Uber Doesn’t Have a PR Problem–It Has a Corporate Culture Problem

As a public relations professional, I’m in a number of LinkedIn groups for PR/communications practitioners and every time a corporate scandal pops up, I see the inevitable posts about what the company could have done to avoid their problem or what they should do to get out of the mess.

Quite often, I feel like offering up a comment along the lines that in some cases there’s nothing to be done in some cases because some people/companies aren’t well-positioned to  project a positive public image or can’t be bothered to do so.

The latest flap over Uber and the comments of senior executive Emil Michael–who chose to opine at a well-attended dinner event last Friday night that it would be a neat idea for the company to hire an opposition research team to dig up dirt on journalists as a means of fighting negative press–exemplify this notion.  He suggested they could look into “your personal lives, your families” as a means of going after media critics.  The words seemed particularly targeted at reporter Sarah Lacy of PandoDaily who had accused the company of “sexism and misogyny” and previously included them in an “asshole roll call” of Silicon Valley companies.

Here is perhaps the most disturbing nugget of Ben Smith’s story on Buzzfeed’s which broke the story on Michael’s unique approach to PR strategy:

“Then he returned to the opposition research plan. Uber’s dirt-diggers, Michael said, could expose Lacy. They could, in particular, prove a particular and very specific claim about her personal life.  

Michael at no point suggested that Uber has actually hired opposition researchers, or that it plans to. He cast it as something that would make sense, that the company would be justified in doing.”

Yeah, right.  Why come out and say you are actually doing something like that when simply threatening to do it and clearly stating you would have no problem doing it are probably good enough to do the trick in terms of making some reporters think twice before taking a shot at your company?

Let me just stop here for a second and offer up what should be a fairly obvious lesson to all the tough-talking execs out there who like to take their macho swagger out for a public trot every once in a blue moon.

If you or your company are being accused of frat-boy/bully boy tactics and it’s being suggested that you have a problem with how you treat women, a significant portion of your customer base, then maybe…just maybe…and remember, I’m only spitballing here…but maybe you should be a little less thin-skinned and not feel compelled to lash out a female reporter in a manner which pretty much confirms everything she said and turns a one-day story into an ongoing nightmare.

But if you are not capable of it, if your entire business model is based on a thuggish/”us against the world”/destroy our enemies” ethos, maybe there’s not a whole lot sensible PR people can do for you.

Just look at Uber’s response to the Buzzfeed story.  First, Michael tried to insist it was an off-the-record, private comment, even though it was made to a room full of people who apparently didn’t sign anything or offer a blood oath.  (As if the idea of breaking that supposed off-the-record code was somehow worse than what he actually said,  Priceless.)  Then they trotted out the guy who brought Ben Smith to the dinner, the USA Today‘s Michael Wolff, to say Smith hadn’t reported the words in their proper context.  Suffice to say, I don’t think Wolff’s attempt to gussy up Michael’s comments are very convincing, although I guess it does show the value of offering up free dinners to members of the media.

And then they hit the Trifecta of Stupid, when Ashton Kutcher hit Twitter to give his thumbs up to the idea of attacking “shady reporters” like Lacy.  Without bothering to mention he’s an investor in the company.  Yeah, thanks for weighing in, funny man.

It’s one thing to declare war on business competitors and do anything you can to wipe them out.  It happens in business all the time.  But taking that same approach with media people who don’t treat you with the fealty you feel you are entitled to is just plain stupid and symptomatic of a greater problem.

This “crush, kill, destroy” approach to business seems to be in Uber’s DNA and is clearly infecting their public relations.  Because when you say indefensible things in public, you need to take immediate action to fix the problem.  The weak string of Tweets from Uber’s CEO denouncing Michael’s remarks don’t cut it, especially since there is no indication he will in any way be punished for his remarks.  (OK, you don’t want to fire the guy because he’s indispensable?  How about a month off without pay to get his head around the fact that he can’t be stupid in public?)

Maybe Lacy was onto something.  Maybe the bad-boy culture of Uber has fostered a recklessness and arrogance that can’t be contained or simply targeted on the company’s competitors.  When a senior executive can talk about smearing reporters and suffer no consequences, there’s no way that attitude doesn’t work it’s way down the food chain.  Maybe the only thing that will change it is if enough people delete the Uber app from their phone, as Lacy did.  That may be the only kind of reckoning these folks understand.

