MyRagan: Blog

	View My Profile
	Add To Friends
	Send Private Message

Member since 07/29/2008

Blog viewed 7 times today

Speak! Communications, Inc.
The communications training company for anyone who needs to speak well to do well.

Main Blog Page

June 18, 2009
Obama's Media Strategy: Blitz or Backfire?

I was first a journalist; then a public relations executive; now a communications coach. Atop this tripod of experience, I see that:

Barack Obama remains, all by himself, a compelling story (journalists love that)
He has a publicity machine unmatched by any other administration (PR folks love that)
Everytime he opens his mouth, something silky-smooth comes out (communications coaches love that)

Two sides of me - the PR person and the communications coach - are fascinated by, and continually learning from, the Obama administration. The journalist in me wants to wretch.

NBC News spent three solid days in the White House to bring us two nights (three, if you count the re-run) on how cool it is to work in the White House - whether as the president or one of his interns. No news, really, just cool pictures. Now ABC News is blowing out all kinds of regularly scheduled stuff for two days of Barack Obama and health care reform. While the Republicans are peppering the White House with requests for balance, so far ABC has said no. They have even turned down a paid spot that would have played after the White House Health Care Showcase. Something doesn’t smell right to me.

Then, you crank in all of the public service announcements and paid commercials that the White House creates (i.e. the 60-second spot praising Sonia Sotomayor. Did that feel sort of icky to anyone else?), and it’s all feeling perilously close to a frightening level of propoganda.

If you’ve ever read my blog, you know that I voted for Barack Obama. I’d vote for him again. You see, this propoganda machine is not his fault. It’s not his administration’s fault. It’s their JOB to try to spin the media in their direction!

It seems to me, it’s the media’s job to find the real news - and then balance it. To do that, they will have to wipe the stars from their eyes.

comments, Post A Comment!

MarcyOne posted 06/29/2009:

With a few exceptions, reporters don't really report anymore. They accept and regurgitate whatever fits their views or seems to be the accepted viewpoint. Where was the reporting during Bush's run-up to the war in Iraq? Nost didn't question or fact-check anything because that would make them unpatriotic. Too many stations have 24 hours to fill causing them to rush to spew rumors and celebrity garbage all day. And what makes all their "experts" trustworthy too, the fact that they get a paycheck to offer opinions?

betsystevenson posted 06/29/2009:

When living in France, I found that the top tier newspapers didn't pretend to present a neutral, unbiased view. They made their political perspectives clear and people tended to read the papers that reflected their own opinions. Top tier US media took a different approach, presenting their reporting as unbiased. When readers/viewers/listeners saw points of view influencing the reporting in information sources that claimed not to have opinions, trust in the media was eroded. The predominantly liberal bent of so many mainstream media outlets, led to the development of self-described conservative news and commentary programming like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. What do you think: Is it part of human nature to be neutral? Can any of us be neutral on complex topics that can have different impacts on different groups?

KBrekken posted 06/26/2009:

I agree with the comments that this honeymoon too shall pass. I also think the fact that Obama is so accessible to media - he does a better job of getting his narrative across.

Cher1117 posted 06/26/2009:

I don't know about you, Gayle, but my lessons in objectivity in j-school is that there is no such thing as true objectivity. Instead, journalists must be very self-aware and provide balance for their internal biases. On another note, I think there used to be a clear difference between reports and columns/opinion pages. Now it seems that every reporter also has commentary, and every columnist/blogger/guy with a web page is a "journalist" because he/she "reports" rumors, hear-say and scandal. Reporting isn't just repeating what you've heard. It's digging in, getting other sources, reflecting the different perspectives... now non-existent.

obpr posted 06/23/2009:

I agree with you, but am very curious how you can give the Commander in Chief a pass on the effectiveness of his PR team. He drives it and it works to meet his expectations. It does a great job for him, and that's to his personal credit and blame, if you want to call it that. The one thing that many are sidestepping here is the aligned agendas of the media and the current administration. Senior member of media organizations want unions to grow, government to grow and take care of more parts of daily living, they want national healthcare and they love to vilify private industry. On foreign policy, the alignment is the same. Obama is certainly charismatic, but its his shared objectives that explains why and and the media are dancing so well together.

kentguida posted 06/22/2009:

The wretching response is becoming more common every day. The MSM will never regain its lost credibility, and that loss, together with its deteriorating finances, makes it the General Motors of the information industry. But the workers have no UAW to muscle up a perpetual subsidy. The workers under 55 must be very glum. What will they be doing 10 years from now? Ghost-tweeting for movie stars?

