The Media Keeps Circling the Drain

Did you notice who did and did not get picked for a question in last night’s presidential press conference? Here are the winners:

Associated Press
NBC
ABC
CBS
Univision
Stars and Stripes
CNN
Fox News
Politico
Ebony
ABC Radio
Washington Times
AFP

Note who did NOT get called: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, etc – not a single leading daily paper. That’s gotta hurt these places, many of whom are already on life support. I’ve blogged many times about the media’s problems, including here and here.

When a president does a press conference, he usually has a chart stating who is attending and where they are sitting so he can choose who to ask. Remember this was a one hour conference with 13 selected questions, and since Obama likes to give long answers you’ve got a little over 4½ minutes per question. He can freely decide who to ask and who to ignore. Did Obama decide to ignore the daily papers because of their growing obsolescence, or was it an accidental oversight? May the conspiracy theories begin, but you know what I think.

I actually like some of these choices – Univision is the network of choice for the country’s fastest growing minority, Stars & Stripes is a wise selection and Politico is one of the rare media outlets that is actually growing because they're on to something. And by including Fox News and the Washington Times you can’t say he only chose places that would throw softballs. And except for Ann Compton at ABC Radio, all the questions were pretty good.

I am confident predicting that in the next couple of years the president will return to his high-tech outreach that worked well during the campaign, and conduct some webcasts and online-only exchanges with the public. I know I disparaged Twitter below, but grassroots mobilization for elections lends itself well to online social media as more industries realize you don’t need the media to be the messenger anymore. Everyone but the daily papers get that.

The AIG Bonus Dilemma

In the days after 9/11, an almost unanimous Congress passed the Patriot Act. While most of the Act was indeed important and deserved to be passed – especially parts that improved border security, tracked foreign assets and allocated money to improve surveillance technology – debatable items like indefinite detentions without trial for suspected terrorists and the ability for the FBI to search personal records without a warrant have come under criticism by those who believe the Act violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. In its haste to respond to such an unbelievable act of terror, Congress may have rushed to judgment on some actions that should not have overlooked the Constitution.

Yesterday, the House fast-tracked a bill that would place impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to any AIG employees and employees of other financial companies that accepted at least $5 billion from the TARP bailout. It was approved by a vote of 328 to 93. I am having déjà vu all over again.

I am in no way defending the boneheads at AIG who destroyed the world’s largest insurance company by their over reliance on collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities. And I’m sure Congressional phones are ringing off the hook with outraged constituents gathering torches and pitchforks. The pressure for the government to act, after they may have overlooked this payment, must be enormous.

But in the heated mode to act fast and ask questions later, serious mistakes can be made. I call this the “ready-fire-aim” plan of action that I try to avoid on a personal level. By changing an existing contract – unfair as that contract may be – the government is setting a dangerous precedent as an unreliable and capricious business partner; one that can quickly change any written contract based on popular opinion, as opposed to the rules of law and the Constitution itself. That occurred with part of the Patriot Act and I feel it happening again.

Unfortunately the government needs the insurance companies and hedge funds of the world to fix this problem, especially if it unveils some kind of public/private sector combination of buying troubled assets from banks. If I ran a hedge fund (and still had a job) this would show me that the government cannot be trusted if it has the right to change the plans and redo compensation and benefit laws at will. This is a dangerous precedent that I doubt would stand up in a court of law.

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the NY Times stated this very fact a few days ago, along with the possibility that the AIG people receiving these bonuses may be the only ones who know how to clean up their mess. I’m skeptical about the last part, and Sorkin has been raked over the coals for this. But he’s right about the contractual obligations and the knee-jerk response it has understandably and unfortunately set. In our rush to punish wrongdoers, we cannot overlook the law, even when it comes to detaining terrorists or suddenly taking bonuses away from people who have not deserved it.

UPDATE: Look who agrees with me -- Nate Silver, Henry Blodget and Paul Krugman. Holy crap!

Zero Credibility

Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the top
Republicans in the House and the Senate, said they strongly opposed the massive
spending that the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved so far this
year. "Most of my constituents are wondering how long the spending binge
is going to go on here in Washington," Boehner, the House Minority Leader, told
reporters.

"We're spending the first 50 days of this new administration at the rate of
one billion dollars an hour," said McConnell. "At the rate we're going,
we're going to double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10
years," he said. "I don't think anybody seriously thinks that that's a good
idea."

I love, absolutely LOVE, those statements. The leaders of the party that stood by and supported the massive spending binge and bloated federal growth of the prior eight years have suddenly remembered they are supposed to be the ones preaching fiscal restraint and small government.

Much has been written about the leadership drift of the GOP – is it Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner or someone else? What is most troubling is that nobody can now specify exactly what the GOP stands for, or who exactly a “Republican” is right now. You can’t preach fiscal prudence when you’ve spent the last eight years spending like gamblers at a craps table. You can’t talk about removing government from people’s lives when you embrace social policies and leaders that place religion and intolerance front and center.

And most importantly, you cannot keep saying “no” to the new president’s policies without proposing some new ideas of your own. The old cutting taxes mantra is getting a bit stale by now. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they had big, populist ideas that everyone could understand and get behind, and the Democrats lost out because they kept saying “no” without offering a policy of their own. It took 15 years, but the tide has finally turned. Nobody knows whether Obama’s policies will work, but at least he’s not offering the same old recipe. Americans are giving him credit for empathizing and understanding the situation. This is a true crisis; an economic 9/11. And just as that date day begat an unusual and extraordinary response, so does the current situation.

