April 22, 2008 1:07 pm : Comments 000
I confess to taking a real pleasure in the pounding Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are getting for their role as moderators in last week’s debate between Senators Obama and Clinton. Even the mainstream media has expressed outrage for the pompous and insubstantial questions posed by Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos, which were clearly intended to provoke rather than elicit intelligent insight. This cartoon best says it all.
So I was understandably taken aback to read Don Hewitt, a veteran broadcaster and the director and producer of the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, actually defending Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos. Mr. Hewitt told The New York Times that a debate entails “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience”.
“When you’re in television, that’s your job,” he is quoted as saying.
Fair enough. But given that presidential candidates now make the rounds on entertainment talk shows, appear on “Saturday Night Live”, and even do videos for World-Wide Wrestling Entertainment, why bother with the debates if their sole purpose is to simply create some more “show biz”? We get enough of that from them already.
Alternatively, if the debates are merely entertainment, perhaps the networks should consider asking comedians Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien to serve as moderators. Not only would the ratings go up, my guess is so would the level of discourse.
Share This Post
April 18, 2008 2:19 pm : Comments 000
When a company is coming under fire from the public and media, you can count on their related official statements sounding anything but meaningful or spontaneous. Such statements are often perfunctory at best and clearly written with kid gloves snuggly fitted on the committee of writers’ hands. As a result, the issued statement is invariably bland, sweepingly broad, and peppered with enough “PR-speak” so that it doesn’t say very much at all. Example:
Reporter: “How can the company justify paying 300 times book value to acquire a failing company owned by the CEO’s son-in-law?”
Spokesperson: “NEWCO is proud of its corporate governance practices and its commitment to increasing shareholder value. We look forward to expanding the NEWCO brand through this merger of equals.”
Ok, so maybe I’ve crafted more than a few statements in PR-speak myself.
That said, how incredibly liberating to come across a corporate comment in the newspaper that not only speaks directly to the issue, but does so with real gusto…a statement that puts the inquiring reporter in his place and publicly questions his news judgment….a statement where the spokesperson stops being a shiny, happy person for a millisecond to say what he or she is really thinking.
Surprisingly, such a statement was issued by none other than CBS News. In response to a question about the embattled Katie Couric possibly – but not definitely – but, let’s face it, increasingly likely – “barring a change” – possibility of quitting as the anchor of “CBS Evening News”, CBS issued the following statement to the New York Post:
“We think readers are extraordinarily bored with this infantile and nasty pilling on… and will continue to focus not on baseless rumor and conjecture, but on the quality and depth of the broadcast – which is second to none.”
Wow – that’s a big change from the more traditional “we’re very proud of…” and “we have no plans for any changes regarding…” statements reportedly issued earlier.
Alas, the Post didn’t report whether a name was attached to the more recent statement, so I don’t know the identity of the verbal sharpshooter. But whoever you are, I applaud your courage and candor. I’d be delighted to buy you a drink.
Something tells me you could use one.
Share This Post
April 17, 2008 7:45 am : Comments 000
I had lunch this week with a broadcast reporter whose honesty and integrity I truly admire. Having just completed an impressive in-depth feature on a high-profile story, he talked about how dismayed he was about the underwhelming quality of the reporting done elsewhere. It turns out that much of the information that had earlier been put forward as fact proved to be inaccurate and even fabricated. “You know it’s scary just how easy it is to manipulate the media,” he said.
My lunch companion was not the first respected journalist to privately share concerns about the decline of the journalism profession and fellow reporters’ ability to fairly and correctly present facts. Regret the Error, a website that “reports on media corrections, retractions, apologies, clarifications, and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the press” serves as an ongoing reminder how far journalism standards have plummeted.
More so than ever, the media business has become just that – a business. Daily newspapers have fallen most precipitously – they are now for the most part being run by profit-seeking, non-journalist executives looking to generate profits rather than play the historic noble role of Fourth Estate. While that may not necessarily be a bad thing in theory, it certainly is when the intense bottom line focus leads to the wholesale firings of seasoned reporters and editors with invaluable experience and irreplaceable institutional knowledge. That’s how you wind up with bogus stories like the one The Los Angeles Times had to retract about associates of Sean Combs attacking rap artist Tupac Shakur with the former’s knowledge. Three veteran journalists from The Smoking Gun immediately realized the story “did not pass the smell test” and quickly debunked it. As the saying goes, there is no substitute for experience.