Photograbber posted 06/22/2009:

The Emperor has no clothes! That should be apparent to anyone that's paying attention. The mainstream media has no objectivity or integrity. They abandoned it to push their personal political beliefs a long, long time ago. From one's local paper and TV, to the network "news", it should be apparent to anyone what side they will always take. It's laughable but it's also enough to make one cry. Logic and reasoned argument are lost to trite sensationalism and pop culture icons. Of course the current Administration will take advantage of any opportunity to press their agenda. That the media so openly shares the same agenda with no shame at all is truly a shame.

PaulaSnap posted 06/22/2009:

I agree with you that the reporting isn't balanced. I disagree with comments stating that Obama will inevitably face a media backlash: Obama has charisma and a persona that Bush never had. He is a master at inclusiveness, while Bush + team were pretty good at alienating people. I doubt the coverage will stay AS positive as it is now, but don't expect the opposition to have their day by waiting it out. We do still have freedom of speech and a free press here in the US and I'm grateful for it. But this doesn't guarantee that Truth will win out, that reporting will be balanced or fair, or that quality information actually gets added to the national psyche.

qulliant1 posted 06/22/2009:

While a certain degree of media bias has always existed, the bias meter flew off the scales regarding Obama's election. When NBC executives admit to witholding all negative stories about Obama and other media outlets and industries are intimidated into responding favorably toward the Executive Branch, a dangerous precendent is set for our country. A person with Internet access can find many questionable political situations to investigate. Does ACORN ring a bell? Further examination uncovers some disturbing possibilities. However, as long as the mainstream media refuses to investigate the obvious, what hope exists for our country's welfare. The media used to be revered as the government "watchdog." Sadly, they have relinquished this role in favor of swaying elections. Any American - liberal, conservative or otherwise - should be outraged over this. The most disheartening thing about this media evolution is that some of my fellow citizens have come to accept it, even approve of it--that is, of course, as long as the media coverage is tilted toward their views. The people who spew hateful insults about those with dissenting views are the very ones who flunk their own test of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. . In response to hitxpr's vitriol, don't make the mistake of thinking that rebublicans are the only group unblinded by Obama's capabilities or lack thereof. As an Independent, I was not totally sold on Bush, but I am less sold on Obama. He speaks well, but that appears to be his only positive trait. Bush may have pushed for the 1st TARP bailout, but Obama has far surpassed this perceived wrecklessness by pushing for more TARP funding replete with unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. To add insult to injury, he wants to further bankrupt our country into oblivion with "Big Business" energy policies and inefficient, expensive and bureaucrat-run health care reform programs. The mistake liberal-minded people always make is that there are only 2 choices, and any opponents of their view must be dull-minded Republicans. Be careful what you wish for, because when you wake up from your Obama-induced stupor, you may have lost everything you valued in this country. Many people who fled other countries that have been in the direction we're heading, are disgusted that we could be so blind and foolish. The media would be wise to wake up before they too lose their elusive position and find they were tossed aside once they fulfilled the purpose of their master.

PodiumDiva posted 06/22/2009:

I think it comes down to the sordid topic of ratings. With 24 hours of space to fill on dozens of channels, we have to be careful about what we call "news." I still remember when there was only the big 3 (ABC, NBC, CBS) even then it wasn't objective. Journalism has always fought with producers and editors who have too also pay the bills. I believe that in any given day (barring a perfect slashdown in the Hudson or emergency storm warnings) there is only 30 minutes of newsworthy action to report. So what do we do with the other 23 hours and 30 minutes--"reality" shows with F list celebrities, music channels that don't play music, newsroom interns scouring the internet for salacious and titilating gotcha items, and commentary that reacts to the press confererece and press releases that was set up by a PR person as well as outrageous talking points delivered by partisan talking heads that downgrades debate on critical issues into pre-brawl shouting matches. Objectivity is not the goal anymore, ratings are the holy grail of news so even mainstream news walks the slippery slope. So your point about Obama is well taken. News outlets are simply riding his coattails for ratings (taking into account that natural curiosity about the first black president will require a lot of audio and video before it is satisfied) and when the tide turns which will happen, the pendulum will swing back and the complaint will be that everyone is too hard on Obama. Objective journalism is still being practiced out there (PBS, for example) where commercialism is not the driving force behind the news cycle.

