Sarah Ferguson...what now?

Welcome back everyone!
Ironically on the very weekend that Canada celebrates the anachronistic Victoria Day weekend, what should cross our shores but a fresh scandal involving a member of the Royal Family, the one and only Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson. Take a look at this from the British tabloid, News of the World and the 'cash-for-access' sting they did on her, in which she promises 500,000 British pounds in return for access to her ex-husband, Prince Andrew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqJiJu-NR-E

So what does she do in response to the first report of the sting? Why, she denies it! Always a great strategy right? Clearly she responded without getting advice from a communications professional (unless it's the same one advising BP?) She eventually fesses up with a somewhat adequate statement (although note how her PR adviser throws Sarah under the bus). Note the passive verbs ("this has happened") and generic nouns ("the situation") in describing her actions:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/23/sarah-ferguson-andrew-cash-tabloid
              
Okay so what can Sarah do now?
1. Disappear from view. A minimum of six months to a year. Every appearance will just keep it before the public. She will be hounded for a few weeks, but eventually the tabloids and paparazzi will grow tired of staking her out.
2. Go to Haiti or some other devastated place and truly do charitable work. No media interviews.
3. When she re-emerges, stay totally humble. No excuses, no prevarications. Period.
4. Once she returns get a job. Sarah is a creative, intelligent person, with real talent for writing children's books (our boys loved the "Budgie the Helicopter" series).
5. Get  a serious financial adviser. One who is not attracted to her toes.

                                                                                                                                                    

The shifting public winds

Welcome back!

I've been fairly busy since my last post. A drive through the bucolic countryside south of London sticks in my mind as an oasis of calm. [Ontario, that is. No volcanic ash near that London......]

The world fell into a recession 18 months ago and while there have been strong signs of recovery in the markets and in many sectors of the economy, employment has lagged the recovery. But something more profound has changed, and that is the public attitude to 'business as usual'. The question is, have the politicians fully understood the implications of this huge shift in attitude? It seems as if the public are ahead of the politicians and even the media when it comes to what they will find acceptable and unacceptable.

Let's take a look at recent events north and south of the 49th parallel as well as across the pond in Europe.

The Winds of Change Sweep Britain
The winds of change (laced with the aforementioned volcanic ash no doubt) were blowing strong against the Brown Government, and though he fought back valiantly - if at time ineptly - clearly the jig was up. For about five days, however, the Prime Minister was like Wylie Coyote...hanging over the edge with his legs churning, not quite believing that the ground had moved out from under him. Fortunately Lib-Dem Leader Nick Clegg came to his senses and ceased his flirtation with Brown, and went where common sense and the seismic shift of the public compelled him to go...to David Cameron's Tories.

Yes Cameron's and Clegg's first joint news conference got uncomfortable momentarily, but that's the nature of all coalitions, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z3W7dp85dY

They handled it well didn't they? Here's hoping their coalition works out. Canada knows all about minority governments. Coalitions? A more exquisite form of torture would be hard to contemplate.


The Winds of Change Sweep America
The Gulf oil spill provides an insightful look into the soul of America in a time of collapsing public trust in corporations and institutions. The sight of the CEOs' finger-pointing testimony was an embarrassment to the art of finger-pointing [which, of course, is the natural domain of politicians.]
http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/finger-pointing-at-oil-spill-hearing-19717628

What a lost opportunity to show the public that they get it. That they take responsibility. That their values are in synch with the American public. Instead they sank to the schoolyard where it's always 'the other guy's fault'! Who trained these execs anyway? Of course it gave President Obama a golden opportunity to regain lost ground on the offshore drilling file:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Gulf-Of-Mexico-Oil-Leak-US-President-Barack-Obama-Blasts-BP-And-Demands-Better-Efforts/Article/201005215632189?f=rss

Republicans and Democrats each think they have the direction of the shifting winds figured out. Are they blowing left or right? North or south? The answer? Neither. They are blowing away from politics as usual, scoring cheap points, and the usual 'bread and circuses' thrown their way.

Looking at last night's primary results indicate that the 'outsiders' are pushing aside the traditional 'establishment' figures. The Tea Party-backed Rand Paul won the Republican Senate primary against the Dick Cheney & Mitch McConnell - backed Trey Greyson in Kentucky, while 80 year old ex-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter lost to two-term Rep. Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Democrat primary. How much of that was due to the 'turncoat' issue and how much was due to the tidal wave against 'politics as usual' might be argued in that case. However, 'change' is the powerful political brand at this time.

Last week in the West Virginia primary, 14 term Democratic Rep. Allan  Mollahan was the first incumbent Democrat to lose his re-election bid, with many observers saying that his support for the Health Care Reform package was the primary culprit. Perhaps, but with the anti-incumbent mood of the electorate, there may not be too many 'safe' seats out there. However, what is clear is that the Tea Partiers are riding high right now, but they better be prepared to have some solutions to the issues they are championing. That's the thing about the theme of 'change'. Since the global meltdown, the public is holding off on trusting anyone.