And let me share one other wild thought.  In a roomful of media people, why was there only one reporter willing to call out Michael for his absurd and offensive comments?  Did they get the message he was sending and figure silence was better than incurring the wrath of Uber?  Or did they merely think it would be unseemly to bite the hand that fed them that night?

Roger Goodell’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week Isn’t Going to Get Any Better Soon

“Where is Richard Nixon, now that we need him? He was crooked in every way and his hands were covered with blood — but he was a rabid, high-rolling football fan with a sly taste for gin; and on some nights, he could be good company.”

                                                                        – Hunter S. Thompson


nixon012813-jpg_230826It’s hard not to think of Richard Nixon and his fondness for football now that the NFL is in the middle of a very serious scandal involving the punishment of a player who got caught on videotape violently striking his girlfriend and dragging her unconscious out of an elevator.

After all, people are asking “What did he know and when did he know it?” of the league’s commissioner, Roger Goodell. And the NFL seems to have it’s own Rosemary Woods in a woman from the front office who left a voicemail for a law enforcement official acknowledging the receipt of a particularly damaging piece of videotape in the case—a piece of videotape which, in a highly-publicized interview with CBS’ Nora O’Donnell this week, Goodell said he had no knowledge of and no one in his office had seen.

From a public relations perspective, Goodell’s behavior in this matter has been a disaster from the get-go. On February 15th of this year, Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice assaulted his then-fiancée (now wife) Janay Palmer in the elevator of a casino in Atlantic City. Both were arrested that night on simple assault charges. A few days later, videotape appeared of Rice dragging an unconscious Palmer out of the elevator and leaving her on the ground.

That footage alone should have warranted significant action by the NFL and the Baltimore Ravens. Instead, the Ravens waited for the NFL to act and Goodell stepped in it by dishing out mere 2 game suspension for Rice, despite a police report that made clear he hit Palmer in the elevator and at least two reports by respected NFL reporters which said that NFL sources told them they had seen the videotape of what happened inside the elevator and it “was not pretty”, with Rice striking Palmer who then fell and hit her head on a railing.

Goodell was roundly criticized for dishing out such a weak penalty. But there were no calls for his resignation, no demands for him to do more.

Which is why it’s strange that on August 28th, Goodell came out and basically admitted he “didn’t get it right” with the Rice punishment and announced a revamped domestic violence policy for the NFL, imposing a 6 game suspension for a first-time offense and a lifetime ban for a second offense. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I have a funny feeling Goodell knew something bad was coming down the pike and he knew he had to get it front of it and this was his effort to do that.

That “something bad” hit Monday, when TMZ released the videotape from the inside of the elevator that February night, showing Rice brutally knocking his fiancée out cold.

Goodell rushed out to give an interview with CBS’ Nora O’Donnell in which he denied knowledge of the tape’s existence and said no one in the NFL front office had seen it. In so doing, he basically blamed law enforcement in New Jersey for refusing multiple requests from the NFL to get a copy of the tape.

It didn’t take very long for an unnamed law enforcement source to blow that story straight to hell by going to the Associated Press and reveal the NFL was given a copy of the tape. The law enforcement official even had the recording of a 12-second voicemail from an NFL office number where a female voice expresses thanks for video being sent in and says, “You’re right. It’s terrible.”

Goodell’s credibility is in tatters. Even before the AP story hit, no one believed he didn’t know about the second videotape because the NFL has a well-deserved reputation for having a very effective security apparatus, composed of former law enforcement officials with strong contacts in that community. Even if NFL officials hadn’t been given a chance to see the video, it strains the limits of credulity to think there were no back-channel communications going on, no “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” conversations taking place where law enforcement officials were quietly making friends and or former colleagues in the NFL front office aware of what happened in that elevator.

It doesn’t help that Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy is slated to play again this weekend, as he did last weekend, after being convicted of domestic violence last July. Since he’s appealing the case, it’s as if nothing happened. It’s as if he didn’t threaten to kill his ex-girlfriend. Or pick her up and throw her into a tub. Or drag her out and then throw her onto a couch filled with his stash of rifles and guns.

