Thursday, July 29, 2010

100 Days and Counting

Rag on Tony Hayward of BP if you like, but his crisis management shut down the oil leak, and established a $20 billion restoration and victim compensation fund was established to be independently administered and prepay claims. He was then sacrificed at the altar of Foot in Mouth Disease, and what I fondly refer to as “lip dislocation” (the failure to engage the brain before operating the mouth).

Hayward’s successor, Robert Dudley, has a far tougher challenge. The legacy of Hayward is the legacy of thousands of victims, their fears, concerns, trials, and tribulations along with hundreds of public officials (at all levels of government) who are beginning their campaigns and will use BP and Dudley as their punching bag, bayonet receptacle, and all-around whipping boys.

Dudley can overcome the enormous, in fact, devastating burden he’s about to undertake by remembering the calculus of leadership during crisis.

Job #1: Establish moral leadership by spending extraordinary amounts of time in the very beginning to understand, work with, and accelerate the relief of victims, which include people, animals, and living systems.

Job #2: Set the tone at BP and in the petroleum industry in America to be one of humility and understanding, and to learn from yesterday, establish new safeguards for today, and work with the U.S. and other authorities to put in place tough, independent oversight those measures that will detect, deter, and prevent similar situations from happening again.

Job #3: Keep most of what he does, decides, and talks about simple, sensible, constructive, and positive.

Those who counsel Dudley to be “a little bit ruthless” (as mentioned in The Wall Street Journal) are giving bad advice. Dudley’s job is to build and keep peace in the family; avoid the creation of new critics, enemies, and naysayers; and stay focused on resolving the difficulties this catastrophe has caused for the real victims. Besides, critics and victims never die. They are always looking for the next opportunity to attack.

As if this weren’t enough, Dudley’s natural allies have already signaled that they are going to become his strongest critics and complainers—these are the folks from Wall Street and Fleet Street. Who needs friends like these?

The risk to Dudley is extraordinarily high—from victims; a news media disappointed that the oil is disappearing rather quickly, and that there wasn’t more extensive damage and greater victimization; politicians who, regardless of how well BP responds and reacts, will attack the company for political reasons and from President Obama who, when he had the choice to act as a statesman, instead choose to behave like a neighborhood community organizer angry at a local business. It’s unlikely that this problem will be settled over a beer in the White House backyard with Joe Biden cracking wise.

It was Winston Churchill who said that Britain and America were two great peoples separated by a common language. When the history of this oil spill is written, it will probably be shown that the better course of action for BP would have been to appoint a Canadian to oversee BP’s Gulf response. Everyone likes Canadians. They have extraordinary experience and survival skills being peacekeepers in hostile territory. The Canadians tend to reduce the impact of events and de-escalate the attractiveness of the messy media nonsense that will occur during the next phase of the recovery.

One hundred days and counting; we may yet have to learn the words to “O Canada” before this is all over.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Anonymous Sources, the Invisible but Invincible, Communications Force

While some in the media are getting around to discussing the practice of letting anonymous comments continue to appear in news outlet Web page responses, a wonderful article in The Weekend WSJ, “The Feuding Fathers,” reminds us that anonymous sources go back to well before the founding of our Republic and have always been an important part of the national discussion.

The article reminds us that Adams, Hamilton, Thomas Paine, and even Jefferson wrote polemics against each other through others and using pen names. We might recall that "The Federalist Papers,” a national discussion that shaped and framed the debate over our Constitution was written entirely by people using false names.

George Washington, acknowledged and acclaimed as a great hero and father of the country, was constantly vilified as were his wife and her mother, most often by anonymous comments. If you read “Infamous Scribblers” by Eric Burns, he describes how Washington, despite his fame, could not understand how he could be loved by so many and so viscerally hated by so many more in the press.

To be anonymous is to be omnipotent. And you only get to be anonymous of the journalist lets you.

When you get right down to it, it’s not a matter of journalistic ethics; such concepts exist in the minds of about 25 people. If it’s a good story or a good quote, it’s going to run. If it’s consistent with a journalistic view, it’s even more like to be used. If it’s negative, accusatory, or sensational, it will “be above the fold”, let the pieces fall where they may.

Does the name McChrystal ring a bell? He’s a causality of his own four star, ego-driven carelessness, and the failure of those who advise him to stay focused on what matters, or get him the heck out of there.

I’m reminded again of the famous statement by Janet Malcolm, something too may of us fail to share with our clients because we often seem to value our “relationships with reporters” more than the interests of our clients:

According to Janet Malcolm (The Journalist and the Murderer, New York, Vintage Books, 1990, pp. 3-4), “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse . . . On reading the article or book in question, (the source) has to face the fact that the journalist - who seemed so friendly and sympathetic, so keen to understand him fully, so remarkably attuned to his vision of things - never had the slightest intention of collaborating with him on his story but always intended to write a story of his own. The disparity between what seems to be the intention of an interview as it is taking place and what it actually turns out to have been in aid of always comes as a shock to the subject.”

American journalism has always been relentlessly competitive, amoral, aggressive, contentious, and negative. Survey after survey demonstrates the public’s belief that reporters use deception and practice reckless reputation destruction. Yes, these same citizens eagerly watch, view, listen, and even participate.

The current discussion going on among about six do-gooders in journalism is phony, self-serving, and will result in a completely predictable self-forgiving outcome. Here’s what they will say:

“Having seriously discussed and studied (sic) the practice of allowing anonymous quotes, statements, and observations about news stories to follow articles on Web sites, it is clear that the practice must continue. To do other wise would be censorship, deprive readers and web visitors of some interesting alternative points of view, and, after all, it’s up to the target of such comments to disprove what’s being alleged, not the media. To require valid identification and disclosure of comment sources would chill the free speech rights of many, stifling robust public discussion. Our responsibility is to bring these points of view forward,” and . . . wait for it . . ., “to let the people decide”.

Yeah, sure.

Labels: , , , , ,

The Lukaszewski Group 550 Main Street, Suite 100, New Brighton, MN 55112 U.S.A.
651.286.6788-Office 651.631.2561-Facsimile 203.948.7029-24/7
Carin M. Leonard-Gorrill, Executive Assistant Office 651-286-6729

Copyright ©, James E. Lukaszewski. All rights reserved.
Permission to print one copy for personal use is hereby granted by the copyright holder.
Reproduction of additional copies without written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.