Gauging the Katrina PR Crisis and Reining In the Supreme Court Media Circus

Hurricane Katrina caused heavy damage along the southern Gulf Coast of the United States, but the political fallout stretches much further — from New Orleans all the way to Washington, D.C.  Criticized for being slow to respond to the hurricane, the Bush Administration also has been less than quick in figuring out how to manage the public relations crisis.

This week, Jim McCarthy of McCarthy Communications joined the Center’s Corporate Counsel Renee Giachino to discuss the public relations response and media spin to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Mr. McCarthy also discussed whether the media is giving Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts a fair shake.

What follows are excerpts from the interview for the radio show “Your Turn — Meeting Nonsense with Common Sense” that aired on WEBY 1330 AM, Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio.

GIACHINO:  My first guest has been described by such names as a “spin doctor,” a “PR Rainmaker” and a “crisis PR expert.”  He describes his work as “providing specialized communications counsel in high-stakes media circumstances,” and he has the credentials and client base to prove his effectiveness.  He is the head of McCarthy Communications in Washington, D.C., and his clients are as diverse as the issues, including the Augusta National Golf Club (you may remember their little debate with Martha Burk) and an Indian tribe.  He is an adjunct professor at American University in their School of Communication, lecturing on crisis management theory and case studies.

Please welcome to “Your Turn,” Jim McCarthy.

MCCARTHY:  Hi Renee.

GIACHINO:  Thank you for joining us this afternoon.  It is great to have you on during a time that probably could be described as our nation’s greatest crisis of this century.

MCCARTHY:  You know it certainly is difficult to measure crises, but this one is certainly up there in the all-time list.

GIACHINO:  I have invited Mr. McCarthy on today to talk about Katrina and the Administration’s handling of a lot of issues surrounding it and local and state government response, as well.

I want to set this up a little for the listeners by citing some things from your website.  It is a great website and I encourage the listeners to visit it at McCarthyCommunications.net.

On your website you ask whether we have ever heard the growling tigers at a media circus.  Whether we have smelled blood in the water in a media feeding frenzy?  Whether we have seen reporters attacking like pit bulls?  Whether we have watched as the media assaulted facts and trashed the truth?  I think we can all answer “yes” to most, if not all, of those questions.  Jim, what is America’s — and, for that matter, most of the rest of the world’s — fascination or obsession with these spectacles of quasi-entertainment?

MCCARTHY:  The press often finds itself operating with what you hear being called “pack journalism” — when there is a large group of reporters following a very prominent story, in this case the hurricane, and their coverage and the way they pursue the story is influenced in many ways by the behavior of one another.  You will see shouted questions at press conferences, ultra-competitiveness in trying to chase down facts and sources, and often a rush to get stories into print.

That is good in some respects because it means they are being diligent.  But in other ways basic journalism standards can get left at the wayside — standards such as fairness, balance, accuracy, of course.  When reporters take the time to do a thorough job, these are all high virtues in journalism.  But, when they are pursuing a story that is of extreme prominence or one that often involves a sharp controversy — and this coverage of the hurricane has both — a lot of times you see journalism standards thrown right out the window.

GIACHINO:  Who is to blame for sensationalizing most major media stories?  Is it the media which thirsts for it and serves it up, or is it the public who watches it hour after hour?

MCCARTHY:  Obviously many of the news outlets — and the cable broadcast shows are probably the worst offenders here — are pandering in a way for those kinds of ratings.  So, sure, people are watching it and it is getting attention.

But that is not the function of journalism.  Those news outlets on the cable broadcast and the newspapers as well as others hold themselves up and state to the public that they are there to report the news without fear or favor and based on a set of standards and ethics.  And they are not allowed to abandon that simply so they can get a few more ratings points.  Their credibility is on the line, and if they don’t live up to those standards then the public has a right to disregard what they are saying or not to take them as seriously.

I don’t think we are really asking for a whole lot here — I mean quoting folks from both sides of the issue for balance, I think that is a fair thing to ask.  Or for accuracy in fact.  Or if a story is moving quickly and errors take place, then the news outlet should be candid about those mistakes and admit them forthrightly.  But I don’t think that always happens.

The short answer to your question is I think journalism outlets and the news outlets themselves are responsible.  Specific media outlets, newspapers and individual reporters, as well, have to be held up and take accountability for what they put into their stories.

GIACHINO:  I agree.

Jim, as the principal of McCarthy Communications, an entity that provides specialized communications in high stakes media crises, I know that you are somewhat uniquely situated to talk about these very often overzealous media attacks that are directed at prominent companies and public figures, including government officials.  You accurately refer to White House press conferences as “feeding the beast.”

MCCARTHY:  Yes, I have long had a quiet admiration for the White House spokesperson, whether it is Democrat or Republican, because they have one of the toughest jobs in all of media.  And that is exactly right.  Each day at the White House briefing, it is essentially a media pinata party where reporters with all sorts of political agendas take turns swatting the White House spokesperson.

