This quasi-blog is devoted to those who use media intelligently or, more often, those who miss their chance to have a message heard and retained.

The relationship between journalism and marketing/public relations is too often adversarial, mainly due to a lack of understanding; a lack of communication, ironically.

The key to using media effectively is understanding what "news" is, exactly; what the public would be interested in hearing about and how they will react after it has been heard. They don't teach you that in journalism school, I'm afraid. It's almost instinctive. As you'll see in the coming posts, some have better instincts than others...

December 19, 2011
Unhealthy criticism

There’s an unwritten, unspoken rule in journalism: Some opinions are best left unchallenged.

Take the case of former NHL player Theoren Fleury. He was one of the victims of Graham James, a coach who raped his junior hockey players. It took Fleury years to gain the courage to come forward. The trauma he suffered led him down a path of self-destruction, turning to alcohol and drugs to dull the pain.

In recent days, he has lashed out at the Canadian justice system and government in a fit of anger, perhaps with some justification, perhaps without. It doesn’t really matter. Journalists across the country, including myself, heard his comments, were reminded of his tragic story, dismissed his criticisms as misinformed and rooted in pain, and carried on with our days.

Except for The Gazette’s Pat Hickey.

The sports columnist wrote a particularly offensive piece: “Fleury is no poster boy for fighting abuse” – working under the assumption, first of all, that there is such a thing as a poster boy for sexual abuse victims.

“I find it hypocritical that Fleury can blast the justice system for giving James two months of freedom when he provided his former coach with years,” Hickey wrote, placing the onus to report crime squarely on the victim’s shoulders. “Here was someone who knew that James had abused other players. Here was someone who was exposing other children to the same sexual predator. Fleury has been through enough counselling to know there's a word for someone who acts in this fashion - enabler.”

With this diagnosis, Dr. Hickey surmises that Fleury could have reported the crime earlier, thereby sparing other victims. What he might not know – as a simple sports reporter – is that the vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported, for a wide variety of reasons.

Most rapists are known by their victims; the pervert lurking in the dark alleyway exists, but more common is the father figure, the mentor who uses his influence to rationalize his deviant behaviour. James was one such deviant.

Speaking out, as fellow NHL alum Sheldon Kennedy did, could mean facing excommunication from the hockey community. At that level of play, hockey is everything. Most of these elite players certainly don’t have law degrees to fall back on.

James knew that, which is why he got away with his crimes for many years. As a veteran sports reporter, Hickey should have known that too.

The Gazette, whose writers are usually held to a much higher standard, delved into murky territory this week in allowing Hickey to do serious commentary without facts on his side. If I wanted to know why the Habs’ power play was anemic or what colour goalie mask Carey Price was wearing tonight, Hickey would be a good source. But he has demonstrated that he has neither the sensitivity nor the intellectual rigor to attempt serious journalism and commentary.

Is he right in stating that Fleury was motivated by money in remaining silent for years? Maybe. No one knows except for Fleury himself. Hickey makes quite the assumption in criticising the athlete for “detailing the abuse in his best-selling, as-told-to autobiography.” The evidence to support his accusation is circumstantial at best and in the world of real journalism – away from the Bell Centre’s press gallery – more evidence is required when making such serious accusations.

“If Fleury had come forward,” Hickey wrote, “there may have been more outrage and James may have received a harsher sentence.”

If I understood the passage correctly, Hickey theorizes that public outrage could have affected the outcome of a sentence handed down in a court of law – a fundamental misunderstanding of how our justice system works. A more experienced current affairs commentator would have never made such an absurd statement; one of many gaping holes in his thesis.

I am usually open to all kids of opinions: Left, right, centre, liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, etc. I believe dialogue and debate are healthy. But once in a while, an opinion comes along that is just dead wrong. I would never suggest that Hickey be fired for expressing himself, as some have said. I am, however, hoping that he learns a valuable lesson from this fiasco: Sometimes the most powerful criticisms are the ones that are never expressed.

-30-

February 16, 2011
Revenge of the nerds

I was wrong.

 

Almost exactly two years ago, I wrote that, as a proud journalist, I would be boycotting Twitter and limiting my use of Facebook. I argued at the time that traditional forms of media could remain competitive with social media if they simply fought back and put out a more entertaining product.

 

My six-month old Twitter handle, @delmarhasissues, demonstrates how misguided I was in writing the piece, “Is journalism dead? I will not be reduced to Twittering for attention,” and how I underestimated the power of nerds. That is to say, those who are the earliest adopters of new technologies; who have an innate ability to predict how we will be living in the years to come.

