It’s not exactly breaking news, but newspapers across the country are in deep trouble.

Years ago my boss asked me what was the main role of a newspaper. As a former journalist, I said to cover news in an unbiased manner.

“Wrong! he barked. The main role of a newspaper is to make a profit.”

At the time it seemed cynical. But after watching literally hundreds of newspapers close their doors, it made sense. They are really businesses.

Today, newspapers that used to feature 50 or 60 pages each day, are now lucky to have 18. Many have given up providing late sports scores since readers can access that information immediately. Some staffs are 10% of what they used to be years ago.

During a recent hurricane in Hilton Head, SC, when residents were desperate for information, the Island Packet didn’t even publish. They could only count on TV and radio for their news.

Yes, newspapers are in deep trouble. But don’t bury them quite yet.

They still have tremendous credibility with other media outlets. Newspaper journalists are still considered the leaders in providing news. Radio and TV stations are quick to run with a newspaper story and present it as accurate news.

Before you decide that newspapers today are simply a waste of paper, keep in mind they still have tremendous clout with other media outlets. A quality story in a newspaper will generate tons of positive publicity in other outlets.

It is simply amazing in this day and age that prominent people will do media interviews without any preparation. “Winging” a media interview is a prescription for disaster.

Would a business executive enter a negotiation without any preparation? Of course not.

But doing a media interview that will be seen or heard by thousands of customers and stakeholders without planning is ignorant.

Recently a CNN Analyst did just that (LINK). Civil rights attorney Areva Martin went on a Sirius XM radio show and accused her host of not understanding issues because of white privilege.

“David, by virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege,” said Martin. Unfortunately for her, the host David Webb, is black.

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped,” he said. “I’m black.”

That exchange never should have occurred. Martin should have been thoroughly briefed on who was interviewing her, what topics would be covered, his or her biases, interview tactics, race, views, religion, etc.

The key is no interview surprises. The way that is accomplished is by diligent preparation by your media professional.

As an example, we prepped a telecom executive on an upcoming newspaper reporter interview. It was to be conducted via phone.

We explained to the executive that the reporter was very knowledgeable about his industry. The reporter had been with the paper for more than 10 years. We discussed his age, religion, family, where he lived, the tone of previous stories, his goals, etc. No item was too small.

We had spoken to the reporter before setting up the interview and were told the general areas that would be covered. However, we let the executive know this reporter will likely try to get into other challenging areas.

The reporter generally started interviews with puffball questions (Your company has really grown. Why is that? Why has your leadership style been so successful?) At this point, the executive frequently felt he was in charge of the interview. Wrong.

The third or fourth question was guaranteed to be a killer (I understand competitors are stealing market share. How do you respond to that charge? I’ve been told morale at your company is extremely low…).

Without preparation, most executives would wilt as questions went from puffball to crushing. However, if they know it is coming they are ready.

The goal for all media interviews should be for no surprises. And that is only accomplished through preparation.

http://

Seasoned media relations professionals cringe at the term “off-the-record.” In fact, many media trainers (we included) simply tell our clients not to go off-the-record in media interviews.

Why?

Because journalists all seem to have different views on what exactly considered on or off-the-record. Some journos say whatever is said can NEVER be revealed. Others will say if the person going off-the-record dies then everything he/she said is fair game and can be revealed.

Still others claim if what is said off-the-record is important or criminal then it can be revealed. A Congressman told a joke that was deemed racist, and a journalist felt that overruled the off-the -record rule.

The latest iteration of off-the-record involves President Trump and the New York Times.

According to Columbia Journalism Review, Trump kicked up a journalistic firestorm Sunday morning (Link) after tweeting about an off-the-record meeting with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger.

Trump claimed that the two had ‘“a very good and interesting meeting at the White House,” and discussed “the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media.’”

Trump’s relatively innocuous Tweet was then taken by Sulzberger, “as putting the meeting on the record.”

Sulzberger then responded with a lengthy statement explaining that his main reason for meeting with Trump “was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric. I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.’”

Sulzberger felt that by Trump even mentioning the meeting then the entire meeting was on-the-record.

In the strictest terms, off-the-record is defined as:

• “Off the record”: the information is provided to inform a decision or provide a confidential explanation, not for publication.

