We at PRapport forecast this two months ago. Please check this analysys by S Narendra, advisor to former PMs and ex-Govt of India spokesperson..
An international story is playing out of Washington involving the White House that we all are reading as a political story. If we analyse it under the lens of communication and PR, we notice a highly charged case study on Reputation Risk and Redemption Management. This is relevant to all communicators.
Very interestingly, this story is taking place in the janmabhoomi of PR and communication theory and practice. The theater (pun intended) of action is in Washington DC, capital of Madison Avenue, K-street, the Capitol Hill all coming under its nickname – the political beltway, it is also known as the swamp that sucks into its murkiness any and everyone (irrespective of their reputation for integrity and independence of mind), making the job of keeping one’s reputation and public esteem risky.
An
international story is playing out of Washington involving the White House that
we all are reading as a political story. If we analyse it under the lens of
communication and PR, we notice a highly charged case study on Reputation Risk
and Redemption Management. This is relevant to all communicators.
Very
interestingly, this story is taking place in the janmabhoomi of PR and communication theory and practice. The theater
(pun intended) of action is in Washington DC, capital of Madison Avenue,
K-street, the Capitol Hill all coming under its nickname – the political
beltway, it is also known as the swamp that sucks into its murkiness any and
everyone (irrespective of their reputation for integrity and independence of
mind), making the job of keeping one’s reputation and public esteem risky.
The
news story of Russian espionage during the 2016 US presidential election was
supposedly used for swinging it in favour of Republican candidate Donald Trump. As the FBI was probing the
allegation, its chief James Comey was fired by President Trump. Initially, it
was explained that the President had acted on the recommendation of the Deputy
Attorney General , Rod Rosenstein who had said in a note that FBI under
its director Comey had not properly conducted the investigation into the security
implications relating to the e-mails of former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent over a private server. The e-mails were leaked to WiKiLEAKS
allegedly by Russian intelligence, But President Trump contradicted this version in a TV
interview and took personal responsibility for dismissing FBI chief. He told the interviewer that he had
decided to fire Comey even without Rosenstein’s recommendation since FBI was
pursuing allegation of links between his election campaign in 2016 and Russia. In
one single moment, Rosenstein’s reputation was in tatters,
Rosenstein,
was appointed by President Trump as the US deputy attorney general barely a few
weeks before he penned the infamous note
on FBI director. Rosenstein had come into the new office with a formidable
reputation as a legal ace as well as for
person known for impartiality and
independent mind. In a previous stint in
the Justice department, Rosenstein was appointed by the Republican President
G.W.Bush, as a persecutor. He was retained in the post by President Obama. This
clearly showed that he was highly respected across the political spectrum for
his professional eminence and for his integrity. Therefore, Rosenstein’s note
recommending James Comey’s dismissal shocked his admirers in media and legal
professionals saw him as buckling under political pressure. The President’s public
admission that the FBI director was fired because he was pursuing investigation
into alleged links between his election campaign and Russian spying exposed
Rosenstein to public ridicule, as Trump’s hatchet man.
Another
factor that made Rosenstein position questionable was that as the deputy
attorney general he was technically placed
in charge of FBI and its investigation. His boss Jeff Sessions, the AG,
had recused himself from overseeing the FBI investigations into Russian spying
case, due to his previous business links with Russia. There was huge
expectation that Rosenstein would resist political pressure and ensure a fair
FBI probe into the case of Russian interference in American poll.
Media
stories had appeared to the effect that FBI director had declined to oblige the
President when personally approached for closing the relevant probe. This revelation led to demands for
impeachment of the President for obstructing justice.
Amidst
the turmoil, there were questions about the role of Rosenstein, about the
reasons for him to give up his principles that had built his reputation.