While many seasoned reporters are at least privately acknowledging that the profession needs to collectively run a tighter ship, there are others who suggest that it needs even greater latitude. Among them is Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP), an organization founded in 1970 by the sorts of journalism heavyweights that have no modern day counterparts, including J. Anthony Lukas, Ben Bradlee, Eileen Shanahan, and Tom Wicker. The organization focuses its efforts largely on First Amendment and freedom of information issues.
Ms. Dalglish is the person reporters invariably call when the news-gathering process becomes the news itself. A very recent example would be the shamefully errant reporting in several publications that repeatedly linked Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army bioterrorism expert, to the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. However, according to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, “there’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do” with the anthrax attacks. Click here for an earlier post with the details.
Dr. Hatfill is seeking legal retribution for having his reputation unfairly and probably forever tarnished. He also reasonably wants to know who provided the damaging misinformation about him to Toni Locy, the USA Today reporter who wrote the stories that maligned him. Ms. Locy has so far refused to divulge the information and Judge Walton has not only held her in contempt, he has ordered that she, and not USA Today, be charged hefty punitive fines as a result.
Ms. Dalglish and the RCFP are valiantly trying to leverage Ms. Locy’s plight to pressure Congress to pass a federal shield law that would protect reporters from ever having to disclose their sources. Ms. Dalglish has publicly portrayed Ms. Locy as a First Amendment crusader and her profession’s latest Joan of Arc.
Personally, I view Ms. Locy’s reporting and the subsequent stories that led to her self-created predicament as the best argument against passage of a federal shield law. No matter how I look at it, I cannot see how the public good is best served by giving reporters carte blanche freedom to publish poorly sourced – or worse, wholly unsourced – and inaccurate stories without the possibility of legal ramifications. Journalists are fed false information every day by parties with hidden agendas. This misinformation is often innocuous, but other times the results are far more dire with the reporter serving as a mere pawn in someone’s propaganda game.
Keeping journalists subject to possible court-mandated source disclosures for erroneous stories compels them to be a lot more selective about the sources they rely on and are willing to go to the proverbial mat for. The U.S. press is free to publish anything it wants, but like any other business, it should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Rest assured, if Congress doesn’t pass a shield law, Ms. Dalglish will have no shortage of journalists whose erroneous reporting she will be called on to defend.
Share This Post
March 14, 2008 9:53 am : Comments 001
Talk about ironies.
Eli Lilly announced yesterday that it has acquired the exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Transition Therapeutics’ gastrin-based diabetes therapies, which reportedly improve glycemic control in studies. One of these therapies is in early Phase II testing.
The acquisition should be good news for patients who take Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa drug, whose potential side effects apparently include obesity and diabetes. The drugmaker is currently being sued by about 10 states for not properly informing patients of these risks.
That said, Lilly getting the rights to the diabetes treatment seems akin to Philip Morris acquiring the worldwide rights to the cure for lung cancer. You know what they say about covering your bases…
Speaking of Zyprexa lawsuits, if you are interested in some impressive and insightful commentary on one of Lilly’s most recent PR gaffes — issuing one of the more dubious news releases I’ve ever seen — I highly recommend you check out this website.
Share This Post
March 6, 2008 1:20 pm : Comments 001
Eli Lilly and its Zyprexa legal woes have hit the road. The Indianapolis-based company and its lawyers are in Alaska, defending against charges of improper marketing of its aforementioned blockbuster schizophrenia drug.
The State of Alaska has filed suit against Eli Lilly, contending that the drugmaker inappropriately downplayed Zyprexa’s health risks and should now be held responsible for the medical expenses of in-state Medicaid patients who contracted diabetes or other ailments after taking the drug. Many will be keenly watching this trial. Eight other states have filed similar suits and as many as 30 others are reportedly considering doing so. Opening statements were made yesterday.