However, since even seasoned journalists seem to have varying interpretations of exactly off-the-record means, media trainers would be wise to warn clients about its pitfalls.

The old adage is, “If you don’t say it, it will never be used in a story.”

It seems as if a new company faces a new crisis on a daily basis. The reality is in today’s social media environment even a single person being offended can result in a communications nightmare.

The overriding key to handling any crisis is to be prepared for it before it happens. Trying to deal with a crisis during the crisis could be compared to nailing Jello to a tree. It won’t work.

Every business needs to take the time and develop a crisis communications plan. The first question should basically be “How would we handle it if _____ happens?” A plan won’t cover every possible crisis but should work out details such as who will be your spokesperson, what media will be contacted, how will you communicate with employees, etc.

Two current crises on the radar involve Starbucks and Yeti, maker of high-end coolers and tumblers. Starbucks overreacted to its crisis when two minority customers were arrested for not buying anything, while YETI pulled a program from the NRA and failed to respond for days until customers started destroying their products.

First, Starbucks. After the arrest and subsequent publicity Starbucks’ CEO immediately went into hyper-drive. He flew to Philadelphia and personally apologized to the two individuals (and worked out a financial settlement). The store manager was immediately vaporized.

The CEO did a groveling apology video and also announced the company will close more than 8,000 stores for several hours to conduct racial bias training for its 175,000 workers.

The move will likely cost the company millions of dollars in lost business and productivity. This comes on the heels from a company that was ridiculed for its earlier program of “Race Together” where it expected its employees to discuss race issues with customers. One would have thought employees had received race training at that time.

Unfortunately, according to Fortune, Starbucks has never articulated to its own employees exactly what its policy is regarding people who take up table space, WIFI, restrooms and electricity and don’t buy anything.

Fortune noted, “such judgments are generally left to store managers or individual store policies.” So this crisis could arise again if not specifically addressed.

While we have stressed that boycotting the NRA is not a wise decision by any business, YETI did just that by reportedly saying it would “no longer sell products to The NRA Foundation.” The decision was a head-scratcher since YETI owners and NRA members seem to go hand-in-hand.

The backlash was swift. Some folks actually posted videos of YETI products being destroyed (LINK). Destroying YETI’s overpriced merchandise (up to $1,300 for a cooler) makes a strong statement.

Unfortunately, it took YETI three days to respond to its crisis. It noted on Facebook that “we were offering them an alternative customization program,” and not dropping the NRA. The response was about three days too late. The crisis train had left the station.

The NRA even took the YETI battle to another level when it told members not to destroy YETI merchandise, but to put an NRA sticker over the YETI logo (LINK).

“Don’t blow up your YETI cooler. Don’t shoot your YETI cooler full of holes. Don’t chain your YETI cooler to the back of your pick-up truck and drag it down the highway. Don’t glue a toilet seat to YETI cooler. Don’t hang your YETI cooler in a tree and beat it with a baseball bat,” said an NRA spokesman, adding, “Let a sticker make your statement.”

Communicating in a crisis is an inexact science at best. In these instances, Starbucks has seemed to come up with a feel-good program that doesn’t address its core problem.

On the other hand, YETI failed to respond fast enough, and its image continues to take a hit with its core customers who happen to be NRA members.

(UPDATE: After nearly a month of silence on the topic, Starbucks has announced that anyone can come into their stores and sit at tables, use the restroom, WIFI, etc. and not have to make a purchase.)

A whole slew of companies are publicly going after the NRA and its 4.5 million members (a PEW study puts that closer to 14 million) and its supporters after the recent school shooting that killed 17 in Florida.

While this might garner some instant short-term goodwill from the many people and groups who feel some sort of gun control is now necessary, as a long-term strategy for a business it is not a wise public relations move.

Simply put, why alienate so many loyal customers?

In April 2016, Target jumped on the transgender issue and proudly proclaimed in a blog post that “transgender customers were welcome to use the bathroom or fitting room that matched their gender identity.”

It paid a very high price for that post.

The ensuing boycott cost the company millions in lost sales and added expenses. Shopper traffic and same-store sales started sliding for the first time in years.

“The company was forced to spend $20 million installing single-occupancy bathrooms in all its stores to give critics of the policy more privacy,” noted Business Insider. Target’s CEO admitted he was not aware of the blog post until after the fact.