The Winds of Change Sweep Canada.
The Harper government has gone through what might otherwise have been an 'annus horribilus'...the Afghan detainee file...the Helena Guergis-Rahim Jaffer soap opera.....issues which don't quite meet the test of 'major issues that I care about deeply'. Regarding that by-now-tired story, the ideal situation to wrap that up is for the RCMP to announce that they are not proceeding with a criminal investigation of Ms. Guergis as there appears to be no basis for it. End of the drama.

The latest issue which has the potential to de-rail Parliament itself is the fight over allowing the Auditor General to audit their books. After seeing what those disasters did to Nova Scotia, as well as the U.K. politicians, it's perhaps understandable that the MPs and Senators don't want to go there. Although, unlike in the U.K. there are probably no taxpayer-subsidized moats to worry about, no doubt there are a few awkward things like flat-panel TVs and portable generators that they may have to worry about.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9016471.html

Beyond Parliament Hill, the public has become engaged on this issue and it makes the politicians look like they have something to hide. So they better jump before they're pushed!

There is hope, however....
For the best example of  how to address big issues in a win-win way, look no further than the deal that was just struck between Greenpeace and the forestry industry. They have agreed on an alliance to protect the boreal forests of Northern Canada (comprising 35% of Canada's land mass), while enabling the industry to continue logging in clearly designated areas. [This felt particularly good as we have worked with the Forestry industry on these and other sustainable forestry issues.] Now why can't other issues be resolved like this?
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=3042452

By turning the attention to strengthening the Canadian and Global economies (the Harper Government's attack on the  Global Bank Tax idea in the G20 is an excellent example) Prime Minister Harper is gradually strengthening his 'strong leader' image in the 'leadership' polls- in spite of all the negativity. By the way, if it's reflected in higher numbers in the polls, after the G8 and G20 meetings in Canada in June, look to an early election.

To quote Jack Nicholson's Harry Sanford character in 'Something's Gotta Give',  "I have never lied to you. I have always told you some version of the truth." To which Diane Keaton's Erica Barry replies, "the truth doesn't have versions, okay?"

Somebody better tell that to politicians and institutions everywhere....before the winds of change blow them permanently off course from the public!

Until next time........

Shaping the media narrative in a crisis

Welcome back!
It's been a fascinating week indeed.....from the oil disaster in the Gulf to a terrorist bombing in the heart of Times Square to massive flooding in Nashville, news junkies have a buffet of media stories upon which to feast!  Of course, it's also the Stanley Cup playoffs, but that's just 'dessert' on the menu.


What is behind most news stories? The 'narrative' as it is known.  In this post I will explore how the 'narrative' is created by commentators, media and politicians. 


What is a story narrative?
First of all, a 'narrative' is the storyline which forms the spine of media coverage. It is often shaped within hours of an event or revelation. The narrative often confirms 'under the radar' media and activists' world views. For example, Majid Nazaw, a former Islamic extremist turned counter-terrorist, has identified the power of the narrative in the Muslim world that 'America is targeting Muslims'. That is animating ever-increasing anger in the Muslim world against the Americans.


The Gulf Disaster Narrative
Having conducted the crisis communications training programs for the United States Coast Guard for over a decade, I was particularly interested in the 'narrative' of that story. The Incident Command system of emergency response, as it is known, involves all the key players - Coast Guard, federal and state agencies, and the 'Responsible Party', which in this case is, of course, BP. How has the communications been handled? Well it was clear that with 11 oil rig workers missing in the explosion, the early focus was on the search and rescue, which quickly became 'search and recovery'. The initial estimates of 1000 barrels per day rocketed to five times that amount of oil spilling into the Gulf. From the time the Incident Command team got hold of the full scope of the impending disaster, they moved into a much more confident crisis communications mode. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen became a reassuring figure.


The narrative gradually melded into "BP at fault; BP will pay'. However, the limits of liability for such disasters is only $75 million which won't pay the interest on the cost of clean-up. However, before that narrative got too far, BP moved quickly to squelch it by vowing to pay the entire cost of the spill. Good move. 


President Obama's Re-shaping of the Narrative
As George W. Bush learned with Katrina, the political damage can last even longer - IF you fail to control the narrative. Therefore, on Sunday, the President flew into the region to mitigate the growing drumbeat of blame aimed at the White House: "From day one we have prepared and planned for the worst, even as we hoped for the best," he said. "And while we have prepared and reacted aggressively, I'm not going to rest—and none of the gentlemen and women who are here are going to rest—or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil on the gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods."
That is called 're-shaping the narrative'. Will it work? Possibly, but the jury is still out on that.
Who Shaped the Times Square Narrative?Those who comment early - often without any solid information - can shape the narrative underpinning the media stories, long after they have been disproved by solid information. Which, of course, brings us to the Times Square bombing. The first few days of the coverage were dominated by these characterizations: : 'Amateurish' 'Home-grown' 'Lone-wolf'? As Harry Smith, the usually-sensible host of CBS'' Early Show put it: "This has been described as sort of amateurish, almost Rube Goldberg-like." He was merely reflecting the early narrative on the story.