And then there’s Adrian Peterson.

The National Organization for Women has already called for Goodell to be fired. And he should be. But it shouldn’t stop there. The male-dominated power structure of the NFL has responded to the issue of domestic violence abominably. In the Ray Rice case, the legal system didn’t do much better. Law enforcement had both tapes—Rice dragging his fiancée out of the elevator and knocking her cold in it. First offense or not, the actions on both of those tapes deserved more than a pretrial intervention program, a program whose own website claims is meant to be used in cases that are either “victimless crimes” or don’t involve violence.

A spokesman for the Atlantic County prosecutor’s office in New Jersey had this to say when asked about the disposition of Rice’s case:

“Mr. Rice received the same treatment by the criminal justice system in Atlantic City that any first-time offender has, in similar circumstances.”

If that’s true, we have a problem that clearly goes well beyond the NFL. Here’s hoping the spotlight shown on the issue of domestic violence by this case will lead to changes that don’t stop with Goodell losing his job.  Because those of us who read the horrible stories about how the Massachusetts legal system failed Jennifer Martel by putting a serial abuser like Jared Remy back on the street again and again after numerous episodes of brutality know that there aren’t many happy endings when it comes to domestic violence.

The Raimondo Portfolio: There Aren’t Many RI Moms Investing in This Stuff

You would think a General Treasurer who went down the path of socially conscious investing by deciding to have the state pension fund divest from gun distributors might be asked about her own personal investment strategy and whether she avoids supporting morally questionable activities with her stock purchases.

Or you might imagine a candidate for Governor who decided her image needed help and chose to highlight her “regular mom” status, Tweeting a favorite meatloaf recipe and filming a political spot featuring her and the kids biking around Providence, might get a bit of scrutiny if her investment portfolio featured some companies most Rhode Island moms wouldn’t support.

You’d be wrong.

Gina Raimondo’s ethics filings for 2009 and 2010 provide a detailed listing of more than 55 companies that Raimondo and husband Andrew Moffit have holdings in, along with more than 25 companies Raimondo has invested in on her own. (According to the report, the holdings must meet a threshold of a “10% or greater ownership interest or a $5,000 or greater ownership or investment interest”.)

Gradually, that transparent view of the Raimondo portfolio begins to slowly vanish. In the 2011 filing, the joint holdings are still listed out, but Raimondo’s individual holdings are listed as being in a blind trust, with interest income of not more than $1,000. And in the 2012 filing, the listing of joint holdings disappeared, with Raimondo reporting only a blind trust, with income described as capital gains in the $200,001 to $500,000 range. (Interestingly enough, Raimondo chose to dump interest income from Point Judith Capital into a blind trust in 2012 as well.) By 2013, the blind trusts disappear entirely from the filing, apparently because they generated no income.

The change in reporting style apparently helped to stifle any questions that might be raised about the kind of places Raimondo parks her money. Which is a good thing, because some of the more notable holdings in her portfolio can most charitably be called not very mom-like. These include investments in:

  • foreign tobacco companies that target young people, distributing samples and creating candy and fruit flavored cigarettes;
  • mining companies involved in gang rape, mass killings and forced evictions to displace indigenous populations;
  • an Indian bank accused of inhumane collections methods and engaging in illegal money-laundering; and
  • a French bank hit with billions in fines for doing business with countries facing US sanctions, such as Sudan and Iran.

Here’s a more detailed run-down on some of her holdings. I haven’t researched every company that showed up on the 2009-2011 ethics filings, so there may be some even more interesting information to found. I would encourage interested persons to have at it. Because on this day, when Raimondo is trotting out campaign surrogates who should know better to insist that Gina isn’t working for Wall Street and that Angel Taveras is a big meanie for saying so, it’s worth taking a close look at her substantial portfolio and the investment choices she has made.

At the end of this campaign cycle, the Big Con of the Raimondo campaign may not be her stubborn refusal to ignore the fact that her signature accomplishment in public life, the so-called “pension reform” law, could be declared invalid by a court, putting us back at square with millions in legal fees down the drain. Instead, it may be Gina Raimondo’s shrill insistence—after taking gobs of campaign money from the John Arnolds and Pete Petersons of the world along with a vast range of financial firms and the lawyers who represent them, after ramping up the state pension fund’s exposure to hedge funds and essentially transferring the savings generated by “pension reform” to shadowy money managers and after investing her own money in companies engaged in morally questionable activities—that she’s just a regular Rhode Island mom and not at all interested in serving the interests of Wall Street.



