2008 Primaries, Messaging, Strategic Blueprints, public relations • February 21st, 2008

Duck! Let the mudslinging begin

by Chris Lato

Here we go.

Now that John McCain is virtually assured the GOP presidential nomination, the New York Times has dusted off some ages-old allegations and placed them on the front page, above the fold.

The honeymoon is over, and McCain is getting his first real taste of Presidential politics, 2008-style. The story has been kicking around for a while, and it appears the Times held off on publishing the piece until after McCain all-but locked down the nomination, under pressure from the McCain camp.

That seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that this story is weak sauce. Otherwise, why not run with it when you had the chance back in December?

The pluses for McCain here include the following:

• The article is largely based on whispers and unsubstantiated allegations from disgruntled former employees.
• The ‘charges’ here are ancient and don’t appear to rise to the level of actual wrongdoing.
• The efforts to bring it all back to McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal are transparent. McCain’s involvement, by the way, did not rise to the level of a punishable offense. McCain’s mea culpas following the Keating Five include the campaign finance reform legislation – which has made him an enemy to some on both sides of the aisle while cementing his ‘maverick’ status that appeals to independents and conservative Democrats.
• The suggestion that McCain had an inappropriate romantic relationship could raise eyebrows, but there is no evidence presented other than the aforementioned whispers and allegations. It will be interesting to see how, in the post-Bill Clinton era, the press will handle this aspect of the story.
• McCain is viewed with suspicion by some on the right who believe his relationship with the press is too cozy. This flap may actually boost his bona-fides with that crowd.

If there is a red flag in this, it is in the initial statement from communications director Jill Hazelbaker, which reads in part that “John McCain…has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists… “

Really? I’m not saying it’s not true, but you better be sure about that. A categorical denial of this sort, involving a Senator who’s been in DC for decades, is an open invitation to the press to start digging and draw conclusions, like the New York Times piece, that can pile up and hurt a campaign. Like pulling a Gary Hart, you are asking for trouble if you can’t deliver.

This is a textbook case for crisis communications analysis. Is the McCain campaign handling this situation properly? The short answer – so far - is generally yes. They worked to disprove the story before its publication, and have been swift and on-message in denouncing it.

Unfortunately, too many politicos fall apart when presented with the potential for negative press. That is why strong public and media relations, with a focus on crisis communications, is so crucial to campaigns.

Here’s a handy-dandy primer of a few steps that need to be taken.

Step 1: If you know a potentially negative story is coming, work with the reporter to ensure your point of view is accurately portrayed – and make your case for why the story is inaccurate/unfair/just plain wrong. Be relentless in this regard.

Step 2: If you are blindsided by a negative story, work immediately to offer a succinct, point-by-point analysis of why the story is inaccurate/unfair/just plain wrong. Offer as much detailed evidence to support your arguments as possible.

Step 3: Avoid picking a fight with the press. It is a fight you will not win. Do your level best to stay on an even keel.

Step 4: Don’t let the negative press fester out there. See Step 2. Failing to address such negative stories quickly and with the facts will help keep the story from growing longer legs.

Step 5: Stay on message. Use this as an opportunity to address the concerns, then push back with your agenda whenever feasible.

The bottom line is to retain your cool under fire. That’s a key difference between a campaign that has its act together, and a campaign that perpetually feels as if it’s flying off the rails.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 21st, 2008 at 4:14 pm and is filed under 2008 Primaries, Messaging, Strategic Blueprints, public relations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.