In Crisis Communications Perception Is Reality

Point One: The only thing that matters as much as a leader BEING in command of a dangerous situation is whether he or she APPEARS to others to be in command.

Point Two: The only thing that matters as much as what you MEAN to say is what other people THINK you meant when you said it.

These are tried-and-true lesson of crisis communications learned once again the hard way by the Obama Administration in the wake of the failed attempt by an alleged Nigerian terrorist to blow up an American jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day.

Regarding Point One: The administration waited three days to have President Obama address the nation from his vacation in Hawaii. Before he spoke out on TV about his order to security agencies to re-examine the entire terror suspect watch-list process, weekend news reports had him "monitoring" the situation while he was played golf. By Sunday and into Monday morning reporters and commentators on several networks and in some major newspapers were openly questioning the president's judgment on that score. Of course the President was on top of the situation. But sticking to your tee time for a round of golf is not the media image you want of your Communicator-In-Chief in the 24 hours following the potential loss of close to 300 lives in a domestic terror incident.

Regarding Point Two: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's appearance on a Sunday TV talk show was marked by one sound bite that could come back to haunt her: "The system worked." Huh? The alleged terrorist got on the plane despite missed warnings to American security agencies that he was considered a potential threat, including a warning phone call to US authorities several weeks ago from the young man's father. He carried explosives and an incendiary device through security in Amsterdam. He managed to light the device, but failed to cause an explosion apparently because of a detonator malfunction. And he was taken into custody when a fellow passenger tackled him, preventing him from trying again to cause the blast. The "system" worked? Shades of Alexander Haig.

Of course what the Secretary MEANT to say was that the post-incident response worked, and the nation's security operations remained intact and on alert. She was trying to reassure the American public. But that's not what the sound bite conveyed. If anything, it made government leadership appear to be disconnected from the reality of a near-miss caused, in part, by the failure of security agencies to spot the threat in advance.

In times of crisis perception IS reality. At CommCore Consulting Group we counsel our clients that how leaders appear and what they say is as important as what they know and what they are doing. What do you think of the President's and Secretary Napolitano's handling of their responses to this crisis?

Twitter Accountability and Longevity: What's the Future of Twittering Versus Fact-Checked Journalism?

Twitter doesn't claim to compete with The New York Times or The Washington Post, but it can have similar influence on - can even be a maker or breaker of - an organization's or an individual's reputation. But, could "Tweets" soon be cast aside as rumor and unfounded hype? Or will tweets gain power and influence?

Tony La Russa seems to think that either way, tweets shouldn't be ignored. The St. Louis Cardinals manager filed suit in San Francisco, CA Superior Court claiming that Twitter allowed a fake account to be set up under La Russa's name with demeaning and derogatory updates about current and former players - that has caused irreparable damage to his reputation. Should Twitter and/or the person who opened the fake account be liable?

It seems that many people feel that tough-talk-twittering amounts to merely off-the-cuff, inconsequential speech as opposed to measured and leveraged assaults that can cause real damage. So, tweeters should feel free to say anything they want.

Apparently, you can even feel free to criticize the President. Sen. Chuck Grassley posted a scathing tweet about President Obama's demand for action on healthcare reform: "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."

But, we're talking about just 140 characters max, so any damage would be limited, right? Wrong. As Time Magazine pointed out, Twitter is being used as a "pointing device," sharing links to articles and videos and other longer-form pieces. This all extends the interest and influence. In fact, let me point you to that interesting Time article: http://tinyurl.com/pr9qg5

Are there no consequences to tweeting? If there are none, should there be? Also, will tweeting last and even continue to expand? What is your opinion?

Inaugural Address vs. Speech to Congress

As a speech writer and speech coach, I watched/listened to these as profoundly different addresses. In the inaugural address, it was if the speech writers had the reins placed on their keyboards. Or it was like the Go-Kart at the track that could only go so fast in terms of rhetorical flourishes and applause lines. In his first address to the nation, President Obama was restrained and calm. For example, any time he had a chance to deliver a trilogy of reasons for an idea or program the speech stopped at two. There were few if any quotable lines.

Fast forward 35 days and there was a need for more rhetoric, a stern but positive tone, and writing that matched the content. In the President's speech to the joint session of Congress, his speech writers were allowed to display their craft. First, it was the theme: "I represent more of the American public than you do" was the between the lines theme of the talk.

There were ample trilogies - a speech writer's staple: "It cannot wait. It must not wait. It will not wait." is one example. I can't recall any trilogies in the inaugural address.

Another rhetorical device was repetition: The President said if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. Any speech writer looks for the chance to put in a little repetition.

The other key difference was - as the concert promoters like to say -- the venue. It's really hard to feel close to a crowd of 2 million people. First the sound is delayed and you have no sense of what messages or lines click with the audience. President Obama was at home in the close, confined quarters of the House of Representatives. He said he was talking to both Congress and the American people, but he fed off the crowd and the energy in the room.

What did you see as the difference in the two talks? Does anyone want to compare this talk to other Addresses to Congress/aka State of the Union addresses?

Talk About Staying On Message

Talk about staying on message...

I had the privilege of joining 2 million other Americans on the National Mall yesterday to watch the swearing in of Barack Obama as our 44th President.

My son I rode our bicycles to the mall and stood in the shadow of the Washington Monument for almost 3 hours in 20 degree temperatures to witness history.

By now, most of you have read, watched, and/or listened to the inaugural address. Fast forward to 12:30 a.m. at Union Station and President Obama and the First Lady show up.

While they both looked a little tired, his message was very consistent with the inaugural speech and the other public statements. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. Government has a role, but it's up to individuals to get involved and not wait for government to come up with all of the answers.

Add in a little James Taylor as the opening act for the new President at this event and you could say it was a great day.

What did you think of the messages from the speech and other first day events?