Views on News, wispundits • June 16th, 2008

The long goodbye

by Chris Lato

This angle on the Tim Russert story is getting traction – the idea that the coverage has gone overboard.

Russert was a skilled TV news interviewer, very smart and routinely credited as being tough but fair and an overall good guy. His death was sudden and shocking. It’s not like anybody expected this, and that definitely contributed to the outpouring of news coverage.

Also, it is not at all surprising to see NBC and its offshoot stations go all-out. That is to be expected – after all, Russert was their guy.

But was there too much coverage overall? One is reminded of the old Chevy Chase/’Saturday Night Live’ routine – “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!”

One theory going is that since Russert leaned Democrat, all his friends in the liberal press tripped over themselves covering the story. Nah, that’s not it. Believe it or not, newsrooms don’t generally, consciously think that way. The real answer is more complicated.

Consider this - the same news gatekeepers who decide what gets covered, and by how much, were in charge of covering the untimely death of one of their own. In this case a journalist became the story. It can be argued that the coverage was simply overdone because of the bond they feel to Russert as comrades in arms.

Can it also be tied to television journalists’ inflated sense of self-importance? Do they believe what they do is critical, and that the sudden death of one of their colleagues is major news that deserves huge coverage? The case could be made.

Also, deciding a news agenda is a very fluid thing – stories get the boot in favor of ‘breaking news’ that in retrospect, really wasn’t all that important. And don’t get me wrong, I am not saying Russert’s death wasn’t a newsworthy story. However, in the heat of newsroom decision-making, it oftentimes goes down to moving immediately on a story and worrying later if it was actually worthy of coverage.

It can also be a pack mentality – if the other guy is covering it, you don’t want to miss it. If you don’t cover the story enough, then you’re criticized for not paying enough attention…the old ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ quandary.

Another factor to consider is that in an era in which the comings and goings of Lindsay Lohan, Angelina Jolie and OJ Simpson are scrutinized like the Zapruder film, when celebrity ‘news’ has become a media obsession, is the Tim Russert coverage really all that surprising? He was a celebrity, after all.

Are we reaching a tipping point with this type of coverage? Probably not. That’s the great thing about the internet: we can choose our own news agenda. We’re not bound by the schedule set for us by NBC or any other TV network. You can find as much, or as little, Tim Russert news as you want.

The long and short of it: the amount of coverage, either too much, just right or not enough, is in the eye of the beholder. There is no single reason for why Russert’s death received the attention it did. American television journalism suffered a real loss with the death of Tim Russert, and all the bickering over how much is too much coverage doesn’t obscure that fact.

No Comments »

New Media, public relations, wispundits • April 29th, 2008

TXT Release

by Greg Batiansila

A creative public affairs pro will constantly be testing and exploring new platforms for their releases. So this and this were inevitable. And, if you ask me, it’s not going to go away. So remember to come up with a brief version of that three-paragraph release for those who have a trigger reflex for cell vibrations.

No Comments »

Grass Roots Organization, Messaging, Views on News, wispundits • April 2nd, 2008

Oh, what a night

by Chris Lato

For a spring election, which typically doesn’t do much to excite the voting population, this one had a whole lot of twists and turns.

One thing’s for sure: Gov. Jim Doyle can’t be happy about the results. Consider:

1. Doyle’s hand-picked Supreme Court justice, Louis Butler, loses in a squeaker to Michael Gableman – the first time a challenger has picked off a sitting justice in more than four decades. More on this race in a bit, but suffice it to say for now that Gableman’s win was in no small part a repudiation of the current high court’s left-leaning makeup and resulting decisions since Butler ascended to the high court.

2. Incumbent County Executive Scott Walker sails to victory against state Sen. Lena Taylor. Taylor has said she never spoke with Gov. Doyle about running for County Exec, but it’s hard to buy the notion that the governor never took more than a passing interest in knocking off Walker, an all-but-certain GOP candidate for governor in 2010. Walker is now positioned to make that run with the lessons of his ’06 bid to build on and the momentum from Tuesday’s decisive win to propel him forward.

3. Voters got out their pitchforks and torches and took down the governor’s ‘Frankenstein veto’ power by an overwhelming margin (as some of us predicted). There was strong bipartisan support for this constitutional amendment in the Legislature, due in part to what were viewed as abuses of the veto authority by the Doyle administration.

There were other big decisions, too. In Milwaukee, Ald. Michael McGee Junior’s constituents finally realized that having their representative locked in a jail cell is not exactly serving their interests well. McGee was defeated, in a bit of a surprise to some, to Milele Coggs, a member of a locally-known and politically-connected family. It feels a bit like the end of an era for the McGees, and the current Alderman hasn’t even gone to trial yet.
more »

Comment (1) »

2008 Primaries, wispundits • April 1st, 2008

How to avoid online hucksters

by Chris Lato

The Harvard Business School has some thoughts on how to avoid being taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous internet advertising types.

