Do Apologies Really Work?

By Eric M. Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers®, LLC

The answer to the headline above: No! Not anymore, if they ever had. Apologies are about as meaningless as “They took me out of context.”

Case in point: three sports talk hosts on a morning drive radio show in Atlanta do two minutes of a tasteless skit at the expense of a former NFL player suffering from ALS (a/k/a Lou Gehrig’s Disease), that horrible, incurable illness that slowly strips its victims of the ability to move, swallow and, ultimately, breathe.

All three were summarily fired. In just two mindless minutes, they might have dealt a death blow to their careers. And now they're all saying they're sorry. Sorry for what? The sick “bit” mocking former New Orleans Saint Steve Gleason, or for their self-inflicted reputation damage?

And instead of just drifting into the shadows, giving this stupid antic time to drop out of the news, two of them compounded the “crime.”

One, Steve “Steak” Shapiro, gave the story extended life by appearing on CNN for a nearly 10 minute segment that included an excerpt of the on-air bit. An edited portion of the interview is below, minus a replay of what they did on their radio show. Shapiro, usually self-assured, was visibly shaking, sweating, shrinking into himself.

Another, Nick Cellini, apparently attempting to deflect this major embarrassment, was quoted saying their firing was “a relief, really. That station is a sinking ship.” Nice, Nick. Dump on the station. Does this mean the skit was pre-meditated? That you wanted to get fired to put you out of your apparent misery at work? Have you thought about a change in careers?

The given in today’s environment is that all this has gone viral and will live on and on. The Internet assures that these guys will never be able to outlive their thoughtless antic.

Of course, when you flub (perhaps too light a description) like this, so publicly on the air, you’re doing the shooting at your own foot. But, thanks to technology, you’re always on the record. It’s a fact, albeit a sad one.

So, if you find yourself having to say you're sorry, what you’re sorry for more than likely will make the deeper, longer-lasting impression than any apology.

The Good Do Die Young

By Eric M. Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers, LLC

This is a very personal post about a very special friend and journalist.

Jim Huber’s prose resonated like poetry. A newspaper sports reporter who graduated to radio and television, everywhere he went, everyone he met, the result always was positive. Look up the words “class” and “gentleman” and certainly the picture you see above should be included.

I met Jim 37 years ago. I was news director of an Atlanta radio station. He was PR Director for the Atlanta Flames. Our station general manager saw something special in Jim, especially his writing. So he joined us as our sports director and soon his daily morning commentaries were appointment listening. I always was struck by the number of female listeners who tuned in for Jim’s sports-related comments. His prose was that good!

And his sense of humor. It was special. One day many years ago, I believe it was the LA Dodgers who signed the aged Minnie Minosa to their post-season baseball roster. It was a public relations move that generated lots of buzz. Minnie, of course, was a Latino and Jim played a tape supposedly of Minosa speaking Spanish at a Dodger press conference. Actually, it was tape of Brazilian soccer superstar Pele. Later that day, a listener called me and said he wasn't absolutely certain, but he thought the tape was of someone speaking Portuguese, not Spanish. Yes, Jim did it purposely to see if anyone noticed.

Like a perfectly cut diamond, Jim had many facets. And among them was his unflappability. Although originally a print reporter, he adapted to his broadcast environment quickly and smoothly. He was a complete pro. He left radio for local TV, but his talent was much too big for one market. CNN knew that and hired him for their sports department. Anchoring and reporting were his staple duties, but his sports essays became his brand.

Recognizing his very special skill, Jim was given more opportunities to grow that brand. The ideas for his essays were his own and he was afforded the time to write and produce them. CNN knew it had someone and something special and the network took advantage of it.

While sports was Jim’s second love—after family—golf was his special passion. For years, he was the in-depth interviewer and essayist for TBS and its coverage of the PGA. He became a celebrity in his own right (although that probably made him uncomfortable) within the professional golf community. His inherent kindness always came out in his work. Jim had a golden touch; he was a master wordsmith, and when an idea struck, he often could quickly turn out a beautiful piece.