Again those same dynamics are in play in all sorts of controversies, whether it is Hurricane Katrina or the Roberts hearings that are going on right now.  Reporters are notorious for injecting their own political agendas into the coverage.  And those kinds of press conferences — like the White House press conference that takes place daily, is an excellent place to observe it up close.

GIACHINO:  It may be less than disingenuous for us to think about the reporter giving — well, we’d like to hear just the news, but we know that does not happen anymore, even in our 6 o’clock news hour.  Or you pick up the newspaper and it is hard not to see the spin by the words that they choose.  But it took me a while to figure out that very often it is not even the jaded opinion or biased opinion of the reporter or even the entity that the reporter happens to work for, but rather there is a lot going on behind the scenes that involves special interest groups.

Do you think we should be placing some of the blame on these attack groups that foment these crises?

MCCARTHY:  Well, I will give you a great example that is happening right now with the Roberts’ hearings.  There is a whole constellation of activist groups here in Washington, D.C. — radical feminist activist groups, others with vague names such as People for the American Way, and these organizations have put together lists of questions, they have scoured Judge Roberts’ personal life and his background working for clients and have been providing Senate offices with suggested questions and very skewed facts and statistics with which they hope he can be ensnared.  And to reporters, too, I should point out — making arguments about Judge Roberts that the journalists can then inject into their stories.

So in this way, both Judge Roberts’ political opponents as well as journalists are provided with ammunition from activist groups whose sole existence is to try to foment crises of this kind.  That is okay because everyone has the right to make arguments and the public square should be open to full debate, but when it is done behind closed doors and out of public view and is not open to scrutiny and journalists pretend as though their analysis and the angles that they are presenting are their own or are objective, well, that is misleading and the public ought to hold them accountable for it.

GIACHINO:  Well, it is interesting.  You know someone approached me recently and said that he thought that there is no place in the judicial nominations process for the PR battle that we see going on across America by these liberal and conservative organizations that are releasing statements and conducting interviews condemning or condoning Roberts’ answers and past rulings.  I said that to tell them they cannot do that is a violation of free speech, and I cannot stand for that.  But what I think that you have identified is really what we need to get down to in situations like this, and that is that they cannot do it behind the scenes.  Am I right?

MCCARTHY:  That is right.  There are two questions here.  One is disclosure.  Reporters have an obligation to let readers and viewers know where they got their information from.  They cannot take lines of argument, angles of attack and specially crafted attacks from specialty groups and then report it as their own reporting or analysis.  That is just flat-out unethical and completely irresponsible.

And the second question is balance.  If you are going to be quoting or taking information from a partisan source — whether it is on the right, left or center — you have an obligation to the viewers to seek other perspectives.  That is Journalism 101, and yet if you listen to reports in the national press you often see that balance completely disregarded.

The good news is that the public is beginning to be able to recognize that a lot more readily.  Americans are very, very savvy about consuming the news, and they can tell when they are being sold a slanted line of argument.  The thing that is so troubling for me is that so few of the targets of these attacks — whether it is Judge Roberts and his supporters or large companies or public officials — are usually very apprehensive about fighting back against the press.

I think the public recognizes it and deserves to hold the press accountable.  I just wish some folks would give some fire back in the opposite direction.

GIACHINO:  You are very often the voice for those people at the other end who are receiving the fire.  All too often nowadays in a story that certainly seems to be slanted in one direction, you do see them try to inject some balance, but it is typically followed by a comment that says “so and so was unavailable for comment.”  How often is it that they really give the person ample time?  I know that I have had reporters call for me to respond to something in a story that is going to be coming out and they may give me a 10 minute deadline.

MCCARTHY:  Yes, that is a common tactic.  Most reporters who are putting together a negative story about a particular target will wait to call that person last.  In other words, they will gather all the information, develop the angle of the story and write 90 percent of it and then leave one blank space for whatever quote you want to throw in there.  So the field is already tilted completely to the other side.

There is another common tactic that they will do, and that is to quote activist groups, opponents, critics and a whole range of negative voices and then will rely on you the target to be the sole voice of rebuttal.  And so it looks as though everyone in public affairs is pointing a finger at you, and you alone have to prove your innocence in other words.  They will rarely call balanced sources on the other side of the political debate.  They will rely on you alone to defend that.  I think that has long been a major problem in journalism, and you see that in all sorts of stories.

Take the obesity — so-called obesity — epidemic that is taking place in America now.  You see stories that quote consumer activist groups, health groups and even animal rights groups, anti-business organizations, academic experts who have a certain point of view, and they are all quoted criticizing say soft drink manufacturers or other food companies, and then they don’t quote any sources that disagree with them.  Instead, they will call the company itself, and the company in question will be the sole source standing up for that issue.  That is just grossly irresponsible reporting and you see it in all sorts of ways.

Again, I think readers are sort of smart enough to sniff that out, but it is up to the companies and the folks in question to grab those news outlets by the lapels and hold them accountable.