 

I hereby bow to our nerd overlords and embrace that journalism and social media can not only coexist, but thrive together. Now, I must warn others. The Charest government could also be underestimating nerds and even making the fatal mistake of going to war with them.

 

Quebec’s culture and communications minister, Christine St. Pierre, ordered last year that a government study be commissioned to look at, among other things, how the independent press could cope with new technologies. Université de Montréal journalism and communications professor Dominique Payette was given the job and her sweeping recommendations were released recently. All 51 of them.

 

One highlight – and I use the term with tongue firmly planted in cheek – was the suggestion that all media organizations be required to buy memberships in and be regulated by the Quebec Press Council, headed by the oracle of objectivity that is John Gomery (before taking the job, you may recall the “Sponsorship Scandal” judge meddled in Montreal’s municipal elections by working with Projet Montréal. Another federal judge also ruled that Gomery was biased when dealing with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, whom he described as “small-town cheap.”). Outlets like The Métropolitain who refuse to be governed by this needless regulatory body would be cut off from government advertising dollars (not that we’ve ever asked for taxpayer-funded handouts to begin with).

 

Another is the idea that media people would need to pass a French test in order to be “accredited” by this professional association. This could come as troubling news for hockey commentators and FM disc-jockeys across the province. C’est du gros n’importe quoi.

 

But the recommendation I want to focus on takes aim directly at the aforementioned nerds. Payette suggests, in a sense, that those who don’t work for these traditional, accredited media organizations cannot be real journalists. She wants to see these non-journalists placed at the bottom of the list when trying to access government information; they would also be excluded from protection mechanisms in place for their sources. 

 

Doctors, lawyers, pharmacists...virtually all professions have some sort of regulatory body or professional association. That makes perfect sense because these professionals require specific technical knowledge. Journalists do not require any specific technical knowledge – and journalists know that. That’s why so many of them are in favour of government-regulated media; because many know how mediocre and unremarkable they are and that all it takes to replace them is a pulse and an internet connection.

 

When you're in the business of free speech, having someone arbitrarily decide what constitutes acceptable conduct can be problematic, to say the least. When a journalist crosses the line from acceptable criticism into libel, well, we have the courts to sort that out – nothing more is needed. Despite the preaching of media purists and some journalism professors, this profession is not a science; our work is subjective and creative, thus extremely difficult, if not downright impossible to regulate.

Not only is there no consensus on what journalism is, but new media innovations are raising questions on who journalists are. And many of the best new journalists fall well outside of traditional parameters. Who are Payette or St. Pierre to potentially deny them access to information simply because they practice their craft on the internet or don't have the buying power to join the Press Council?

 

Independent Canadian bloggers like Warren Kinsella or Pierre Bourque regularly break stories that mainstream media outlets miss; in fact, we often get our ideas from writers on the web (don’t tell anyone!). In the US, online media organizations are more of a force. If the American government even considered interfering with The Drudge Report, Slate.com or The Huffington Post, there would be hell to pay. In Quebec, virtually no one bats an eyelash at the thought of statist media control.

Apart from the inherent problems with government-regulated press, the Charest government would be angering an increasingly powerful group of organizations with these potential new regulations. The culture minister would be wise to look to recent examples of non-traditional media having an enormous impact on the political landscape: Wikileaks and the ongoing protests in Arab countries, where much of the word is getting out through social media.

 

Governments who attempt to regulate communication and free speech will undoubtedly face the wrath of the people, if only because in 2011, it is all too easy to unleash wrath (as I write this, over 700,000 on Facebook are ‘attending’ “A Virtual March of Millions in Solidarity with Egyptian Protestors”). Why brave a cold Quebec winter to protest on the streets when you can tweet? Tag your post with #Charest, and he’ll get the message – with more force than if you were waiving a placard in front of his office.

 

Since I wrote my anti-tech rant two years ago, I’ve experimented with social media; working inside the nerd universe, instead of being stubborn and battling against it, has led to tangible results for the organizations I am associated with. My message to the Charest government: You cannot beat the nerds. You might as well join them.

 

It is ludicrous to commission studies with the premise that somehow government can improve the media landscape. Media at its core is a reflection of a society and changes should happen organically, from the people. Government interference could poison media, making it even more beholden to those in power. 

 

The Premier has had a difficult year in media. If government decided who is a real journalist and who is not, could his harshest critics be silenced? A far-fetched scenario, perhaps. But St. Pierre and Payette’s report has left the door wide open for all kinds of abuses.