“A BBC investigation has found that a British tobacco company is actively targeting young people and teenagers in Africa.”

“The companies insist they only give the samples to adult smokers, but there’s evidence their own rules are not being followed.”



“It has been in publications with a high readership among young people, and they have had candy and fruit flavours that are attractive to this age group. A very important source for the tobacco industries growth is to target children, and they know it,” Cunningham said.


BARRICK GOLD CORP (2009, 2010)

“Bonasso reproduces heart wrenching storied of gang rape by Barrick’s security guards for the Porgera Mine in Papua New Guinea, mass killings and forced evictions of entire communities and small mining workers being buried alive to force and accommodate Barrick’s operations in projects in Tanzania, which replaced nearly 400,000 local small miners, with a mere few hundred Barrick jobs. Munk allegedly said to a Canadian news source, in relation to the rapes in the South Pacific by Barrick’s security guards, dismissing the event lightly, “Gang rape is a cultural habit”.”


Al Gore has dumped financial backing from controversial Canadian mining company Barrick Gold for his upcoming Santiago event “Global Warming and Climate Change: The Time Has Come to Act.” The Academy Award-winning environmentalist distanced himself from any association with the mining company, which owns the controversial Pascua Lama gold mine.

“Unfortunately, we were never asked to approve Barrick Gold as a cosponsor and as soon as we became aware that they were co sponsors, we asked that they be removed,” Gore’s press spokesperson Kalee Kreider told The Santiago Times. “I was informed that they were removed yesterday.”



“Safety is not being given the priority it demands,” the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the country’s biggest Labor federation, said in an e-mailed statement, calling for an end to the “carnage which is still taking place.”


Petroleo Brasileiro SA ADR – Petrobras (2009, 2010, 2011)

Furthermore, Petrobras was among the energy companies accused of pushing “uncontacted” indigenous tribes to extinction in Peru and Ecuador. Indigenous communities are allegedly being driven into remote areas of the Amazon jungle to make way for oil and gas activities that are destroying the ecosystems on which these vulnerable communities depend.


POSCO ADR (2009, 2010, 2011)

Last week, a United Nations expert panel issued a harsh report expressing concern over the construction of a $12 billion steel project in Odisha, India, financed by the South Korean steel conglomerate POSCO. The project reportedly threatens to forcibly displace over 22,000 people and disrupt the livelihoods of many thousands more. The forests and fields now claimed by the Indian government to build the sprawling project have long been occupied by locals, who rely on the land for their livelihoods.



The decision-making process surrounding the CNOOC-Nexen deal lacked transparency, and was devoid of the consultation mandated in cases of foreign takeovers. The considerations on which the decision was based were essentially of an economic character. Human rights considerations do not appear to have been factored into the decision at all.


Hutchison Whampoa Ltd ADR (Hong Kong)

Li’s connections to the Chinese government and military are well documented. Trent Lott, in fact, called Li Ka-shing’s company, Hutchison Whampoa, an “arm of the PLA [People’s Liberation Army].” Documents from U.S. embassies all over the world have shown that Li: helped the PLA finance communication networks, accepted $400 million from the Chinese government for Hutchison Whampoa, and entered a real estate deal with Chinese president Jiang Zemin. U.S. Commerce Department documents show Li owns 25 percent of a firm run by the Chinese air force and one-third of Asiasat, which is owned in part by the Chinese army.


ICICI Bank (2009, 2010, 2011) 

Inhuman debt recovery methods

A few years after its rise to prominence in the banking sector, ICICI bank faced allegations on the recovery methods it used against loan payment defaulters. A number of cases were filed against the bank and its employees for using “brutal measures” to recover the money. Most of the allegations were that the bank was using goons to recover the credit card payments and that these “recovery agents” exhibited inappropriate and in some cases, inhuman behavior. Incidents were reported wherein the defaulters were put to “public shame” by the recovery agents.

