January 29, 2008 1:01 pm : Comments 002
Earlier this month, I talked about the potential peril of looking to lobbyists for media relations counsel. Coverage this week in the New York Post reminds us to add attorneys to that list.
Throughout my career as both a journalist and PR guy, I’ve witnessed (and cringed) countless times as well-intentioned attorneys grabbed the reins in an eminent domain-like maneuver to “oversee” their client’s media relations strategies. Almost without exception, they ended up causing considerably more damage than they sought to avoid. Engaging the media, particularly in the midst of a scandal or high-profile litigation, is a highly specialized expertise that most attorneys don’t appreciate, let alone possess.
The past four issues of the New York Post provide a textbook example of what I’m talking about. On Saturday, the Murdoch-owned tabloid took the NYPD to task for its handling of Heath Ledger’s death. The paper demanded to know why the police had not yet questioned actress Mary-Kate Olsen, who various media reports have suggested was called numerous times by those in Mr. Ledger’s home before 911 was dialed. The gossip going around the grapevine is that Ms. Olsen had instructed the caller who found Mr. Ledger to immediately call private security guards rather than emergency services. According to the Post, “…questions loom over whether the Police Department came under pressure from Olsen’s considerable legal machine.”
And while the police may not have heard from Ms. Olsen, the Post reportedly heard from her legal team:
Olsen’s attorney, Michael Miller (law firm affiliation not identified), immediately responded that if a reporter were to write ‘anything that is false or defamatory about Mary-Kate Olsen, in connection with Heath Ledger’s death, you and the New York Post will be sued.’
My guess is that hardly a day goes by when Post editor Col Allan doesn’t receive at least one call or a letter from an attorney threatening to sue him and his paper for some story that’s been printed or is rumored to be in the works. Not only does he probably take those threats in stride, he probably quite enjoys receiving them as they serve as confirmation that he’s still got “it” – the ability to get under powerful people’s skin. If ever there was a talent valued among tabloid journalists, that’s got to be it.
Indeed, threatening the New York Post with a lawsuit, particularly on behalf of an entertainment client with a resplendent history as gossip column fodder, is tantamount to warning a schoolyard bully that you will “tell on him” if he keeps stealing your milk money. You’re practically begging him to call your bluff. Newspapers, particularly tabloids, are ever mindful of potential lawsuits. Rest assured, they have some pretty high-priced lawyers of their own to advise them when a story crosses the line and opens them up to litigation that would be tricky to defend against. While it is fair to say that an aggressive lawsuit threat could work to introduce a bit more care and fact-checking into the editorial process, it can really backfire when the media outlet’s lawyers determine that there’s no real exposure. Instead of just getting your milk money stolen, to keep with the earlier analogy, you’ll get a heck of a wedgie as well.
Don’t believe me? Well, first check out Saturday’s Post. Under a large red-and-white “Heath Ledger Mystery” banner, the cover screams:
The cops are afraid to ask Mary-Kate Olsen some simple questions.
WE ARE NOT!
WHY
1) DID you fail to call 911? 2) DID you send bodyguards?
In case Mr. Miller missed the Saturday edition, the newspaper raised the issue again in its Sunday edition, rerunning the Saturday cover as an accompanying photo. This time though, Mr. Miller is quoted as telling the Post that he’d call them back with the number of Ms. Olsen’s spokeswoman – ok, so he’s a quick study – but apparently never followed through. Being that Ms. Olsen has appeared more than a few times within Page Six, the Post unsurprisingly already had her number, not that it mattered. The spokeswoman apparently never called them back either.
The Post again raised the issue of Ms. Olsen not being interviewed in Monday’s edition and in today’s edition. Although rival publications have snickered that the Post’s reporting has been wrong, the newspaper remained undaunted. Whether or not the Post has good cause to carry on with their self-styled crusade is immaterial to its readers. They’ll just assume that something is driving Mary-Kategate, such as a credible inside source who has been whispering in their ear, and assign it validity.
While it is saddening to see the death of a young person, famous or not, turned into such a media circus, I must admit that the PR guy in me is interested to see how the story ultimately plays out with Mr. Miller et al. Something tells me it won’t be the Post that blinks.
Share This Post
January 23, 2008 7:30 am : Comments 000
M E M O
To: Roger Ailes
From: Eric Starkman
Re: Boosting “Happy Hour” Ratings
Gotta give you credit, Roger, you’re still batting a thousand. “Happy Hour” is another of your strokes of genius. The ratings might be dismal so far, but great works of art sometimes take time to catch on. It took “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” a movie that parodied horror flicks, years before it became a cult classic.