Who were the key politicians shaping this narrative? 
Why, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D) and Congressman Peter King (R) for starters. CBC's lead on the story early Sunday was:
"There is no evidence of a Taliban link to a failed bomb found in a sport utility vehicle parked in Times Square, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Sunday." Perhaps the advice to the Commissioner is that when you say 'no evidence' you have to add 'although we can't rule it out at this point'. Don't make definitive-sounding statements prematurely. The New York Times nailed the essential culprits in the 'narrative shaping' of the stories:
Questions on Early News on Car Bomb
By JAMES BARRON, Published: May 3, 2010 "On Sunday morning, less than 15 hours after a car bomb had been found in a sport utility vehicle in Times Square, the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, appeared on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” and said, “You know, at this point I have no information that it’s anything other than a one-off.” Ms. Napolitano said almost the same thing on the ABC News program “This Week.” A couple of hours later, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, stood in front of a CNN camera in Times Square and said, “The odds are quite high that this was a lone wolf.” Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security, suggested that the reason behind the attempted attack was “the whole issue with ‘South Park,’ which Islamic terrorists were threatening to have retribution for.”

Bloomberg wins the 'outlandish speculation award.....
However, the absolute worst in pure speculation was this exchange that Bloomberg had with CBS' Katie Couric: "If I had to guess twenty-five cents this would be exactly that, somebody who’s homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda, that doesn’t like the health care bill or something." So it's maybe those insane tea-party activists!!

Flailing around for a motive
The narrative was reinforced with even more outlandish speculation....that he may have acted as a result of...choose one of the following: losing his job, his hatred for George W. Bush and his Iraq invasion, or, best of all....South Park....
The Huffington Post wrote it this way: "Investigators are looking into the possibility that Saturday's failed attempt to ignite a car bomb in Times Square was carried out in reaction to a controversial recent South Park episode in which the show tackled the issue of censorship related to the Prophet Mohamed.

New York Republican Congressman Peter King confirmed to CNN that the NYPD Joint Terrorism Task Force was one of many possibilities being considered because the failed bomb was discovered near the headquarters of Viacom, the parent company of Comedy Central.

"I know that it is being looked at by investigators as one of the possibilities, I was going down a list of possibilities and that is one of them," King said. "All I know is that they themselves -- the police -- thought it was something that should be looked into and is being looked into, along with any number of other scenarios."

The Role of 'Unnamed Sources' in Shaping the Narrative
Why was the narrative so desperate to avoid the clear reality that this terrorist action had a clear Pakistani militant background with - by definition- a network over there behind him? Certainly 'unnamed intelligence experts' and 'experts inside the government' were heavily quoted in the early hours and their dismissal or discounting of serious terrorism. In fact the Pakistan Taliban had claimed responsibility within hours, yet those were quickly dismissed:

"But experts very much doubt the Taliban is behind it—or would even want to be. “I think there are elements in the TTP … who would like to see the TTP become an ally of global jihad and al-Qaeda,” the author of a book on the group tells the Christian Science Monitor. “And I don't think the bulk of Pakistani Taliban would want that.” The group has no capacity to launch international attacks, skeptics argue, but has a history of appropriating such events." HUH? Really?

The Narrative Slowly Begins to Change.....
Finally, the narrative began to change four days later - after the arraignment of Faisal Shahzad. This Newsweek story posted online Tuesday May 4th at 9:40 p.m. granted that those terrorists links were 'increasingly plausible':
"Taliban Claim About Times Square Now Considered ‘Plausible,’ Officials Say by Mark Hosenball. After it first surfaced on a newly created YouTube channel shortly after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's first press conference about the discovery of a car bomb in Times Square, U.S. counterterrorism officials dismissed as empty propaganda a Pakistani Taliban message in which Qari Hussain Mehsud, allegedly the group's chief, said he takes "fully responsibility for the recent attack in the USA." But experts inside the government acknowledge that a Pakistani Taliban connection to the failed attack now appears increasingly "plausible" in light of revelations about the links to Pakistan of Faisal Shahzad, who federal authorities on Tuesday charged with several terrorist offenses related to the failed attack."

When an emergency or crisis occurs, here are the key rules of communications...
1. Avoid speculation; speak on the facts only. Ask others to avoid speculation also.
2. Craft an accurate and sustainable narrative.
3. Tell people the action you are taking to reduce threat; to determine the cause; to catch the perpetrators.
4. Don't falsely reassure, but calmly and evenly tell people what, if anything, they should do. [Think Rudy Giuliani on 9/11]
5. Avoid dramatic language, clever sound-bites, headline-grabbers, lame humor.
6. Give regular updates - don't let a media vacuum develop. 
7. Respond quickly to inaccurate media reports and comments.
So, in summary, solid communications cannot replace weak emergency response, but weak communications can undermine an otherwise strong response. 


Until next time, let's hope for more accurate media 'narratives' on the stories of our time!