 

Quebecers need to get on Facebook and Twitter and tell their government that “Quebec is not China. We demand a free media, #Charest” – all in a nerd-friendly 53 characters.

-30-

_______________________________________________________

December 1, 2010

Tiger, stop. Just stop.

 

If you want a case study in how not to deal with media during a crisis, Tiger Woods would be that perfect case. And the worst part about his sex scandal is that he won't stop talking about it!

I think most are in agreement that Tiger has had a disastrous year in almost every respect. His personal life is in shambles, his game is off, his sponsors have dropped him and his value as a brand has plummeted. But to the casual observer, all of this damage is a result of him sleeping with a bunch of women who weren't his wife. Not true.

Tiger's troubles are a result of his (and his handlers') inability to understand media and the news cycle. It is particularly shocking because one would think that having more money than God would buy you some better PR advice.

Let's take another sex scandal that was dwarfed by Tiger's: David Letterman sleeping with an employee. Sure, there were no text messages revealing a domination fetish, but the potential for a PR disaster on a similar scale was still there. If Letterman had let the story get out of control, he could have easily been fired by network bosses, paranoid about protecting a 'family values' image.

What did Letterman do right? He nipped it in the bud. Shortly after the story broke, he made a very brief statement on his program, saying he and the wife were working things out, and...that was it. He understood that the news stops when the information stops; having the person at the centre of the story cut off the flow of information basically deprives reporters of the stuff (quotes, clips, photos, etc.) they need to generate news.

This may sound overly simplistic, but Letterman recognized that if you don't want to be portrayed negatively in media, you should probably stop trying to get the media's attention. It's just asking for trouble, especially in the blogosphere, where reputations and research are of no consequence.

Tiger, on the other hand, made an event of his affair with in-depth interviews, a press conference and now that Newsweek piece again apologizing for what a bad boy he was. Another thing Tiger doesn't understand that Letterman evidently did is that he does not owe us an apology or an explanation. Nowhere in the celebrity handbook does it say, you must confess all torrid sexual dalliances to reporters. When did that become necessary?

Tiger's answer to questions about his infidelity should have been variations of, "that's none of your f***ing business!" Without the "f***ing." I would have advised Bill Clinton to say the same thing, had he not been hauled into court to address his indiscretions; a legal obscenity that is a topic for a different forum.

Lessons to be learned from these sex scandals: 1) If it's not the public's right to know, don't tell them! 2) If confronted with irrefutable evidence, tell the truth. 3) Apologize. Make it quick, clean and sincere. 4) Move forward, don't look back.

You don't even have to be caught with a pornstar or a fallacious intern. Even if the scandal is not sexual, the lessons are similar when dealing with media. Journalists are a pessimistic, inquisitive bunch. Don't lie. Ever. When managing a crisis, there should generally be only be two basic principles, from which effective media strategies can be developed: Full disclosure or no disclosure. Again, it all depends on the public's right to know and whether the benefits of being forthright would outweigh the costs of a (hopefully) temporarily tarnished brand.

A Canadian oil company handled a crisis situation brilliantly over the summer because they hired a PR firm that, at least in this case, shared my philosophy. I covered the story for CJAD News myself and brought along my usual, generous dose skepticism and outrage. They admitted their mistakes after an oil spill, apologized, promised to fix the lapses in maintenance and pledged full transparency. They offered guided tours of the spill to reporters - even by helicopter, if necessary (I had actually assumed they would be less than transparent and had quietly accessed the spill site beforehand through a treacherous wooded area - an elaborate waste of time since I could have walked in through the proverbial front door) . That shut me up and limited the news cycle to a paltry two days. The long-term result? Well, you probably have no idea what company I'm talking about, when the spill happened or where, so I think the results speak for themselves.

One year after Woods' affairs came to light, he's still talking about it! Can you imagine if this oil company had, months later, randomly thrown themselves into the media spotlight? "Hey guys, remember that time we spilled 500 litres of oil into the river? Yeah, those we're some crazy times. We're still sorry, just so you know. Do you still forgive us? Are we cool?" Stop talking about it! Tiger is either clueless about how media works or a total masochist. Probably the former, I suspect, having read his sexts.

-30-

_______________________________________________________

July 25, 2010

Michael Ignatieff, Lindsay Lohan and the sound bite

 

He’s definitely no Gene Simmons, but he has an equally long…tour bus. The Liberal Express rolled into Montreal this week and I had the pleasure of following around Michael Ignatieff for the afternoon. There were no fireworks and the groupies weren’t nearly as attractive, but speaking to Iggy gave me some fodder for this blog on how to work with media.