This blog marks the third or fourth time I’ve written on the topic. I’m beginning to think that few outside Eli Lilly are as engrossed in the details as me and The New York Times, which has also written extensively about it. The newsworthiness of this major legal battle explains the Times‘ ongoing interest; my own stems from the broader crisis communications lessons to be learned from Eli Lilly’s handling of this matter.
While the Times did an admirable job of covering the trial’s opening arguments and setting the legal stage, I must question its reporting in that same article about Eli Lilly being investigated for “off-label” marketing of this drug – a serious no-no in the pharma world. While the reference to those charges was unquestionably relevant, the Times neglected to inform readers that the State of Alaska’s lawsuit had also alleged off-label marketing tactics, but that the presiding judge had already thrown out the claim. While I don’t know whether the dismissal was due to a lack of corroborating evidence or perhaps simply a technical glitch – the Times should have at least given the full story.
As an aside, I can’t help but note the irony of Alaska prosecutor Scott Allen reportedly characterizing Eli Lilly’s alleged conduct as being “reprehensible”. That is the same word that senior federal district Judge Jack B. Weinstein used to characterize the information-gathering tactics of Alex Berenson, the Times reporter who has been following this story for the paper.
Up until today, I had been largely mistrustful of the Times‘ Zyprexa reporting because of the alleged ethical shortcuts the newspaper had taken in obtaining the story. I refused, naively, to accept that Zyprexa, an FDA-approved pharmaceutical, could be as horrific a drug as the Times portrayed it to be. I figured that that Lilly’s communications team was simply doing a very poor job at damage control, woefully mismanaging the escalating PR crisis. The anecdotal evidence that Lilly’s outside attorneys are also actively engaged in Lilly’s media relations efforts only reaffirmed my belief.
But I admit my stance has changed now that I’ve read the initial comments made during the opening statement made by Nina Gussack of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represents Eli Lilly. In a nutshell, she defended the company by saying that Zyprexa’s benefits outweigh the risks and noted that Alaska’s Medicaid program continues to pay for Zyprexa.
While this cost-vs.-benefit approach is hardly a novel one, it just doesn’t sit well. I understand, of course, that there are inherent health risks with virtually any drug and that, despite the threat of possible side effects, informed patients often decide to take that gamble each and every day, starting new drug regiments to cure what ails them. I also understand that there are times when doctors have to make that decision for them, such as in emergency rooms, where the patient’s life is at risk and giving consent is not possible.
What I find morally repugnant, however, is the thought of doctors prescribing drugs that potentially cause life-threatening illnesses to patients who are unable to give their informed consent when other, less risky drug therapies are available. Is schizophrenia the more pressing health concern than diabetes or vice versa? Who gets to make that call? What about the myriad health complications that are shown to be associated with obesity in general? How do we factor them in to the prescribe-or-not-prescribe decision process?
After reading about yesterday’s Eli Lilly assertions, it is now clear to me why the company has hid behind its attorneys rather than aggressively, publicly address the allegations repeatedly raised by the Times. The “benefits outweigh the costs” rationale is a rather weak one to flog in the face of a mounting public backlash. Then again, the public comments they did make – that the Times had repeatedly taken evidence “out of context” – is hardly reassuring to investors, patients, doctors, and everyone else for that matter. As I’ve noted before, the “out of context” defense is rarely a credible one.
While I don’t think that the ends justify the means with respect to how the Times obtained some of its information for its ongoing Zyprexa coverage, I do admit that I’m grateful that much of it has come to light. Something tells me that Eli Lilly and the prescribing doctors who fell for its sales reps’ spiel are much less so.
Share This Post
February 22, 2008 7:19 am : Comments 000
Related post about Toni Locy and the federal shield law.
Compared to their brethren in other countries, U.S.-based reporters enjoy unparalleled power and constitutional protection. America’s founding fathers understood the need for a strong independent press to serve as a watchdog against government tyranny, hence the passing of the First Amendment and the notion of journalists’ collective role as the Fourth Estate.