Stories like this confirm my worst fears about how the internet is still in many ways like the Wild West. There are plenty of ways to get ripped off. Online advertising is remarkably similar to most aspects of a political or public affairs campaign, in which candidates take a leap of faith – trusting a host of outside vendors to do very important campaign work perfectly.

And these things cut both ways – countless campaigns sign contracts agreeing to pay vendors, then – lo and behold – the payment either shows up very late, or not at all.

There are ways for candidates and campaigns to avoid problems with online advertisers, multiple vendors, and the resulting confusion and headaches – find a reputable agency skilled in handling all aspects of marketing communications (such as this one). Then the game can focus on strategy instead of worrying about the leap of faith. There is a lot to be said for an agency that not only knows political/public affairs campaigns, but also has a strong handle on branding products, services and, yes, candidates and issues.

OK, my pitch is over. Just one more thing, and no April Foolin’. Today is Election Day, so don’t forget to vote. If nothing else, it will mean an end to the Gableman-Butler Supreme Court airwave war.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Messaging, wispundits • March 27th, 2008

Issue ads in the crosshairs

by Chris Lato

The new Government Accountability Board is flexing its muscle, rolling up its sleeves and planning to start cracking down on those horrid issue ads that will be the downfall of our democracy. That darn Gableman-Butler Supreme Court race ruined it for everybody.

The Wisconsin State Journal breaks it down here. But here is the passage that should raise a few eyebrows:

Deborah Goldberg, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center who urged the board Wednesday to regulate issue ads, said the board could consider:

- Requiring disclosure of all individuals, corporations and groups that fund issue ads.

- Declaring that ads discussing the character and qualifications of a candidate don’t fit the definition of issue ads and instead advocate for or against a candidate.

- Declaring all ads in state Supreme Court races are advocacy ads, thus requiring the disclosure of donors for ads in those races only.

OK, I’m no legal expert, but here are a few questions:

· Who determines the definition of an issue ad? I thought those rules were written already?

· Literally, how will the disclosure thing work? Will the end of each ad have an announcer that rattles off names like he’s reading the rules and regulations at the end of one of those Wisconsin Lottery ads?

· Why declare that only Supreme Court ads are advocacy ads? Isn’t that kind of arbitrary?

I have no idea how the GAB plans to negotiate through the minefield of existing state and federal court rulings on this very topic. But it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

The GAB issues crackdown potentially runs afoul of the law. The self-appointed good government types either hail it as a step in the right direction or damn it for not going far enough. A court challenge ensues. It drags on for many months, if not years. Wash, rinse, repeat if necessary.

Here’s what gnaws at me about this. All this hand-wringing condescendingly assumes that voters are dolts who do no homework on their own, and can be led by the nose by some negative ad. Sure, maybe that’s true for some people, but I’d rather believe voters are generally smart and engaged enough to pay attention, do a little digging if necessary, and come to their own reasoned conclusions…especially if they’re going to bother to vote in a spring election. I mean, all this talk is generating a lot of attention on a race, and that may help drive turnout, and that’s a good thing…right?

And, yes, plenty of folks will be voting along ‘partisan’ lines in Tuesday’s Supreme Court race, even though the races are officially non-partisan (wink wink, nudge nudge).

Also, candidates sweat about losing control of their campaign, but they can use this as an opportunity. Decry the ads, pass on the opportunity to comment, turn the reporter’s question about those evil issue ads immediately back to your campaign, your platform, your agenda. You can still steer things back to your campaign and gain control. Put things in perspective and enforce strict internal message discipline, and all will be right with the world.

Comment (1) »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Creative, Messaging, wispundits • March 18th, 2008

Who are you?

by Greg Batiansila

It’s a question the electorate asks of a candidate, a question campaigns work to answer. It’s a question Romney and Hillary haven’t answered clearly - and it’s cost them.

One local adman, Steve Eichenbaum, has shown proven excellence in showing his candidates as a man of the people. It was Eichenbaum who showed Democratic Senator Russ Feingold as a suburban underdog with little money but a lot of honesty and integrity. This election year, he’s developing similar folksy charm for Steve Novick, a Democratic underdog in Oregon.

Should every candidate be cast as a man or woman of the people? Hillary’s handlers have tried it with sometimes damaging consequences. Clearly Barack’s people are comfortable with depicting him as something beyond “everyday.”

In John McCain’s latest advertisement, his campaign has positioned him as a timeless figure – quite the opposite of the everyday man. In the ad, McCain’s words are intercut with images and speeches of some of the greatest leaders in Western history.