If the GOP wants to restore their credibility and really make us believe they’ve ditched their holy roller wagon and are reborn with the true conservative religion, they need to stop yelling and badmouthing the president (and each other). They need to come up with some constructive ideas that will restore consumer confidence and help rescue the finance and auto industries. By treating this crisis as a crisis and dropping the mad-as-hell and sour grapes attitude, they may just score some sympathy votes and the public would at least give them a listen.

But when you’ve got Boehner and McConnell saying those ridiculous things, and polarizing firebrands like Limbaugh saying more ridiculous things, your biggest problem is credibility. And that's the first thing the GOP needs to restore before it can even think about proposing any new ideas. You’d think someone here would step up and take responsibility and declare what the party stands for. But with the current infighting and lack of focus, don’t plan on it happening anytime soon.

Not Atwitter Over Twitter

Last year a couple of people I know told me I should start using Twitter, so I did. I almost lasted a whole day before junking it.

I was being completely overwhelmed with Tweets back and forth regarding traffic outside the office, lunch plans that I wasn’t even part of, what they should have for dinner, deadlines they weren’t ready for, songs they were listening to on the radio and other parts of their unremarkable day that I had zero interest in. While it seemed to be a good time waster if you didn’t feel like working, and a good way to keep in touch with someone if you had no cell phone, I saw no difference between Twitter and instant messaging.

Now, of course, I’ve got everyone from the media to other fellow PR flacks telling me I should get on the Twitter bandwagon. This is a temptation I can resist. I am not a luddite – I can’t work without a laptop and BlackBerry and push hard in my company to enhance our communications with RSS, XHTML, XBRL and everything in between. But when a fellow old fogey like Jon Stewart says he can’t stand Twitter, it is comforting to know that I’m not alone.

I often wonder how many of these people using Twitter – likely college-educated 20- and 30-somethings who often whine about the public and the media’s short attention span and focus on the superficial – notice how they are limiting their interaction with each other to 140 characters. And I’m reminded of the other thing I wondered about some other “hot” tech startups around a decade ago (or Second Life last year, or MySpace the year before, and so on)…exactly how is Twitter going to make money? And how smart could the twits at Twitter be to have turned down $500 million from Facebook in today’s economy? That doesn’t make me confident there’s a business plan or exit strategy at work here.

Twitter is the latest technology wave of social networking, which will never EVER replace real networking as a way to meet people and form lasting personal or business relationships. Ask anyone if it’s better to have a date or sales meeting in person or over the phone or Web. This is why it is especially difficult to hear public relations consultants say Twitter should become a mandatory part of my job. I will continue to maintain that there will never be a substitute for pounding the pavement and making the time to personally meet and establish a relationship with the influencers in media, the public, the government and the analyst communities that can help drive sales and enhance a company’s reputation.

Perhaps there will be a way to change Twitter into a more useful tool. Publishing your @Twitter address guarantees you will be bombarded with filler you couldn’t care less about and ingrates trying to sell you something you don’t need. And there may be room for it in either grassroots mobilization or marketing toward people whose lives are tuned out to other forms of communication. There are probably a handful of people who are currently doing it right. But by the time the folks at Twitter figure that out, there will be another technology to waste everyone’s time.

Octomom Backlash

I was going to resist delving into gossip with my two or three cents on the feeding frenzy surrounding our newest media whore Nadya Suleman (hereafter referred to as “Octomom”), but I can no longer hold out.

When multiple births occur, most companies from Procter & Gamble to GM and Disney shower the overwhelmed family with gifts from diapers to minivans and clothes to vacations. This has notably not happened here. Why? Is it the stigma of single motherhood? Are companies less able to provide these freebies in the current economy? Is it because she’s considered a shady and possibly unstable character that may be addicted to pregnancy, or unethical and unreliable because of her reliance on government assistance while her house is in foreclosure? I find it interesting how much character and circumstance plays into such decisions on a corporate level.

It’s also fascinating how these play into the popular backlash as well. This is a bit less surprising, since as a society we help those who are victims of chance and reward those who have an independent work ethic, and frown upon people whose work ethic may be compromised or who willfully make choices society dislikes. Both of those instances apply to Octomom. We’re currently in a time and place where responsibility – especially at the government and corporate level – has vanished and ordinary people who played by the rules are left holding the bag and are understandably angry. When they see another example of someone who is not “responsible,” charity will not be their first reaction. What a surprise that the media is the only one giving this woman what she wants!

There has also been a call to better regulate fertility clinics since they did not stop her from implanting all those embryos. But that is dangerous ground – doctors often need to give patients what they ask for with voluntary medical procedures. They can take doctors to court if they refuse.

This is also a good time to note – especially to those of us who are pro-choice – that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose, but then try to legally restrict how many babies she can choose to have (naturally or artificially). If a “normal” unmarried executive or lesbian wanted to get pregnant through a fertility clinic and was refused, pro-choice people would be outraged. The same rules apply here. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose and then try to restrict access to fertility or have a law stating who is or is not capable of having a baby (or eight babies).