The bank also faced allegations of inappropriate behavior in recovering its loans. These allegations started initially when the “recovery agents” and bank employees started threatening the defaulters. In some cases, notes written by the bank’s employees asking the defaulters to “sell everything in the house including family members”, were found. Such charges faced by the bank rose to a peak when suicide cases were reported wherein the suicide notes spoke of the Bank’s recovery methods as the cause of the suicide. This led to a lot of legal battles and the bank paying huge compensations.[70][71][72]

Money laundering allegations

ICICI Bank was one of the leading Indian banks accused of blatant money laundering through violation of RBI guidelines in the famous CobraPost[73] sting operation which shook up Indian banking industry during April–May 2013.[74]

On 14 March 2013 the online magazine Cobrapost released video footage from Operation Red Spider showing high-ranking officials and some employees of ICICI Bank agreeing to convert black money into white, an act in violation of Money Laundering Control Act. The Government of India and Reserve Bank of India ordered an inquiry following the exposé. On 15 March 2013, ICICI Bank suspended 18 employees, pending inquiry.[6][7][8] On 11 April 2013 Deputy Governor of RBI, H R Khan reportedly told that the central bank is initiating action against ICICI Bank in connection with allegations of money laundering.[9][10]

BNP Paribas (2009, 2010, 2011)

BNP Paribas was hit with a record $8.9B fine for doing business with countries that face US sanctions, such as Sudan and Iran. The French bank pled guilty to criminal charges and state and federal authorities called the bank the worst offender of several which had settled cases. The wrong-doing was significant in scope, ranging from 2002-2012, when American regulators were already investigating such violations.


RIO TINTO (2009, 2010, 2011)

A British and Australian multinational corporation in metals and mining. The Government of Norway divested itself from Rio Tinto shares and banned further investment due to concerns about damage to the environment done by the company’s operations, most notably the Grasbert mine in Indonesia. There have also been labor and safety issues raised about Rio Tinto’s operations. In January of 2010, the company locked out nearly 600 workers from a mine in Boron, CA after they rejected a contract proposal claiming it would scrap their seniority system and allow Rio Tinto to hire non-union employees. (The workers were represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.



The 38 Studios Bond Debate and RI’s Rip Van Winkles

In watching the ongoing debate over repaying the controversial 38 Studios bonds, I’m getting more and more disgusted over the efforts to frame this discussion a matter of intellect/common sense vs. emotion/unchecked anger. It’s the kind of insulting and condescending nonsense that got us into trouble in the first place.

After all, when the initial 38 Studios deal was rammed through the legislature, the self-appointed adults in the room (legislative leaders, the Governor, lawyers and financial experts) all argued that the responsible thing to do was make this strong investment in Rhode Island’s economic future, to be bold and visionary and do what was needed to create jobs. Those who dared raise concerns about handing over $75M in loan guarantees to one company, in an industry with a high failure rate being run by a CEO with no business experience, were dismissed as engaging in hysterical political attacks. They were holding our state back because of their unwillingness to trust the state’s political leadership.

You’d think just four years later, we might be a little more careful about trusting the people pushing for repayment of the 38 Studios bonds when their argument can best be boiled down to “trust what the rating agencies are telling us to do.”

I don’t know where these Rip Van Winkles were in late 2008, early 2009 when the global economy was on the brink of a financial meltdown. But those of us who were awake and paying attention can’t help but remember the central role those rating agencies played in that financial crisis. Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch all managed to give great ratings to some of the worst financial products the financial marketplace had ever seen. I’m talking about the mortgage-backed securities products–the SIVs, CDOs and other vehicles–which they happily advised state pension funds and other investors to go whole hog on.

Guess what happened? When the housing market collapsed, a range of institutional investors were left holding worthless products because the underlying mortgages weren’t worth the paper they were printed on. Banks were issuing mortgages to anyone with a pulse so they could turn around and feed Wall Street’s demand for more crap mortgages to shovel into bad financial products.

But it was more than just bad judgment. The Big Three rating agencies were also exposed as having cozy relationships with the firms whose products they were rating. They came out of the 2008-2009 debacle bruised, bloodied and having all the credibility of a con artist running a boardwalk Three Card Monte table.