At the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, James Madison and his fellow patriots had legitimate cause for wanting to ensure freedom of the press. The British Empire had “long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown“; the revolutionists knew all too well the importance of keeping the government accountable to the populace. There was no Internet, no radio, no TV. The only way to expose wrongdoing or communicate new ideas was through the printing press.
But much has changed since 1791. Whereas reporters were once primarily independent ideologues driven by the pursuit of truth and fairness, the industry today is becoming increasingly characterized by glory-seeking individuals who are more concerned with getting scoops and breaking “exclusives” to further build their personal brand. The industry is now dominated by media conglomerates whose primary concern is profits; accordingly, cementing a reputation for consistently being first-to-publish can garner far more professional dividends than consistently being fair and accurate.
The profound journalism shift has been a real boon for those in positions of power that seek to use the media to serve their own agendas. Once upon a time, reporters were a far more skeptical and suspicious lot. They understood the potential to be exploited by outsiders, and were far more vigilant in safeguarding their corner of the public trust. They were not “friendly” with politicians, government prosecutors, or the police, and they never simply took them at their word.
But as I said, times have changed, and not for the better. The mantra of “show me the proof” has been replaced by “give me the exclusive”. This new mindset is disturbing, but it is particularly alarming when it is applied to individuals being investigated by The Law. All too often, names are prematurely named, heavy allegations are lightly thrown, reputations and lives are unfairly destroyed. From the feeding frenzy coverage of Richard Jewell, who the media aggressively – and erroneously – reported perpetrated the bombing of the 1996 Olympics, to the 38 members of the Duke Lacrosse team who were wrongfully accused of rape by a politically driven prosecutor, there have been far too many innocents needlessly sacrificed at New Journalism’s altar.
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army bioterrorism expert, is but yet another of these media victims. Back in 2002, USA Today and other media outlets repeatedly reported that Dr. Hatfill was being investigated for playing a role in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. Dr. Hatfill was first publicly fingered by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had said he was a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.
Like Jewell and the Duke Lacrosse team members, Dr. Hatfill was wholly innocent. He’s now suing the federal government for destroying his reputation by injudiciously leaking information about him to the media. The case is before U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton who on Wednesday held Toni Locy, the USA Today reporter who wrote multiple stories about Dr. Hatfill being a key target in the anthrax investigation, in contempt of court for refusing to identify the anonymous sources she spoke with in preparing the stories.
Journalists are crying foul. Judith Miller, whose “exclusives” in The New York Times years ago about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction have since been discredited, wailed on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal yesterday that Mr. Ashcroft, not “independent journalism,” should be held responsible for Dr. Hatfill’s plight. Shamefully, Ms. Miller subtly tries to cast a pall over Dr. Hatfill’s innocence by noting he was “long under suspicion but never charged with any crime.” According to Judge Walton, “there’s not a scintilla [emphasis mine] of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do” with the anthrax attacks.
Mr. Ashcroft was indeed the first to publicly out Dr. Hatfill as a target in the anthrax investigation. But Ms. Locy took that ball and ran with it. She did multiple stores citing unnamed sources repeating the allegations about Dr. Hatfill being a target. While it’s true that some of Ms. Locy’s stories noted that the government’s evidence was not conclusive, inclusion of such caveats shouldn’t result in a free pass for reporters to recklessly abandon their Bigger Picture fairness responsibilities or to turn a blind eye to the high-stake ethical issues in play. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword, after all. Just ask those whose lives have been utterly decimated because some brash reporter had gotta-get-the-scoop tunnel vision.
Ms. Miller quotes Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, as saying that the steep fines Judge Walton has imposed on Ms. Locy will make it “very risky for future journalists to write anything about a suspect who has not already been arrested and indicted.”
Frankly, given the life-altering reputational devastation when the wrong person is named, I would see that as a major step forward.
Share This Post
February 11, 2008 1:34 pm : Comments 000
It looks like we got spun again by The New York Times.
In our zeal to safeguard the integrity of our firm and its blog, we rushed an apology last week to The New York Times and reporter Alex Berenson that now appears to have been premature. The S&A post in question was based on a story that appeared on Portfolio.com earlier in the week. When the Times sent us a statement saying that the original story was “incorrect”, we took the newspaper at its word and felt compelled to retract some of our comments.