I had lunch with Jim a little over a year ago. It was a great reunion. We had not seen each other for years, despite living in the same metropolitan area. Too often, life gets in the way of what makes living so special. We talked about getting together with our wives one evening soon for dinner. We never did and I will forever regret it.

A few days before this past Christmas, Jim had a cough that kept getting worse. He finally went to an ER for medical assistance. The diagnosis was acute Leukemia. One day after New Year’s, he was gone. Taken from us so unexpectedly, without any warning. I still cannot accept the fact that he’s gone.

Jim was 67. That’s much too young. He had so much more to do, so much more to give.

Too often the good do seem to die young.

There are a number of examples of Jim’s essays online. Here are links to two of them. One on the late Wayman Tisdale chronicling his battle with cancer. The other on the retirement of celebrated NBA coach Phil Jackson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3paZTyDt0IU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHVG7Rig95c

The Wal-Mart of Online Sex Trafficking?

Pimps Welcome?

By Eric Seidel, CEO

The Media Trainers, LLC

“Say what you’ll do and do what you say!”

Good life advice, especially for the way you do business. Certainly it’s an axiom that has come back to haunt Internet entrepreneur Craig Newmark.

The “Adult Services” section of his Craig’s List, it seems, has become a popular place for pimps to solicit girls…especially underage girls. The list’s administrators promised to monitor solicitations and reject any that look or sound like they are selling sex.

Armed with that information and running a little test of her own, CNN reporter Amber Lyon went online and crafted a blatant solicitation. Her cell phone was quickly active with responses. Ironically, many of her callers assumed the popular police pseudonym “John” when she asked each guy for his name.

Armed with her evidence and the Craig’s List promise to monitor and remove these solicitations, reporter Lyon caught up with Newmark in Washington, DC, and confronted him.

Despite being ambushed, Newmark, seemingly relaxed and confident, submitted and answered her questions. But not for long. And, his demeanor changed pretty quickly. (Click on the video below.)

Whether you see this as a case of “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” or “No good deed goes unpunished,” Craig Newmark probably had the best of intentions when he developed his online version of classified ads. And, we presume, he didn’t intend it to be used for illicit sex.

But Craig is an Internet pioneer, and so it’s reasonable to assume that he understands just how the Internet has changed the speed and reach of communications worldwide. He promised to carefully monitor the site and cleanse it of predators. Instead of admitting that Craig’s List failed to keep its promise, he tried to deflect by answering questions with questions.

He should’ve known better. Hopefully, after this experience, he now does!

Click here for the full CNN report.

Of Mammograms and Double-Speak

The Critical Importance of Message Development

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®


The most egregious mistake made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force before releasing its recent report on mammograms was either the failure to prepare a comprehensive and understandable communications plan, or believing what sounded like double-speak to lay people and even other doctors would be quite clear. Also, you have to wonder if the task force failed to anticipate the controversy it would be igniting.

Its spokespersons have served only to confuse and contribute to women’s concerns.

I’ve embedded several pieces of video in this post, making it longer than most. But if you’re looking to make a case for thorough message preparation and practice, then please take the time to watch each of them. And feel free to share this post with others.

What I've gleaned from the stories I've seen and read, the report's conclusion is that women under 50 should consult their physicians and then decide for themselves about the need and frequency for mammograms. I’m not interested in arguing the wisdom of that; I’m not a doctor.

The task force’s report has incited concern, anger, debate and vociferous disagreement, all fueled by a flurry of ambiguous and confusing statements and interviews. Their repeated missteps have managed to keep the story alive for a number of news cycles.

CNN American Morning co-anchor Kiran Chetry interviewed a breast cancer survivor who is well under 50 and, fortunately, discovered a tumor, thanks to routine testing. Then, Chetry turned to task force member Dr. Lucy Marion, Ph.D., RN and dean of the School of Nursing at the Medical College of Georgia (click on video).