(And let’s not forget, those same rating agencies happily gave their blue ribbon seal of approval to the 38 Studios bonds in 2010, essentially telling their marks to pay no attention to the company’s lack of capital and the fact that 3 out of 4 candidates for Governor in Rhode Island that year were threatening to scrap or revisit the state’s investment.)

Despite their horrific track record, the Big Three are now being treated as the voices of reason by the pro-bond repayment crowd. Rhode Islanders are being told to take their threats seriously and to dutifully shout “How high?” when these guys with red noses and big floppy shoes order our state to jump.

I’ve got some advice for anyone who wants to play “serious thinker” and insist that we must listen to people with a track record of abject failure. Go pick up a copy of Matt Taibbi’s “Griftopia” or watch “Inside Job”. Understand that the rap you are running now was discredited by the reality of the 2008-09 financial crisis. Worshipping at the altar of Wall Street credibility may get politicians some nice campaign contributions and it might give consultants and pundits the chance to act like they are the voice of reason. But those of us who weren’t taking nap during the financial crisis know that you are either being played or are playing us.

And I think Rhode Islanders are tired of being treated like easy marks.

Chris Christie’s Doing the Best He Can

There’s been a great deal of discussion the last few days among PR people about the impact of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s dramatic press conference on Thursday.  It went on for nearly two hours, with the Governor and potential 2016 GOP Presidential candidate standing behind the podium and taking on all comers, answering every question about the shutdown of several lanes of traffic on the George Washington bridge which seemingly targeted the City of Fort Lee and its Democratic Mayor, who didn’t endorse Christie’s re-election bid last year.

Christie certainly earned points for coming forward, withstanding the heat and responding to every question thrown at him.  There’s no question that wins him respect from the journalistic community, which is an important target audience.  

It also marked a welcome shift from his previous approach to dealing with the matter, which involved making some statements that didn’t quite square with the known facts and trying to laugh off the controversy by suggesting he “worked the cones” at the bridge closure site.  Once the emails hit the fan talking about causing a traffic jam and joking about kids being stuck on school buses, stock denials and mocking the seriousness of the issue weren’t going to cut it.   

And one other benefit of the press conference–it allows Christie’s supporters to say he’s taken action and is in command, answering questions and taking charge of the situation.  

That’s all good.  Now let’s look at the downside.

When you spend that much time in front of the media, tackling a range of questions on a growing scandal, you are going to meander into dangerous waters and Christie did that when making several references to a non-existent traffic study which was initially tossed out as a justification for the disputed lane closures.  If there was such a study, it would certainly have come to light by now and even if it did exist, the tone of the emails makes clear that Christie’s people didn’t give a rat’s behind about mitigating traffic problems.  They were interested in causing some problems for Fort Lee and its apparently less than cooperative Mayor.

The Governor also made a point of attacking the notion that his people were seeking retribution for the Mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie’s re-election bid, pointing out the Mayor himself had said no one from the Christie camp had even sought his endorsement.  That led one TV commentator, MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow, to posit an alternative theory of the scandal–that it meant to target the Democratic State Senator who represents the Fort Lee area who is in the middle of an ongoing testy dispute with the Governor about State Supreme Court appointments.  This won’t be the last of efforts to scrutinize the motives behind the anger driving Christie’s team to cause trouble in Fort Lee.  

Also, when you lay out a timeline of what you knew and when you knew it, as Christie did, you provide the media with an opportunity to go back and see if your past comments square with your latest words.  Josh Micah Marshall’s Talking Points Memo rightly points to a Wall Street Journal story from December 12, 2013 which detailed a Governor-to-Governor phone call between Christie and NY’s Andrew Cuomo.  In it, Christie complained that Cuomo’s appointee to the Port Authority (the agency which oversees the bridge and is at the heart of the scandal) was causing trouble for him by pressing to find out why the toll lanes to Fort Lee were blocked. Why make that call unless you knew there was good reason to rein in the guy?  It suggests that maybe Christie knew a lot more about this a lot sooner than just after his workout last Wednesday morning.