Still, as the pressures of working for Mr. Murdoch must be draining at times, I thought you might appreciate some ideas on how the boost the ratings for “Happy Hour” for your next staff meeting.
10 WAYS FOR A HAPPIER “HAPPY HOUR”
- The Scores Lap Dance Economic Index
Let’s be honest here, “Happy Hour” is not exactly a show for puritans. One of the most blatant examples was a recent segment on Rick’s Cabaret, the publicly traded adult nightclub company, featuring some of the company’s “performers”. Why not take it to the next level and introduce the “Scores Lap Dance Economic Index?” Each Friday, Candi, Brandi, and Randi talk about how much they earned on lap dances. Lots of money? The economy must be doing ok. A whole lot of money? Sound the alarm – people are clearly trying to lap dance their troubles away!
- Coffee, Tea, or Fox at 35,000 Feet
This weekly segment features a report from a FBN anchor interviewing a corporate executive on his company’s airborne private jet. Think of the exclusive access! Hey, if it worked for Bartiromo…
- Wealth Transfer Strategies with Paris Hilton
It’s tough being rich and vacuous, particularly if your mean ol’ billionaire grandfather decides to give away your inheritance. Poor little rich girl Paris Hilton could share her money management tips with the equally downtrodden among us and teach us how to live the good life. Eat your heart out, Erin Burnett!
- #@%$#@ with Ken Langone
FBN doesn’t allow technical jargon. So if the network really wants to feature an authoritative market expert who clearly speaks plain English, who better than billionaire investor and philanthropist Ken “they-got-the-wrong-f*cking-guy” Langone? Hearing Mr. Langone wax on about the markets, the economy, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson would be the greatest color commentary since Howard Cosell joined Monday Night Football. C’mon, the Nielsen numbers would be soooo worth the FCC obscenity fines!
- Around the Water Cooler With Froelich and Kelly
This segment would be co-hosted by New York Post gossip scribe Paula Froelich (who actually once covered business) and Kate Kelly, the intrepid Wall Street Journal reporter who broke the oh-so-hard-hitting story on Bear Stearns chairman Jimmy Cayne and his alleged taste for the “wacky tabacky”. If there’s an unsubstantiated rumor or innuendo around the water cooler, Froelich and Kelly will be first to report it. Mr. Murdoch will love the cross-branding idea!
- Enhancing Workplace Productivity with Roger Clemens
Given the recent spate of layoff reports, everyone is looking for an edge in the workplace. In this segment, exclusively sponsored by Cook-Waite Lidocaine, New York Yankees pitching ace talks with business and sports leaders on how best to boost workplace performance.
- Corporate Dining with Takeru Kobayashi
Greed is good, but poor table manners are not. With so much business being conducted over a meal, today’s up-and-coming leaders need to know the rules of the table to ensure they don’t blow a big deal or job offer by simply eating with the wrong fork. Culinary dining legend Takeru Kobayashi explains the nuances of combining greed and proper etiquette, and models appropriate bib wear when feasting on $400 crab claws.
- Career Counseling with Julie Roehm
In this segment, fired Wal-Mart advertising executive Julie Roehm gives career tips on client entertainment, demonstrating appropriate affection for subordinates, and the perils of trying to shake down a Fortune 500 corporation.
- “Do as I Say” with Michael Brown
Remember Michael Brown, the whiz bang FEMA guy with the rolled up sleeves who oversaw the Hurricane Katrina response? Well, apparently he’s hired a publicist to promote him as an expert on crisis management. No doubt he would do a heck of a job talking about how companies in trouble can clean up their messes. Or appear to do so anyway.
- Hire Katie Couric
Cody and Rebecca are great, but they appeal to the under-35 crowd. “Happy Hour” could benefit from having an experienced, more “seasoned” journalist like Katie Couric inject some thought-provoking conversational pearls as “Dee-da-dee-da dee” to keep the older crowd’s attention. It’s just a hunch, but I’ll bet you can convince Mr. Moonves to let America’s sweetheart out of her contract.
Share This Post
7:30 am : Comments 000
Just so we’re clear from the get-go, I admire and respect Roger Ailes. Regardless of what you think of his politics, when it comes to American media, he is an undisputed giant in an industry dominated by creative Lilliputians.
But I admit that I initially struggled to understand why Mr. Ailes gave the green light to “Happy Hour,” the late afternoon show on his newly launched Fox Business Network. In case you haven’t seen it – and given FBN’s paltry ratings it’s quite likely you haven’t – “Happy Hour” is a campy show hosted by Cody Willard and Rebecca Gomez, two individuals who, professional credentials aside, look like they belong on the set of an MTV reality show more than in the studio of a serious business news program. Perhaps that’s why “Happy Hour” is set in a bar — the “Bull and Bear” pub at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel to be exact.