CNN’s resident medical expert, Dr. Sonjay Gupta, participated in the interview and, as he listened, you could see the concern—if not anger—tighten his facial expressions. He questioned Marion--quite legitimately--from a doctor’s perspective on how to advise patients (click on video).



As confusion mounted, anchor Chetry asked Dr. Marion about the possibility of the task force reconsidering its recommendations (click on video).



The live interview ended there. But Gupta’s concerns did not. He continued interviewing Lucy Marion off-air and then played it back later in the morning, wondering how the task force's value of a human life came into play (click on video).



Meanwhile, ABC’s John McKenzie interviewed another U.S. Preventive Services Task Force member, Dr. Timothy Wilt. The result was only slightly better (click on video).



Like CNN’s Chetry, McKenzie asked Wilt if the task force might reconsider (click on video).



Yet a third task force member did tell correspondent McKenzie that she is consulting with fellow members on ways to clarify their message.

There’s an old saying, “Better late than never.” But you have to wonder if, in this case, it’s too late, that too much damage has been done by the task force because of its inability to deliver a clear and compassionate message.

Also the body language of Drs. Marion and Wilt did nothing to help them. Their wandering eyes and, in Marion’s case occasionally closing her eyes for a protracted period of time, detracted from their credibility and made me wonder if even they believe in the conclusions of the task force. Clearly, neither one seemed very comfortable with the messages.

Commander-in-Chief Rewind: Mishandling the News Media

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Are these really the same people who ran Barack Obama’s brilliant campaign? And is this president the same man who, as a candidate, talked about bringing an end to a politically polarized Nation’s Capitol?

It's too difficult to refrain from commenting on this “war” between the White House and Fox News. You can tolerate such stupidity only so long. And it is stupid.

By declaring war on Fox, the administration serves the best interests of Fox. Now all the other networks, as well as other national and local media nationwide are talking about Fox. You can’t buy that kind of exposure. And where does any administration, Democrat or Republican, get the right to ordain which media are legitimate news organizations. Additionally, where does their chutzpah originate to tell other networks not to follow administration stories that Fox breaks.

Especially interesting about that suggestion is that it came right after senior editors at both the Washington Post and New York Times admitted they failed to follow up the two major Fox stories on green jobs czar Van Jones and ACORN. Apparently, those mea culpas alarmed administration insiders.

There are other stupid things about this White House campaign. Fox dominates the cable news ratings by better than 2 to 1. Yet senior advisor David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel fired shots on separate networks a couple of weeks ago. That followed the first volley from Obama communications director Anita Dunn. And then, Valerie Jarrett, one of the president’s closest associates and advisors, joined the fight on CNN (click on video below). Ironically, she chose the network that comes in 4th in a four network race and where the smallest audience was watching.

There’s been some conjecture that the White House picked this fight now in order to divert attention from other things, like health care reform. But, has this ill-conceived offensive actually backfired and validated Obama’s fiercest critics?

Instead of their ongoing boycott of Fox News, the president and his senior aides could get a lot more mileage by making themselves accessible to the number one cable network. Since Fox has the largest, most diverse audience, it simply makes much more sense to reach out to all those people instead of alienating them.

Some other observations. If the administration continues trying to divide and conquer...that is, convince other news media to ostracize Fox, it might just find itself arming a bigger army of defenders. After all, the others have to figure if today it's Fox, tomorrow it might be us.

And, in the video below, CNN's Campbell Brown asked Jarrett if she believes MSNBC, often accused of being an administration lackey network, also is biased. Jarrett evaded the question and then proceeded to make vague accusations that Fox has aired inaccurate, inflammatory stories. Brown, a veteran reporter formerly with NBC News, failed to press Jarrett on the MSNBC question, and did not ask for specifics on Jarrett's claims against Fox. As a result, her timidity provided more evidence to CNN's own critics that it, too, is "carrying water" for the president.