While some marketers feel the moves by businesses to shun NRA members is a way to try and attract a younger demographic, it is very likely a misreading of the customers they serve. The NRA members are an extremely loyal group whereas millennials switch allegiances on a moment’s notice.

Already, companies who proudly attacked NRA members are seeing their unfavorability ratings skyrocket (link). In addition, the NRA is calling for its members to boycott all companies cutting ties with the organization.

The Governor of Georgia is threatening to rescind a major tax break Delta Airlines has enjoyed over its stance against NRA members (Link). It could cost Delta $50 million.

“Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s favorability rating slid from 61 percent to 50 percent, while its unfavorability rating jumped from 12 percent to 25 percent,” noted a Morning Consult survey. “For Alamo and National Car Rental, favorability was little changed, whereas unfavorability ratings increased from 10 percent to 24 percent and 11 percent to 25 percent, respectively.”

The latest company taking on NRA members is Dick’s Sporting Goods, whose CEO has proclaimed his company will not sell “assault-style” rifles or high-capacity magazines or pistols to anyone under 21 years of age.

The company took the same action in 2012 after the Sandy Hook shooting, but then sold them in its Field and Stream stores. Those 35 stores will no longer sell them.

The bottom line is that it is still bad business for companies to take hot-button issues of the day and get involved in making political and social statements. NRA members and their families will likely boycott Dick’s Sporting Goods and go elsewhere for all their sporting needs.

In the short-term these bans might result in praise from the news media. Long-term it will likely impact their bottom line and profits for years to come.

How would you react if a talk show host called your daughter a “whore” during a TV interview?

It is very likely your first (and some might say normal) reaction would be to personally attack the person making those crude remarks.

However, that is not how former Governor Mike Huckabee responded to vicious remarks by talk show host Chelsea Handler towards his daughter, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

It might provide an excellent media relations lesson that can be applied in business situations where the tendency is often “Fire, Ready, Aim.”

“That harlot that they’re dressing up and trolloping out every day?” Handler said. “I mean, one day she has no makeup on at all, the next she has six foot long eyelashes, she’s got cleavage and summer whore lipstick all over her face. Can you believe what they turned her into? A proper trollop.”

On “Fox & Friends” Mike Huckabee noted Handler’s remarks were “vile and vulgar,” and added,” “I know you’re probably expecting me to be very angry about it, but truthfully, when I read what she said and then I watched it, I felt sorry for [Handler].”

He then noted Handler had two abortions at age 16, was nearly his age (he’s 62, she is 42) is angry, bitter and jealous of the life his daughter has today.

Huckabee’s comments were a perfect example of a “sandwich” response that can be very effective. He said he felt sorry for Handler, unleashed some body blows on her, and then finished with “… No reason to be angry. Pray for her that she finds some peace.”

An all-out immediate and personal response by Huckabee would not have been nearly as effective. His response was masterful.

Since the presidency of Donald Trump began in January the public has had a unique view in seeing how many, many executives act when their true remarks/feelings/views go public. Unfiltered.

It is often not a pretty scene. It’s like the old joke where you really don’t want to know how sausage is actually made.

Trump, in his effort to show “transparency” to the public, has been sending unfiltered, unedited Tweets out on a random basis since he began running for President. They can come at any time of the day or night, and often seem to follow the “Ready, Fire, Aim!!” theory of communications.

His latest missives aimed at C-list TV personalities MSNBC hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough have totally derailed a series of recent legislative successes (LINK). Not only that, but his Tweets have actually enhanced the couple’s standing.

Communications professionals around the globe have been left scratching their collective heads and wondering, “In his wildest dreams how did he ever think talking about Brzezinski’s facelift would be a good idea?”

I have been in top-level corporate meetings literally hundreds of times. If the public was privy to many of the actual discussions they would be stunned. After one meeting where the company president repeatedly stressed the need for diversity I heard him casually remark to the HR director as we were leaving, “Okay, does that cover my ass legally now if we don’t hire minorities?”

It is impossible for President Trump to have an overall coherent communications message when he is shooting out Tweets from the hip. His staffers end up spending all their time and effort trying to clean up the most recent mess he created rather than focusing on any type of overall communications strategy.

