Being a Libor-Tease with the New York Times

July 18, 2012 by 1 Comment
L2hvbWUvaW5zdGluY3RtYWdhemluZS9wdWJsaWNfaHRtbC9pbWFnZXMvc3Rvcmllcy9ibG9ncy9qaGlnYmVlL2p1bHkyMDEyL2Rvai5qcGVn Being a Libor Tease with the New York Times

The PR Verdict: “D” (It’s a Dud) for the Department of Justice.

Don’t you hate a tease? The New York Times set the tone for this week’s Libor coverage with its weekend story that the Justice Department (and other regulators) is thinking about filing criminal charges against banks and individuals involved in Liborgate. “It’s hard to imagine a bigger case than Libor,” said one of the unnamed government officials. Golly! What’s next?

The news presumably sent a chill through banks and their senior management. We all know what happens when a firm faces criminal indictments: If true, things could get very ugly, and it’s normally over in a matter of hours. Just talk to Enron’s former auditors Arthur Andersen.

The Times article reported that the DoJ is building its case, though they hedged by saying this could take time. But since publication two days ago, the Libor waters have been further muddied. Did the Bank of England knowingly overlook rate fixing? And what did the US Federal Reserve know? Talking about a criminal prosecution, even unofficially to The New York Times, might have been a little premature. The facts are not so simple and there is enough blame to go around, including even possibly some regulators. In the end, the Justice Department may not be able to prosecute. That’s one story that won’t help the weakened PR image of law enforcement.

The PR Verdict:  “D” (It’s a Dud) for the Department of Justice. This might do more PR damage than good, if not followed through.

The PR Takeaway: Crying wolf messes with your PR. With a public increasingly incredulous that no big name is behind bars following the financial crisis, there is certainly PR mileage in saying”This time around, someone is going to stand trial.” But unless it’s a certainty, this is one headline that should have been delayed until a criminal prosecution was given the all clear. A disgruntled public, suspicious of the cozy relationship between regulators and Wall Street, might find yet again that hefty fines and civil charges are they only penatlies ultimately on offer. Failing to press charges won’t help the PR image of independent enforcement and regulation. Next time, why not pause before making the splashy unofficial announcement?

Is the Department of Justice being a big Libor-tease? Give us your PR Verdict!

Filed Under: Featured News Stories, Finance, Media, Regulatory Matters 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rattling the Vatican’s Cage and Telling All.

February 20, 2012 by 2 Comments
vatican21 Rattling the Vaticans Cage and Telling All.

The PR Verdict: "B" for the Vatican Leaker.

Headline news and colorful photos coming out of the Vatican this weekend concerned the admission of 22 new cardinals. However what generated far more attention in the lead up to the ceremony was the constant drip feed of damaging confidential information coming from unknown Vatican sources.

Recent leaks of internal information to the media have covered a multitude of issues including allegations of financial mismanagement, money laundering, political cronyism and sensitive security data. The unauthorised and unflattering news has hastened pressure for reform as succession plans take shape for the 84-year-old Pontiff.   Vying factions seem intent on destabilizing the status quo and are preparing to take the reins when their moment comes.

The Vatican spokesman responded to the wave of leaks by commenting, “We must resist and not allow ourselves to be swallowed by the whirlpool of confusion, which is what those with bad intentions want.”

The PR Verdict: “B” for the Vatican leaker whoever you are. The strategy to weaken management by having it respond to numerous unforeseen crises seems to be working and has the current leadership defensive and distracted.

Leaking is always an effective way for internal stakeholders to get what they want without having to argue the case publicly. The oldest trick in the book is to confuse and distract current management so that it is vulnerable to being displaced or sidelined. When the top spokesman refers to “whirlpools of confusion” its clear that attempts to destabilize are working their magic. The Pontiff and his spokesman might want to take up The Prince by Machiavelli for some bedtime reading.

To read more click here.

Filed Under: Featured News Stories, International News, Religion, Society/ trends Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,