GIACHINO:  It’s getting harder and harder for me to read the newspaper without throwing it down in disgust.

Let’s now turn the conversation to a natural disaster that turned into a crisis situation in New Orleans.  As many of you know, President Bush took a heavy hit from Pelosi and others on the left, and the crisis in the Gulf Coast turned into a PR crisis for the White House.  Jim, as a crisis PR expert, can you give us your thoughts on the situation and how the President has handled it?

MCCARTHY:  In crises of that kind — they are known in our little PR world as an “act of God,” a crisis that is unforeseeable in many respects.  But it is apparent to the public and there is a wide national perception that the planning was mishandled — that they did not prepare fully enough.  And I don’t think the White House has ever fully addressed that.  That is what the cause is of most of their PR problems.  A lot of their message right now is to say we are focused on the task at hand and we will have much time later to analyze the situation and we don’t want to point the finger of blame.  These are all kind of generalized cliche messages that are not very persuasive.

What the public wants to hear is some admission of where things went wrong.  Obviously the federal effort fell short, and so did the state and local effort.  But none of the political leaders have seemed willing to step up and take responsibility and concede where things went wrong and then talk about what is going to happen to fix it.

I think their problems are two-fold: one, they did not do enough contingency planning.  And second, they haven’t done a good enough job of being candid as to where the planning went wrong.

GIACHINO:  On the issue of where the planning went wrong, what about the firing — wait a minute, the resignation of Michael Brown as head of FEMA.  Is that the Administration saying that at least now it can put that on the list of something that went wrong?

MCCARTHY:  Sometimes heads do have to roll in an organization when things go drastically awry.  But in order to gain public confidence you have to have some sort of an explanation for why that took place.  You cannot just fire someone and then not say anything about it.

If the Administration really wants to re-gain public confidence, they have got to say, “Look at where we fell short, this is how it happened and here is what we are going to do to fix it.”  The irony, Renee, is that whether it is a corporate CEO or a professional athlete or in this case a public official, when you step forward and admit candidly where things fell short but then add comma here is where we are going to do better and what we are going to do to fix it, you would be surprised at how the public will accept that and what kind of credibility you can garner.  It is a tough thing to step forward and make that kind of admission, but simply firing folks or putting heads on the block without any explanation is not going to do you any good with public confidence.

GIACHINO:  I think you are right.  And I may be splitting hairs when I talk about the resignation of Michael Brown, but there is a lot of chatter out there about President Bush being almost too loyal to a fault.  On that issue, do you think he could have gained a little more credibility if he had just gone ahead and fired Michael Brown instead of taking him out of action in New Orleans and then Michael Brown stepping forward with his resignation?  We all know what that really means in Washington.

MCCARTHY:  That’s right; the public really knows it, too.  No one is under any illusions as to why that is taking place.  Again, the Administration is never going to get any PR benefit or public goodwill or confidence, especially heading into the next cycle of elections, unless they offer some more candid explanation.

I don’t think there is any American who expects perfection from public officials.  I think that everyone understands that, in a natural disaster as horrible as Katrina, there are going to be some things that go wrong.  But when you don’t express that, explain it and level with the American people about what went well and what didn’t, then it looks as though you are aloof or ignorant of where the problems are.  And that puts you in a terrible position.

Right now, I believe the public’s confidence in the President is at an all-time low.  It is more important than ever for them to step forward and regain some of that public confidence, and the best way to do that, again, is to be straight forward with the public — honest and level with the public about where the shortcomings were.  And, at that point, you can add “and here is what we are going to do to fix things.”

GIACHINO:  Is that what you mean on your website by “shielding and countering”?

MCCARTHY:  Well, there is a separate problem that is going on, which is sort of the media swarm — the pack journalism that we were talking about earlier.  Speaking to the public is one thing, but talking to the national press corps is another.  You may have seen a lot of the reporters on this beat being borderline hostile in their questioning and confrontations with the officials here.

Some of them have even gone beyond that into political posturing — bringing in, for example, racial politics or talking about class warfare, about how the President or the Republicans don’t care about certain groups.  This is, again, irresponsible, agenda-pushing journalism that has no place in responsible media.  But again the Administration does not seem to be really confronting that effectively.  These kinds of attacks continue now, even almost two weeks later.

GIACHINO:  Well, maybe someone listened to this program and will take on some of your advice.

I want to thank you very much for joining us this afternoon.  I think a lot of people have a lot to learn about crisis management — in big situations like this or even in our own lives.  Again I want to encourage the listeners to visit your website.  Can you give the address again?

MCCARTHY:  Sure, it is McCarthyCommunications.net.

GIACHINO:  Thank you again for being with us and giving us your opinion on this situation and the Roberts’ hearings that are going on.  We hope to have you on the program again some time soon.

MCCARTHY:  My pleasure, and I would be happy to come back anytime.

GIACHINO:  Thank you so much.

MCCARTHY:  Thank you.  Cheers.