The Media Manipulate, Too

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®



In a recent post, I made the case for not trying to manipulate the news media. A natural response to that: the coin has two sides. What about media manipulation?

Many contend, often correctly, that reporters have agendas. Certainly, all of them have opinions, but the good ones don’t let those things get in the way of doing their jobs well. But, there are exceptions, of course.

We were treated to a very illustrative example of media agenda and manipulation during the April 15th Tea Parties. Covering the Chicago Tea Party, CNN’s Susan Roesgen made her opinion of the demonstrations quite clear at the beginning of her report. “A party for Obama bashers. I have to say this is not representative of everybody in America…”

After arguing with a dad who was carrying his two year old son, and cutting him short as he tried to answer her questions, seemingly when he was about to say something she did not agree with, Roesgen closed her live stand-up saying, “It’s anti-government, anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network, Fox…”

Her intentions were further demonstrated when she picked out an extreme case when she interviewed some guy claiming President Obama is a fascist. Of course, he could offer nothing to support his claim, but for Roesgen it probably made good TV.

She went out of her way to avoid posters and demonstrators taking both Republicans and Democrats to task. Evidence of Roesgen’s premeditated agenda can be seen on youtube.com in a video provided by foundingbloggers.com. In an off-camera confrontation she had with a woman at the Chicago rally, it was pointed out to Roesgen that she was singling out only the posters and protestors who validated her intentions.

Susan Roesgen’s bias reporting has no place in legitimate media, no more than it does anywhere else where we expect accurate, objective coverage. Hopefully, her management agrees and has reacted to her sad performance.

One interesting sidebar to this: foundingbloggers.com reports that Susan Roesgen twice applied for employment at Fox News, unsuccessfully. If true, could that have been behind her handing of this story?

CNN’s Crisis Vulnerability

Turner CEO Phil Kent








www.themediatrainers.com


In its most recent weekly online edition (January 29, 2009), Georgia-based publication Business to Business posted a “conversation” with Turner CEO Phil Kent and how he's responded to several crisis situations. One of the examples screams to me that it was preventable and that CNN leaves itself open for more of the same.

At issue, CNN’s Web-based iReport, which carries this disclaimer: “iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post. Only stories marked ‘On CNN’ have been vetted for use in CNN news coverage.”

This policy seems counter-intuitive. Here’s a global network that employs seasoned journalists worldwide, journalists who are held responsible for accuracy and balance. Yet, this same network hosts an unedited site where anyone is free to “report” anything. Here’s what happened last October and how Kent responded to it, as reported in Business to Business Magazine:

CNN.com's new citizen journalist outlet, ironically called iReport (a name Apple might have wished they would have trademarked), reported that Steve Jobs, Apple's co-founder, was rushed to the hospital after suffering a severe heart attack, a report later unfounded and
untrue.

With no verification, the news quickly spread in the blogosphere, and caused Apple stock to sink to an 18th-month low before rebounding by the end of the day.

"The system worked exactly the way it was supposed to because our editors don't oversee iReport," he says. "As soon as the community that self-monitors iReport saw that this was bogus, they pulled it off."

"Would you blame the phone company for someone calling up and making a death threat on the phone line," Kent asks.

"Somebody abused our terms of service; knowingly filed a false report and we're cooperating with the SEC and the State's Attorney General to investigate whether it was deliberate stock manipulation. There was nobody here that did anything wrong."

Kent's phone company analogy doesn't work. The lack of his unmonitored, unedited "news" page would not be the end of getting news online. It simply would put some voluntary control over the veracity of the news.

How many more similar situations does CNN set itself up for? CNN is not the only one, either. Other news organizations have their own contributor access pages. And, Fox News' Ureport also provides a viewer-generated news platform.

More than a few professional journalists have expressed concerns about the Wild West nature of the Internet. In an effort to reach out to their viewers, readers and listeners, bona fide news organizations seem to be cultivating and nurturing the very beast they fear.