The advertisement is brilliantly crafted. Who is John McCain? The ad answers: McCain is Churchill of this era. Where Obama’s strengths focus on his oratory, this advertisement says much without words. Time flies by, the cosmos undulate, it says. Greatness transcends these things. The wonderful shots at the close of the advertisement shot - in lush, cinematic saturated glory, and then melting to what looks like the cosmos - are brilliant.

I give the ad tremendous props for swinging for the fence and answering the age-old political question with gusto. Sometimes when you swing for the fences, however, you just miss.
more »

No Comments »

Messaging, New Media, wispundits • March 11th, 2008

Hmmm…

by Chris Lato

If this is true, then why do we even bother? Because we love the sound of our own voices crying in the wilderness?

Yep. That’s probably it.

Anyway, 56 percent of the American people never read political blogs. 22 percent read them regularly, and 23 percent read them ‘several times a year.’ I would have thought the ‘never read’ number was actually a bit higher. Of course, those numbers will only increase as time goes on and blogs continue to gain acceptance in the mainstream of political news ‘n’ views.

What is the appeal of blogging? I’ve only been doing it for a short time, but so far I’ve enjoyed it. And, it is a great leveler. Anyone can have one. And if you have interesting things to say, then you too can generate some heat. You can post anytime, anywhere, and others have that same 24-hour-a-day access.

Blogs are good for disseminating news ‘the mainstream media doesn’t want you to see/hear/read about.’ (I use the quotation marks only half-jokingly.) Blogs have broken some big stories locally, statewide and nationally, that left some egg on the ‘mainstream’ media’s collective face. Some blogs, admittedly, are little more than gossip/innuendo/half-truths, but the observant among us are sharp enough to separate the good ones from the pretenders.

For campaigns, it is a great way to communicate without the media filter. Of course, you have to feed the beast and keep posting regularly, giving folks a reason to keep coming back. If you establish an audience, it is a tool that is definitely worth using.

Your thoughts? Do you blog on politics and issues, and if so, why? In the face of this new poll, will you just shrug and give up, or will you (I assume) hang tough and keep on bloggin’?

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Leadership, Messaging, Views on News, wispundits • March 5th, 2008

Tuesday’s big winner? McCain

by Chris Lato

Mike Huckabee is out of the race. Hillary Clinton scored enough of a comeback victory to keep the Democratic primary battle rolling along. And John McCain has sewn up the GOP nomination once and for all.

This is all very, very good news for the Republican from Arizona. It’s like a gift from the gods, and he can’t squander it if he wants to be president.

With the GOP field free and clear, the machine should now immediately kick into overdrive, organizing the troops with a grassroots field plan across the nation for their newly-minted nominee. McCain himself needs to take this quiet-time opportunity to continue mending fences with the conservatives, including reaching out to Huckabee. (Maybe even a role in the RNC, as I alluded to in an earlier posting.) And, as the Democrats remain distracted by all the in-fighting, the GOP should be working actively to define the Democratic competition’s weak points.
more »

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Messaging, Speeches, Views on News, public relations, wispundits • March 4th, 2008

Is this race over yet?

by Chris Lato

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you already know Texas and Ohio vote today, and the stakes are high indeed for Hillary Clinton.

The interesting thing is that the polls suggest Clinton has a shot to pull both out. Particularly in Ohio, where Barack Obama hasn’t yet laid a glove on her. In Texas, Clinton’s numbers have been trending upward while Obama’s are taking a downturn.

As always, take the polls with a grain of salt. They’ve been wrong a lot in this cycle.

How have the messages changed, or stayed the same? By and large, Obama has been able to stick with the high-minded rhetoric, although the worm is turning as far as the press is concerned. It was only a matter of time, and I’m betting he’s not quite ready for it. Meanwhile Clinton is alternately playing the victim and the victimizer. And she’s no stranger to scrutiny and tough questioning. Right now, when the going gets tough with the press, Hillary has the edge.

We’ll know more tomorrow, but reports of the Clinton campaign’s death may be just a bit premature. I still believe it’s Obama’s to lose, but there’s still a chance of this two-person primary continuing after Tuesday.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Messaging, Views on News, wispundits • February 28th, 2008

Uh-oh

by Chris Lato

Barack Obama is moving ahead of Hillary Clinton in Texas.

This comes as I took a walk down memory lane today, listening to the Howard Stern Show on Sirius satellite radio (I’m a Stern fan – sue me!)

Turns out their guest was none other than Gennifer Flowers. Remember her? Well, she gamely answered any and all breathtakingly vulgar questions about, you know, The Affair With Bill. Without going into details, let’s just say I received as much info as I ever could have wanted.

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination – and that is getting to be a bigger ‘if’ with each passing day – what does that mean for the next several months? Will we be partying like it’s 1992? Talk about going back to the future.

more »

No Comments »