Finally, when you look at the overall tenor of the press conference (which Jon Stewart described as “F-U Sharp”), it seemed to be about Christie dismissing the notion that he was a bully leading an organization that was all about seeking retribution from anyone who pissed him off.  Instead, he basically offered up what Steven Colbert called a “someone else-a culpa”, essentially painting himself as a disengaged manager who had the poor judgement to hire people who were content to run rogue operations and then lie to him about it.  That’s not exactly the kind of management style that is going to resonate with voters in a Presidential campaign, is it?    

At the end of the day, I tend to think Christie made the best of a bad situation.  I don’t know what the outcome of this scandal is going to be, but if things get worse, I suspect Thursday’s presser will at least turn out to something of a temporary respite for Christie.  And when you are in the middle of a media firestorm, that’s not such a bad thing.  I doubt anyone will be able to point to it and say it was the beginning of the end.  

The bottom line is that Christie had to do something and make some effort to get a grip on the situation.  He’s done that for now, which is the kind of minor victory you need in the midst of a mess like this.


Rob Ford and A-Rod: A Couple of Guys Who Don’t Know When to Shut Up

UnknownimageI took part in a Linked in discussion recently that was launched by someone asking if PR could save Rob Ford, the crack-smoking Mayor of Toronto (hilariously dubbed “the human Spring Break” by Charlie Pierce).

The fact is, there are always going to be some people in public life who just can’t get out of their own way.  Mayor Ford is clearly one of them with his ongoing fiasco up north.  Another is Alex Rodriguez, who went all Al Pacino as Arthur Kirkland in “…And Justice For All” on us Wednesday.

A-Rod’s act reminded us why the steroid-using/can’t get his denials straight/arrogant narcissistic superstar who exemplifies all that is wrong with big-time sports is just another public figure who can’t resist trying to make a big splash when he’d be better off simply going home and shutting the hell up for a while.

The Yankees slugger and target of Major League Baseball’s wrath showed up for his grievance hearing Wednesday only to storm out in a huff in a well-orchestrated huff when the arbitrator surprised exactly no one on the planet by denying A-Rod’s demand that MLB Commissioner Bud Selig should be compelled to testify.  He then issued a statement through “his people” and stopped in to talk to WFAN’s Mike Francesa, only after his lawyer appeared on another NYC sports talk show to take umbrage at the absurdity and injustice of this hearing process.  A hearing process collectively bargained for by the MLB Player’s Association on behalf of its members—including A-Rod.

In January of this year, when the allegations about his association with Tony Bosch and his Florida-based clinic called Biogenesis came to light, A-Rod denied knowing Bosch.  Not a bad play, given the guy was a known huckster, with a phony medical degree and a track record of selling Performance Enhancing Drugs to baseball players.  But Wednesday, A-Rod changed his tune with Francesa and admitted going to Bosch for help obtaining legal nutritional supplements and assistance.  Right.  Because going to a shady guy with a fake medical degree and a bad reputation for selling illegal substances is so much easier and safer than going to the local GNC.

Wednesday’s act was all about A-Rod taking his ego for a spin.  Unfortunately, instead of coming off like Pacino’s crusading lawyer, fighting corrupt officials on behalf of his client, A-Rod came off like Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Jessup—“YOU’RE DAMNED RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED AND I’D DO IT AGAIN!!!!”

More shifting stories aren’t going to look good when this thing gets to court.  And it sure doesn’t help build any public sympathy for a guy who appears to be more interested in taking shots at Selig and reminding everyone about how he’s a dad—even though his paternal instinct seemed to abandon him when he was engaging in the extramarital affairs which seemed to have led his wife to file for divorce back in 2008.

And then, there’s Ford.  Is there anyone left in his camp with the ability to shut this guy down?  I know his family is supposed to be a little unusual, but earlier this week, when Ford apparently imagined seeing someone “confronting” his brother on the City Council floor, Ford did his best rampaging hippo imitation and almost ran a female Councillor.  I would think Councillor Ford might find it in the Ford clan’s best interest to tell the guy who somehow stumbled and bumbled his way into the top spot in Toronto government to chill out for a while before he makes them all look like buffoons.

Haven’t we gone well past the point of this story where it’s obvious to anyone that a rehab stint is a much better option for the Mayor than getting within a country mile of a camera or a live mic again?