Well, it turns out the story wasn’t incorrect. In fact, one could argue that, for the most part, it scored a bulls-eye. The Times insisted that a misdirected email from one of Eli Lilly’s outside attorneys wasn’t responsible for Mr. Berenson’s page-one scoop that the pharmaceutical giant was close to reaching a settlement with federal prosecutors for $1 billion. But Mr. Berenson subsequently admitted on NPR radio, and to the editor of the Pharmalot blog, Ed Silverman, (see his comment on my apology post) that, well, it kinda was.
We could have a field day with the disclosures that have surfaced since our last blog on this topic, but we will stick to the high road and to these two thoughts:
- We owe an apology to Portfolio.com for unjustifiably discrediting its story. While some might argue that the misdirected email Mr. Berenson received didn’t have the depth of detailed information about the proposed settlement as the website hinted, by Mr. Berenson’s own admission the details it did offer provided the confirmation he needed to run with the story;
- This ongoing email saga illustrates clearly that there is truly no such thing as off-the-record. Once a reporter has their hands on a piece of sensitive information, they will finagle ways to use it, despite any handshake agreements not to. As we are forever telling clients, if you don’t want to see something attributed to you on page one of your local newspaper, it’s best you keep it to yourself.
One final thought: For all the blather about the capriciousness of bloggers and so-called citizen journalists, it is interesting to note how quickly those commenting online about this topic last week were quick to issue corrections and clarifications when it seemed their information was wrong. If nothing else, it’s encouraging to see the old-school principles of fairness and accuracy given the primacy they deserve.
Share This Post
February 7, 2008 12:57 pm : Comments 002
Update: Alex Berenson admits some truth on NPR and The New York Times‘ comments had an element of spin.
When we launched this blog, there was unanimous internal agreement that we would adhere to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy. We demand nothing less from ourselves, clients, and the media with regard to the work we do every day, and the content of this blog is no exception.
With that in mind, we naturally became concerned yesterday to read a post on the Drug and Device Law blog that the Portfolio.com story upon which we based our own post Tuesday may have been inaccurate. The item in question reported that The New York Times reporter Alex Berenson was able to break the recent page-one story about a possible $1 billion Eli Lilly Zyprexa settlement because he had mistakenly received a confidential email about the talks from an attorney at Eli Lilly’s outside law firm Pepper Hamilton that was intended for a co-counsel colleague at Sidley Austin also named Berenson.
The D&DL post said that Mr. Berenson had denied that the errant email was the initial source of his scoop (Portfolio.com said he had declined to comment). Above the Law, a well-regarded and extremely popular website, also wrote about the wrong-Berenson email mistake, linking to our post and to the original piece on Portfolio.com. They, too, issued a subsequent clarification once Mr. Berenson’s denial was on the record.
And now it is our turn.
We contacted The New York Times spokespeople directly yesterday to determine if a correction or clarification was indeed warranted. We received the following statement from Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for the newspaper:
Mr. Berenson did receive a misdirected e-mail from Pepper, but that e-mail did not contain a detailed description of the status of the settlement talks. Mr. Berenson had known independently about the settlement talks for some time, and he obtained the details he published in the Times from sources other than Pepper.
The Portfolio version was incorrect.
When a newspaper the stature of The New York Times publicly discredits the reporting of another publication, we clearly take it seriously. It now appears that we inadvertently republished erroneous reporting in our blog yesterday, and for that we apologize to both the Times and Mr. Berenson.
Yet…
If Mr. Berenson knew about the settlement talks for “some time” and had received details of the settlement talks from “sources” (plural) other than Pepper, we can’t help but wonder why he then sat on the story. Doing so meant taking a huge risk of getting scooped by a rival on a story that he has pretty much owned. After all, as the Times itself reported, if the $1 billion figure was right, it would be the biggest penalty ever paid by a drugmaker for inappropriate drug marketing activities. Major newspapers typically require only two independent sources to confirm an unattributed story, which Ms. Mathis suggests he had in hand.
And therein lays a very big question. So who were these non-Pepper sources?