Let me preface my critique by pointing out that Iggy is getting better – much better, in fact. He seems to be getting the Liberal message out there on occasion thanks, in part, to this neat cross-Canada tour (local media is lavishing him with attention during these quiet summer months). I was also relieved when I saw him up close and noticed that someone in his entourage evidently told him that the unibrow had to go; it’s growing back, Iggy. You have to maintain…but let’s focus on more substantive matters.

 

Before Canada gets Iggy with it, he needs to speak to us in a language we can understand. He is still struggling to shake the academia-speak and belt out some media-friendly sound bites. You may not like the fact that we give our leaders about a dozen words – sometimes less in radio – to express themselves on an issue that will have broad societal consequences, but that’s just the way things are and Iggy has to deal with it. George W. Bush was elected with the help of just eleven words: “Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here.” Barack Obama on two: “Hope” and “change.”

 

Part of the reason I had to spend most of the afternoon following Iggy around Montreal was because he doesn’t “give good clip,” like we say. He doesn’t give journalists succinct sound bites that clearly spell out his position in a compelling way so we can include him in our brief newscasts. I don’t have time to go through his ten-minute improvised thesis on the merits of Affirmative Action; a simple, “we need our government to reflect this country’s diversity,” would have sufficed.

 

The best sound bite that I recorded that day was something along the lines of, “Stephen Harper doesn’t value information.” The CBC, Concordia, U of T, corduroy-jacket-with-elbow-patches crowd would probably love that line. I have to admit, it’s not bad by Iggy’s standards. But most Canadians hear a line like that in their quick radio news bulletins and it goes right over their heads.

 

Now, I know the context to the “information” remark because I heard his full explanation (he was referring to the Conservative government’s decision to abolish the mandatory long-form census, which collects a wealth of information on Canadian society every five years). It’s just too bad that the constraints of my profession don’t give me the time to properly explain what he meant to communicate.

 

And that’s what Iggy needs to keep working on. Sound bites. If you can’t express yourself on anything in under fifteen seconds while engaging most people, you shouldn’t be in politics. Yes, it’s dumb, it’s superficial, it’s tragic…and I don’t like it. But such is the state of journalism in 2010.  

 

When you’re competing for the public’s attention against a water-skiing squirrel and Lindsay Lohan’s vagina, you’re going to have to do a lot better than, “Stephen Harper doesn’t value information.”

 

-30-

July 10, 2010
Controversial Cardinal Marc Ouellet: Media savvy

If you Google controversial Quebec Cardinal Marc Ouellet - until recently, the highest ranking Roman Catholic Canadian - the first word that appears next to his name in the search bar is "abortion." Ouch.


In 99.9 per cent of circumstances, this would be a PR disaster.  But for Ouellet, his stance on abortion, gay marriage, pedophile priests and other controversial issues has earned him a promotion. Mazel Tov, Cardinal. He is now in charge of all bishops in the Vatican.

Ouellet recently said that abortion is a "moral crime," even when the women who choose to terminate their pregnancies were victims of rape. He has described gay adoption as "violence" against children. And he has consistently refused to acknowledge Quebec victims of pedophile priests, let alone apologize to them on behalf of the Church. It's a good thing he's not running for office.

When critiquing the Cardinal's media strategy, we have to remember just that; he doesn't need to win an election, nor does he need to sell trinkets to the general population. In making these types of (reprehensible and antiquated) views public, one has to consider his goals. He is speaking to a defined audience (devout Catholics and those open to being evangelized) and he does not answer to the gen-pop (but to what he perceives as God, and the Pope).

The Cardinal's statements outraged you and I and anyone else with a rational bone in their body; La Presse's Patrick Lagacé even wished him a slow, painful death. Unfortunately for us rationals, we're yelling at a brick wall. The Cardinal doesn't give a damn what we think and all the outrage in the world won't make him change his mind.

He was simply towing the party line and being open about the Church's values; something observers say scored him major points with the Pope and contributed to his promotion.

If the Cardinal's goal in making the abortion statement in May was to land the plum job; if it was to start a controversy in media, resuscitating an issue thought to be settled; if it was to reinvigorate the base, then mission accomplished.

I'm certainly not sad to see this backward, intolerant man leave Quebec public life, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Cardinal Marc Ouellet is media savvy. 

-30-