for the Wall Street Journal.

Is that as racy as love letters get?  E-mail correspondence between Brett McGurk, President Obama’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and his then-paramour Gina Chon, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, has members of Congress very excited. For the rest of us it’s hard to see what the fuss is about.

The e-mails, dating from 2008, were posted anonymously this week on Flickr–bad timing for McGurk, a top adviser on Iraq who is currently going though congressional approval for the job of US ambassador. Congressional members are concerned that while McGurk was working on tough negotiations with Iraqis, his future wife Chon covered the talks for the WSJ. Could he have leaked to her classified information?  If so, they’ll have to try to stay awake while reviewing e-mails such as McGurk’s ”I had a very good day with the Iraqis–the best yet. Can’t tell you about it of course. But you should definitely stay past Sunday.” Chon’s reply: “Stop being such a tease!”

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland breezily washed her hands of the issue, telling CNN, “I’m not going to get into e-mails between Mr. McGurk and the woman who subsequently became his wife.” The WSJ had a more cowardly reply to CNN,  ”We are looking into the matter.”

The PR Verdict: “D” (It’s a Dud) for the Wall Street Journal who could have tried harder to defend its journalist. If the State Department can sound annoyed, why can’t the WSJ?

PR Takeaway: Where’s the beef? The WSJ might have tried publicly shifting the burden of proof onto the accusers: “Which article does the committee think contains leaked information? We would be happy to look into the matter.”  Then sit back and wait for the response.  And while we are there, how about privately suggesting to members of Congress that they stop calling the emails racy? In this day of Fifty Shades of Grey, they’re hardly blush-inducing.

To read the racy letters and for more background click here.

Filed Under: Featured News Stories, Foreign Policy/ Affairs, Media, Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rush Limbaugh vs Sandra Fluke: No Hard Feelings Sandra?

March 5, 2012 by 4 Comments
limbaugh31 300x225 Rush Limbaugh vs Sandra Fluke: No Hard Feelings Sandra?

The PR Verdict: “F” for an apology that isn’t.

Rush Limbaugh, the notoriously polemical radio talk show host, yielded to public pressure Saturday.  He issued a public apology to law student Sandra Fluke who he had previously called a “slut” and a “prostitute” during his radio program. Limbaugh conceded in his apology that his  “choice of words was not the best.”  No hard feelings then, Sandra?

Fluke had previously testified to Democrats on a House committee about health care plans. Limbaugh objected to her testimony, which supported compelling her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control.

Reactions to Limbaugh’s broadcast comments were swift and intense. All could smell PR blood. President Obama called Fluke to offer his support (and made that public), while no less than six major advertisers have suspended advertising.

The PR Verdict: “F” for an apology that isn’t. In PR terms this was not an effective apology. At best, it was a clarifying statement.

Public apologies are never easy. The golden PR rule: State clearly what you are apologizing for, and then stop talking. Reinforce the apology with an unexpected action and save self-serving and mitigating factors for day two. Limbaugh would have gotten more mileage by inviting Fluke on his show to make her case rather than launching back into his arguments, as he did with his apology. Fluke still has the upper PR hand and advertisers haven’t changed their decision to withdraw. Sometimes it’s hard to say you’re sorry.

To read the full apology click here and to read more about his click here

What’s your PR verdict on Rush Limbaugh’s apology to Sandra Fluke? Give us your grade:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Lowest Graded, Media, Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Cure for the Susan Komen PR mess

February 3, 2012 by 1 Comment

The Susan G Komen for the Cure Foundation, one of the most prestigious breast cancer charities, is in very hot water.

susan komen2 The Cure for the Susan Komen PR messThe Komen Foundation partners with the equally well known, albeit more controversial charity, Planned Parenthood. Komen partly funds Planned Parenthood’s program that provides women with breast cancer screening programs.

Planned Parenthood is also the nation’s largest provider of family planning and abortion services and is routinely in Congressional crosshairs.   With Planned Parenthood under congressional review yet again, Komen grew nervous about potential bad publicity from renewed congressional interest, took fright and withdrew its funding support for breast cancer-screening.

Komen now faces a wave of online attacks from its own donors and blistering media coverage.  Both characterise Komen’s decision as caving in to outside political interests and scarifying women’s health.

The PR verdict: “D” for the Komen Foundation. This mess was all avoidable. In future Keep Calm and Carry On.

To part with Planned Parenthood, before the potential controversy caught fire, seemed hasty. Instead Komen has created its own controversy. What Komen needed was a defensive PR strategy in its back pocket to reiterate the importance of breast cancer screening.  There was no need to cut ties. Let Planned Parenthood fight its own battles.  Now, given the backlash, Komen’s board needs to turn 180 degrees, issue an apology and publicly part ways with the responsible decision maker.

To read more click here.

UPDATE:  Since the above grading,  the Susan G Komen Foundation has issued a calirfying apology, effectively revoking the foundation’s earlier decision to withdraw funding.  The change in policy  appears to have been well received by the media, supporters and the public at large.  Komen can only hope that the responsive and speedy nature of its reaction limited the potential for any permanent reputational damage.

The PR Verdict: “B” for having moved swiftly and clearly, though our advice above still holds.

Filed Under: Not for Profit /Charitable Giving, Society/ trends Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,