There are some cases where the best PR is no PR.  If you obviously can’t relate to the public, and Ford and A-Rod have proven to be superstars in that regard, then your best play is to get out of the public eye.  Fast.  But we seem to be getting a painfully clear reminder that an oversized ego or a rampaging id can get in the way of a sensible PR strategy.

The Mongers of Elite Opinion—from Providence to DC—Are Damaging our Democracy.


I’m a big fan of the Providence Journal’s Ed Fitzpatrick.  But his column yesterday left me shaking my head, wondering if our democracy is going to survive.   

Unfortunately, Ed’s not alone. 

Newspapers across the country were festooned with painfully inept headlines that portray this shutdown as some sort of blame game exercise.  It’s enough to make you want to go Lewis Black on the nearest street corner.

Whenever I read one of these pieces, or hear a commentator wring his or her hands about how both sides are to blame for the current government shutdown, I can’t help but feel we’re a little closer to seeing this grand two hundred and thirty-seven year experiment in self-rule collapse under the weight of its own mediocrity.

Let’s think about it this way.  How would you advise a child to handle a bully?  You wouldn’t tell some poor kid to give the bully whatever he wants or some portion of what he wants in the hopes that it will make everything OK.  Because as grown-ups, we know it doesn’t work that way.

Or, as Jon Stewart so eloquently put it the other night, 

I offer a pox on both their houses when appropriate. But this is not a game of chicken. This is when someone is driving to work and there’s a car coming directly at them in their lane. That’s not a game of chicken — that’s an as*hole causing a head-on collision.

How are the Democrats to blame for this shutdown?  What have they done to bring us to this point?  Well, let’s see…they failed to give in to the demands of a wing of the Republican Party which is willing to hold the Congress and the country hostage to get a do-over on legislation that was enacted fair and square, using the tools of our democracy, back in 2010.

The President spoke this fundamental truth yesterday.  Sadly, it is a truth which many members of the media seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge.

“This Republican shutdown did not have to happen. But I want every American to understand why it did happen,” Obama said during remarks in the Rose Garden. “They’ve shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans.”

Why not just call this hostage-taking what it is—a sign of a deeply dysfunctional Republican Party that is incapable of governing itself, much less helping to govern a country?  Is it really that hard?  Are folks in the media that scared of getting mail from Tea Partiers?  (Hint: pay it no mind.  They’re only watching Fox News anyway!)

Even Rhode Island’s own Joe Nocera fell into the “pox on both your houses” trap, when, in a Monday column about the shutdown mess entitled “Those Banana Republicans”, he feels compelled to wrap up his blistering attack on the current GOP leadership with this ridiculous bit of Bad Analogy Theater:

A party controlled by its most extreme faction will ultimately be forced back to the center. The Democrats learned that when Walter Mondale was losing to Ronald Reagan, and Michael Dukakis to George H.W. Bush. Now it is the Republicans who don’t seem to understand that their extreme tactics are pleasing a small percentage of their countrymen but alienating everyone else.

Damn, my head hurts just seeing that again.  I mean, you can call Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis a lot of things, but extremists?  They were the Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachman of their age?  Please.

Mondale was Jimmy Carter’s Vice President, an old-fashioned New Deal Democrat.  Dukakis was a dull technocrat who ran a Presidential campaign that bordered on being criminally inept.  (Oh, and by the way, when Jesse Jackson is in your party and running in a primary against you, you are not the most extreme faction.  Not be a long shot.)  Neither of them did anything to damage this country that even comes close to the lunacy we are now seeing from the GOP.

They never called Ronnie Reagan a Muslim.  They never questioned his right to serve as Commander in Chief.  They never called a law that got passed on their watch unconstitutional, even after it had been declared the opposite of that by the Supreme Court.

And none of them ever beat the living daylights out of reality on regular basis the way some of these Tea Party crazies do.  Just get a load of these comments from Senator Rand (son of Crazy Uncle Liberty) Paul yesterday regarding Cruz’s recent faux filibuster on Obamacare:

You know, I think it was helpful to talk more about it.  We haven’t had a big debate about Obamacare really since it passed in Congress. And so I think it was helpful to have the debate.

Hmm…I guess he missed those 46 House votes to defund, repeal or dismantle the law.   

Lord, sometimes there just isn’t enough Guinness and Jameson’s to enable a thinking man to make sense of this crazy world.