Someone needs to stress to the President that his personal, off-the-cuff, tweeting must stop. If he won’t heed that advice he should at least agree that someone must read his Tweets before they go out.

The days of unfiltered Tweets from the President must end.

It has been called “appalling journalism.”

That might be considered a positive comment regarding an editing trick inserted into a documentary on gun ownership that has come to light.

Long-time NBC Today Show star and anchor at all three major networks, Katie Couric, now with Yahoo! News, is being severely criticized for highly questionable editing in her documentary titled “Under the Gun” after it was revealed an eight-second pause was inserted to make it look as if the people interviewed could not answer her question (LINK).

Luckily for the individuals being interviewed, one person was wise enough to record the Q&A (LINK TO AUDIO). Otherwise, questioning the bubbly media icon would have been virtually impossible and fruitless.

Couric was executive producer, host and narrator of the piece. Anti-gun activist Stephanie Soechtig produced and directed it.

In the documentary, a group of Virginia gun owners was asked by Couric: “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

Not only did Couric/Soechtig insert a pause (8-10 seconds), but they also inserted “B” roll of the gun owners taken before the interview even began. There is little doubt the editing was clearly designed to make it look as if Couric’s tough question made them speechless and uncomfortable.

Couric is now calling the edit an “unnecessary mistake,” according to an individual with knowledge of her thinking (LINK).

In an official statement, Soechtig countered, “my intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”

Couric now says she supports Soechtig’s statement “and am very proud of the film.” However, a few days later she admitted she regretted how she portrayed gun activists (LINK).

However, the National Review and Washington Post now say Couric should be fired over the deliberate misrepresentation (LINK).

This is a classic reason why at Bottom Line Communications we strongly advise clients to always record media interviews. Without actual audio evidence (below) the Yahoo! crew would have denied inserting the pause.

However, with the evidence journalism takes another huge credibility hit.

In Journalism circles, having a degree from the University of Missouri was often a ticket for success. It is not only the nation’s oldest Journalism school, it is also one of the most prestigious.

When rankings for the best “J” schools in the nation are posted the University of Missouri is almost guaranteed to be in the Top 10 or Top 5. However, that may have all changed due to the actions of a single media professor during the recent student uprising at the school.

A Mass Media Professor, Melissa Click, is shown in a video asking for “muscle” to remove a student photojournalist, Tim Tai, who was working for ESPN and in a public place. It is a horrible act by a college professor and shows a total disregard for the Journalist’s First Amendment rights, which is against what the school has taught for decades.

“Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here,” says Click.

A video of Click’s actions against Tai has gone viral and has well over 500,000 views (LINK) on a single site. The New York Times has written an extensive story about her actions.

What was once a sympathetic media for the protesters has now changed with the actions of students and faculty against them.

Technically some have pointed out Click works in the Mass Media Division of the Department of Communications in College of Arts & Sciences, which is separate from the J-school. However, she is listed on the School of Journalism’s site (LINK), which tars the entire Journalism program whether it deserves it or not.

Click had earlier Tweeted out that she she was looking for coverage of the event by Journalists. Later on she is clearly leading the charge against other Journalists with total disregard for their rights to cover the event.

With the resignation of the school’s President and Chancellor the University of Missouri is clearly being painted as a college where the inmates are running the asylum. Rather than act like a Professor, Click and other faculty members have clearly shown they were behind the student protests against the administration.

If the University of Missouri doesn’t hire a crisis communications team immediately its entire image for producing quality Journalism graduates could likely be tarnished forever. If the school was wise it already had a crisis communications plan in place for such an incident, but that is unlikely.

The first move would be to remove Click. But that would be a stop-gap measure since a faculty member helping foment the disturbance was an indictment on all the faculty. The school hired her, and whether tacitly or not, approved of her actions.

A statement issued today by the Dean of the Journalism School denied she was part of the faculty and sounded as if her days as a professor at Missouri were numbered. Click has also been forced to apologize in an attempt to save her job and resigned her “courtesy” appointment to the J-School.

However, a Kansas City reporter told BLC that the protesters are refusing to speak with local reporters and will only do interviews with national media outlets. That is the kind of move that will turn sympathetic local media against them now and in the future.

It’s a bad move.