We can appreciate why someone on the government side might leak that settlement negotiations were underway. But we would expect that Mr. Berenson’s editors would insist that he get confirmation from someone at, or very close to, Lilly with first-hand knowledge of the talks. It’s fairly safe to assume that Lilly didn’t offer any confirmation, officially or on background, given their reported statement to the Times saying in part, “…we regularly have discussions with the government. However, we have no intention of sharing those discussions with the news media and it would be speculative and irresponsible for anyone to do so.”
Mr. Berenson’s scoop is extremely damaging to Eli Lilly. If the company does indeed settle for $1 billion, the Times will again undoubtedly give the story some pretty prime real estate and repeat all the damaging allegations regarding Zyprexa. And with the figure now public knowledge, it would seem difficult for prosecutors to accept a settlement for less than $1 billion without it appearing that they had blinked.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this fascinating story plays out.
Share This Post
February 5, 2008 12:05 pm : Comments 001
Update: The New York Times claims that the Portfolio piece was “inaccurate”.
Update 2: Alex Berenson admits some truth on NPR and The New York Times‘ comments had an element of spin.
More about Alex Berenson.
The New York Times‘ pharmaceutical industry reporter Alex Berenson scored a heck of a Page One scoop last week when he revealed that Eli Lilly was looking to reach a settlement with federal prosecutors over the company’s alleged inappropriate marketing of antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. A staggering “mea culpa” settlement figure of $1 billion or more was mentioned.
This was a big story, no question about it. Eli Lilly is a publicly traded company and the $1 billion settlement would be the largest ever paid by a drug company for improper drug marketing (so said the Times).
In the piece, reporter Alex Berenson cited sources who requested anonymity “because they have not been authorized to talk about the negotiations.” He also included a statement from an Eli Lilly representative saying, in part, “…we regularly have discussions with the government. However, we have no intention of sharing those discussions with the news media and it would be speculative and irresponsible for anyone to do so.”
So how did Mr. Berenson get the scoop? It turns out that it wasn’t through any tried-and-true gumshoe reporting techniques taught at j-school. He simply had the fortune of having the same last name as one of Eli Lilly’s attorneys.
According to a story posted today on Portfolio.com, one of the drugmaker’s outside attorneys at Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton had mistakenly emailed detailed, highly confidential information on the settlement talks to the reporter instead of Bradford Berenson, the intended recipient (co-counsel at another law firm).
The email gaffe, unquestionably one of the greatest fears of everyone handling sensitive information, is apparently the result of very similar email addresses: Mr. Berenson, the reporter, simply goes by berenson in his email address while Mr. Berenson, the attorney, goes by bberenson.
We can’t honestly fault the Times or its reporter for breaking this story. I would have done the same thing back in the day. But Mr. Berenson mislead by omission. He should have been upfront with readers about how he learned of the settlement talks. Since there was no official confirmation from either side, doing so would have gone a long way toward letting readers judge the credibility of the story for themselves. Mr. Berenson quotes Nina Gussack, a Pepper Hamilton lawyer representing Eli Lilly, as saying she couldn’t comment on the case. Judging from Eli Lilly’s own statement, it doesn’t appear that anyone alerted the company’s spokesperson as to how Mr. Berenson got the story.
Mr. Berenson’s earlier reporting on this topic has been called into question before. According to a respected federal judge, Mr. Berenson was “deeply involved” in an “illegal” scheme that effectively amounted to “stealing” documents. (Neither the Times nor Mr. Berenson have ever publicly explained the extent of his involvement.)
Eli Lilly is reportedly sticking by Pepper Hamilton, and I applaud the company for its loyalty. That said, I can’t help but wonder why an attorney at Pepper Hamilton had Alex Berenson’s email address in her email database in the first place. As I’ve argued before, reporters and attorneys are best left in separate corners. Especially when the latter specializes in high-profile, high-stakes crisis work. By any measure, Eli Lilly’s PR handling of allegations of wrongdoing regarding its Zyprexa marketing has been a debacle. If its attorneys are driving the media relations strategy, it’s easy to understand why.
Share This Post
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
top of page