With the hosts and guests perched on barstools as pints are pulled behind them, “Happy Hour” has the production values of a community access channel in Aurora, IL (”It’s Wayne’s World, Wayne’s World, party time, excellent!”). The banter is light and the guest lineup, umm, eclectic. You may get a CEO or an investment manager or two talking about taxes and assets, but you’re more likely to get models, actors, strippers, ice dancers, comedians, filmmakers, more models, actors and … oh, did I mention the strippers?
“Who on earth is going to watch this show?” I wondered aloud the first time I watched the show.
Well, for starters, my colleagues Jeff and Anthony. Every day at 5 p.m., they immediately tune out CNBC and flick on “Happy Hour.” These are two of the smartest people I’ve ever worked with, and they haven’t missed a segment since the show began. Another surprising viewer? An erudite editor friend of mine at a major business publication – we’re talking a true Renaissance man who studied ancient Greek just so he could read the original works of Plato and Homer – confessed over dinner last week that he’s a big fan of the show.
Ok, so “Happy Hour” seems to appeal to highly intelligent people. That answered the “who?”, now I just needed to understand the “why?” Jeff and Anthony helped me out on this one:
We can’t believe just how bad the show is,” said Jeff.
“It’s so bad, it’s actually brilliant,” added Anthony.
Now I get it.
Did you ever see Mel Brooks’ “The Producers?” It’s a story about a hapless producer and a nebbish accountant who concoct a scheme to make the worst Broadway play ever made. But their show, “Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgade,” is so outrageous it actually becomes a huge hit. “Happy Hour” is Mr. Ailes’ Springtime for Hitler.
Media pundits predicted that FBN would be a near-clone of Mr. Ailes’ well-established Fox News Network. In anticipation, CNBC jazzed up its sets and graphics, and billed itself “America’s Business Network,” mimicking the jingoistic tone of Fox News. But Mr. Ailes didn’t make his reputation by following conventional wisdom. He just quietly sat back and let CNBC zig while he cunningly was preparing to zag.
Instead of creating quality programming to go head-to-head with CNBC, he took a different approach to capture the loyalty of those stuck at their desks after the 5:00 whistle blows. He developed the least “business-y” business programming imaginable. “Happy Hour” is ESPN or E! for people who can’t get away with watching those channels in the office. Is it playing to more low-brow tastes? Maybe. But as H.L. Mencken once said, “no one has ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
And for the record, H.L. Mencken, like Roger Ailes, was a pretty smart guy.
Next: “Top Ten” ideas to boost “Happy Hour” ratings.
Share This Post
January 10, 2008 12:12 pm : Comments 000
A story in today’s Wall Street Journal brought to mind a former client who appreciated the benefits of having me accompany him to appointments in Washington that his high-powered lobbyist had arranged for him. The meetings, typically with Congressional staffers and trade group leaders, never really accomplished a whole lot beyond the initial exchange of business cards. The client would give his spiel; the policy wonks would nod appreciatively, ask a few cursory questions, and then thank us for coming.
Although the desired policy impact our client wanted never materialized, his enthusiasm for them never waned. As an aside, I can’t help but note that his patience for a measurable result was not as abundant when it came to media relations. Any meeting with a reporter that failed to result in immediate favorable editorial coverage was a source of disappointment. Hmm… maybe we should go into the lobbying business. We could have set up those meetings – or even better, productive ones – at half the cost. But, alas, our collective pedigree sports no “unparalleled connections” or “enviable roster” of contacts on the Hill. And so it goes, and I digress…
Although we never trespassed or trampled on the turf of our client’s lobbyist, he never failed to do so on ours. He was always quick to suggest media ideas and the names of reporters we should contact. Most of the ideas and recommendations were pretty lame, but we respectfully kept our thoughts and snide comments to ourselves.
That lobbyist popped into my head as I read the Page One piece in today’s Wall Street Journal about foreign governments investing in Wall Street firms. A few paragraphs in, an unidentified lobbyist is quoted saying, “Our goal is to get a [page] B6 story in The Wall Street Journal and have no one mention it.”
I’m astounded that a Washington lobbyist could naively think that a significant investment by a foreign government in a major Wall Street firm would be covered on page B6 of The Wall Street Journal (and not just because the newspaper’s money and investing coverage is in the C-section).
Companies that rely on their lobbyists for media counsel clearly do so at their own peril.