This
sad saga took a new twist when Rosenstein announced the appointment of a
Special Counsel for supervising the FBI probe into Russian espionage. His decision
to name a former FBI director, Mueller enjoying enormous respect for his
integrity and independence won large measure of support. This step paved the
way for Rosenstein to partially
re-establish his reputation. In the process,
Rosenstein did something that every PR person wants to do in a crisis
situation. He changed the media headlines. The word ‘impeachment’ of the
President that was gaining ground was
buried. The move also restored to some extent the reputation of the American
democracy as a credible political system even though presided over by a whimsical chief executive.
According
to media reports, the deputy attorney general had announced the appointment of
Special Counsel, without seeking the consent of his immediate boss or the
President.
The Author: Ex adviser to PMs and former Spokesperson, Govt of India
A
commentator in the New York Times summed up the lesson coming out of this story
thus: ‘I expect more members of the Trump administration will find themselves
under pressure to violate their own principles. I hope they will remember both
lesions of Rosenstein saga. Helping Donald Trump isn’t worth your reputation.
And you can often recover, at least partially, from your own mistakes.’
Tail piece:Rod Rosenstein may have
recovered his reputation and tried to change the headlines away from
impeachment. But President Trump seems hell bent on refuelling the media
stories about his attempts to stall the FBI investigations by criticising the
appointment of the Special Counsel as political persecution. Tweet after Tweet from
the President describing the ongoing probe as ‘Witch Hunt’ keeps alive the
controversy.
Or
how Spicer landed in hot waters over Spicy tweets by his boss Donald Trump
By S Narendra
(Former
adviser to PMs and ex-spokesperson for Govt of India)
Did
the US President Donald Trump on April 12th tell For News that
America ( “we are”) sending an
armada’ to the waters around the Korean Peninsula for countering North Korea test firing missiles capable of carrying nuclear
war heads and holding threats to test every week its
nuclear weapons? In the TV interview the President made it clear that North Koreas
threats would not go without a response from the US. He went on tell that the
armada (did not say ships) being sent includes submarines, ’far more powerful than the aircraft carriers’.
A
few days later , when the looming crisis had not
materialised, the New York Times
reported that the armada was not sailing to deter Korea as suggested by the
President. It was in fact thousands of
miles away sailing in the Indian Ocean for joint exercises with Australian
navy. According to the report, there was a miscommunication between the White
House and the Pentagon. One does not know whether the President unknowingly had
made an ill-timed suggestion or a deliberate bluff for scaring North Korea .But this failure of the armada to
turn up in the area as suggested upset US
allies like South Korea and Japan which rely on US defence support. In
the event of a belligerent and impetuous leader Jong-Un had taken rash action threatened by the news of US armada, the allies would have been exposed to extreme
danger. Commentators point out that due to the ill-timed statement of the US
President, the credibility of US as a reliable ally has suffered.
The
controversy got fresh lease of life when the President’s spokesperson ,Sean
Spicer, in his media briefing (a week later, even though the naval fleet
was still operating near the
Australian coast) attempted to explain
his boss’s statement. He disingenuously asserted that the naval fleet was ‘ultimately’
headed in Korea’s direction and no timeline was specified. This was said despite
the fact that the President’s TV interview was given when, according to Spicer,
‘sending the armada ‘ it did not mean
immediate dispatch, hence there was no ambiguity
in the President’s claim.
Sean
Spicer has adopted a very combative style matching that of his boss. The
President has more than once characterised the media as ‘dishonest’ ,’evil’
‘fake news peddlers’ and the White House
had taken the extreme step of barring media outlets perceived as not
friendly like CNN and Washington Post
from the White House briefings. Watching
the recoding of the Spokesperson’s briefing sessions, one gets the impression
that Spicer is both shifty and often testy. No doubt he has an unenviable job,
since the President is eager to first air his weighty views on policies and
global events on Twitter.
The
President does not hesitate to make controversial unfounded claims nor does he
entertain any qualms about executing 360 degree U-turns on his stand on key issues. As a result, most media have opened a
special section for fact checking on President Trump. It is therefore, an
under- statement to say that this Spokesperson is between the blades of a
scissors.
Here
is another instance where Sean Spicer got into hot waters in trying to parse
another of President Trump’s highly controversial claim. The following Tweets
of President Trump are on record; they
went on to embarrass the American democracy itself.
@real
Trump
“Terrible.Just found that Obama “wire tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing
found. This is McCarthyism” 2.35am-4th Mar 2017.
“Is it legal for a
sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an
election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW” 3,49 am 4 Mar 2017
“I bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the
fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October just prior to
Election!” 3.52 am 4 Mar 2017
“How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during
the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”
4.02 am 4 Mar 2017
The
US Justice Department and FBI responsible
for carrying out wiretapping in certain cases require Court sanction. The FBI’s
current chief is registered supporter of the Republican party. Both the
agencies could not unearth any evidence in support of this very disturbing
claim by the President.
Now,
you may ask as to how the White House spokesman dealt with this controversy!
Sean
Spicer’s first response was to let the President’s Tweet speak for itself. However
a week later, Spicer told the media that “wiretapping” was an entirely separate
accusation to Trump’s unverified “wire tapping” allegations.” If you look at
the President’s tweet, he said very clearly, quote wire tapping unquote. And Spier added, “there has been
substantial discussion in several reports. There’s been reports in the New York
Times, and the BBC and other outlets about other aspects of surveillance that
have occurred”. (Media fact-check did not show any such reports in the outlets
named). “The President was very clear in his Tweet, you know, that
‘wire tapping’ that spans a whole lot of other options’.
The
hole digging went further when the high profile White House adviser Kellyanne
Convey told a channel that covert surveillance can be conducted through
microwave that can turn on camera etcetera.
The key word used by her was “can”. But did it happen?. Neither she nor Spicer
could offer any proof.
While
explaining the President’s relevant Tweets, both Spicer and Convey ignored a raging controversy about Russian intelligence spying on the election
campaign process and leaking information adverse to Trump’s opponent that
helped the winner. The US legislature was inquiring into this Russian spying. It
was apparent that the President wanted to divert attention away from this
controversy and also from the charge that he and his administration were close
to Moscow. As a result of the Spokesman’s
attempt to parse the Tweets of
the boss, the bad story was gaining more traction and more unfavourable fact
checking on this and other statements of the President.
In
both the incidents cited, the credibility of the administration and that of the
primary official source of news was stretched. The office of the Spokesperson
is a bridge between the media and the government. What sustains and strengthens this bridge is the mutual respect the Spokesperson and the media hold for each other’s roles and responsibilities;
neither crosses the professional lines. The
Spokesperson is invariably is a media professional and the media generally
regard him or her as one among them.
In the
US system, the white House has a less visible director of communication whose
job it is to ensure unity of message emanating from the totality of government,
Again in the US political arrangement, the White House is the focal point of
both politics and the government. As such, its Spokesperson has the opportunity
to lead the headlines. The ordinary people get to see their President and the
government in action through the media - conventional and social. As the
latter borrows and blend stories and
commentaries from each other, the Spokesperson as the primary source of news
and explanations of policy and developments can influence perceptions.
Coming
back to the incidents cited, the first response of Spicer- ‘the President Tweet
says it all’- was a wise one. The later attempts to parse the President’s TV
interview or the Tweet was a case of bad judgment, No doubt the media must have
trapped Spicer for implication.
Professionalism prepares the Spokesperson not to be trapped by media. Professional
training helps the Spokesperson to allow a bad story to exhaust itself look for
opportunities to change the headline.
sunarendra@gmail.com
While
working as the government and PM spokesman, I adopted the policy of letting the
statement of the boss remain, even when it was most untenable. Or advice the
chief to issue a wholesome retraction, if the statement was indefensible or
very controversial. Media expects and accepts a politician to equivocate and tell half truths.
But it would not trust a fellow professional who happens to be speaking up for
the government, when he equivocates or offers disingenuous explanations.
Once
the spokesperson’s credibility is lost, his (her) value to both the media and
the organisation he speaks up for diminishes.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author are purely
his personal. PRapport does not take any responsibility for any of it, except respecting
Narendra for his candid views as a veteran communication professional - Editor