Share This Post
January 7, 2008 3:00 pm : Comments 005
The Kitty Genovese story has long represented one of the most tragic examples of social apathy. In 1964, Ms. Genovese was repeatedly stabbed on her way home late one night while some 38 neighbors who heard her screams failed to call the police. “Her case came to symbolize the corruption of modern city life, a life in which everyone is too frightened or too selfish to help another person, a life in which the value of humanitarianism has been forgotten,” Professor Helen Benedict of Columbia University once said.
Ms. Genovese’s avoidable tragedy came to mind last Saturday as I read the New York Post. The paper’s cover prominently featured a picture of a distraught woman being forcibly restrained by paramedics. The photo was extremely unsettling, as the woman – wholly unrecognizable to me – was clearly terrified, her raw emotional pain clearly captured.
I was stunned to read that the woman in question was Britney Spears. I may not be a fan of her music or some of her lifestyle choices, but that had no relevance Saturday morning. Staring at that haunting image, I was overwhelmed with compassion for the person caught in the photographer’s lens. It was not a picture of an award-winning performer who has sold millions of albums worldwide. It was simply that of a person… a daughter, a sister, a friend… a mother of two… and she was clearly in need of help.
It didn’t take long for the opportunistic vultures to feast on what they deemed the latest offering to a culture gone mad in its obsession with celebrity. The fact that the paparazzi had gotten that shot of her on the gurney makes that point abundantly clear. Dr. Phil’s reported press release, website postings (”DR. PHIL COMMENTS ON BRITNEY SPEARS – CLICK HERE!”), and morning talk show participation about his involvement with the Spears family and planned family intervention on his own show were an embarrassment to mental health professionals everywhere. The Times of London had a thoughtful piece earlier today on this repugnant but probably inevitable chain of events titled “Cashing in on the Britney Spears Breakdown.”
While celebrities may have to “pay” for their fame with their privacy, there is no moral justification for such intrusion when the person in question is clearly in the midst of some medical emergency, physical or mental. While I didn’t plan to return to blogging perched atop my high and mighty soapbox, I am simply aghast at the total dehumanization of Britney Spears in this weekend’s coverage. Speculation ran rampant on the cause of her crisis, her song titles were parodied and punned, timelines of her descent from her days at the top of the music world charted and published, unflattering photos of her endlessly produced and posted…
Enough already.
Like the vast majority of what’s been published since Thursday’s incident at Ms. Spears’ home, The Post’s coverage underscores the media’s failure to appreciate that mental illness is a serious disease afflicting tens of millions of Americans. All reporters and editors saw was the celebrity, the icon, the persona, the brand. Dismissive characterizations like “trainwreck” and “fallen pop princess” abounded. Even The New York Times took a cavalier attitude, as evidenced in a staffer’s blog title – “Gee. A Bizarre Britney Incident. Imagine That.” The fact that she is a person with all the emotions and imperfections that are part and parcel of our kind never seemed to enter the equation.
Admittedly, the Post is not known for its decorum and restraint, particularly in its coverage of celebrities, but even they must have the proverbial line in the sand that they will not cross. If some sleazy paparazzo came to them with an ill-gotten photo of a celebrity vomiting after completing a round of chemotherapy treatment, would they run it? Probably not. Or how about a cell phone image surreptitiously snapped in the gym changing room of the scarred, post-surgical breast of a famous breast-cancer survivor? I doubt it…
One of the enduring myths of the Kitty Genovese tragedy is that none of the witnesses who heard her screams did anything. In fact, one of her neighbors shouted, “Let that girl alone,” which prompted the attacker to temporarily leave the scene. Perhaps if more people had opened their windows and shouted, Ms. Genovese’s tale would have had a very different ending.
Forty years later, we see another 20-something woman in clear crisis who desperately needs perfect strangers to shun instinctual apathy and loudly shout out “Let that girl alone.” The strangers in question are, of course, all of us and the attacker in question is the media. After all, we are the ultimate consumer of the media’s cold, merciless trespasses into her privacy. It is done for our entertainment and folly, and in exchange for our dollars, both directly and indirectly.
Statistics show that depression is rampant in this country, leading to a dramatic rise in suicides. It is also generally believed to be a key contributor to other life threatening illnesses such as heart disease. Yet the disease retains a social stigma (reinforced by headlines referring to psychiatric wards as “loony bins”), so the majority of people who are inflicted with it understandably forgo any kind of treatment.
Regardless of the specifics behind Ms. Spears’ troubles, the fact that she is undergoing a very real personal crisis seems apparent to even the most-distant and otherwise disengaged observer such as myself. She is deserving of a modicum of compassion simply because she is a human being. At the risk of inadvertently coming off as an apologist (or worse, Chris Crocker!), enough already.
Let that girl alone.
Share This Post
top of page