PR85003 posted 06/22/2009:

I couldn't agree more with this blog. What made the U.S. media so great -- and our journalists so trusted -- was their timely, honest and balanced reporting which presented both sides of an issue. They provided accurate information from which individuals could make up their own minds about an issue. While there are still great journalists who adhere to those principles, I'm seeing less and less balance in stories today - especially anything relating to President Obama or his policies. More "news" today seems to be filled with reporters' opinions rather than facts. It's outrageous that the upcoming ABC-TV White House special is silencing those with different opinions on health care reform and not allowing them to voice any alternatives as part of the program (or even paid ads). This is not journalism. It's beginning to feel more like propoganda. I agree with Lynn. This is "icky." Something about it just doesn't smell right.

LoSierra posted 06/22/2009:

Welcome to free markt America where EVERYTHING is measured on level of profitability rather than its usefulness to humanity. News organizations are beholden to shareholders and the bottom line. It is my belief that news is priceless. A strong, thruthful news machinery will do more for human evolution than any weaponry can. Sadly we've become a "me vs you," "us vs, them" society. We are no longer wrong. And we certainly don't admit mistakes. I admit to this myself. I sit every night yelling "right on" to Countdown with Ketih Olbermann. In my world view Fox viewers are bible thumpig war mongers who've become my favorite post-modern joke. Soon, the media will have a tremendous push back against Obama. nothing against Obama. Just simple capitalism. It's no different than the fashion industry which needs to adjust a stitch or two and sell it as revolutionary.

hitxpr posted 06/22/2009:

I grew up overseas. Every country has its own "propaganda" - and probably the worst case of it I've ever seen came with the first Gulf War under Bush Sr. Bush Jr's two wars andhis "War on Terrorishzm" is another example of blatant propaganda. The worst propaganda is usually war-related. Obama is doing great - and it's no wonder to me that journalists like him and maybe have "stars" in their eyes - for once, we have elected an articulate, elegant and compelling candidate who is not only highly intelligent, but also highly media savvy (witness the fly-swatting incident live on tape during an important policy interview!)... I can't imagine anyone more deserving of public and international acclaim and adoration. Let's enjoy it while it lasts - already the jealous Republicans are chomping away with their message of "NO!" and anti-Obama rhetoric at every possible (and implausible) turn of events. Their ignorance and arrogance is just showing in spades and with Obama as their "foil" they seem even dumber than dumb.

glynn posted 06/22/2009:

I don't see any difference between what happened during the Obama campaign and what is happening now with the Obama Administration. The consistency is rather remarkable, in fact. And I'm referring specifically to the consistency of the news media.

ManicMonday posted 06/19/2009:

I've said for many years that if you want objective content, read the telephone book. Or recipe book. Or a dictionary. Even then, bias may lurk in the content they DO NOT show you. Given the proliferation of biased information and the scarcity of its opposite, it's a wonder we're able to function as a nation. Or perhaps we place the illusion of objectivity on too hight a pedestal. Consider, for a moment, those stirring instances when a national leader declares before millions, "The American people demand...," or, "The American people will not stand for...," or, "The American people deserve better." Who are these "American people"? They're you and me, of course. Intelligent. Well-informed. Eminently able to think critically and equipped with hair-triggered Icky Meters that warn us should woolen blinders be detected within a mile of our keen, flinty eyeballs. Propaganda--the bad, Goebbels kind--would be wasted on us, so if anybody's using it and paying for air time to spread it, maybe they're NOT addressing their comments to you and me, but to another group of "American people", those ignorant, uninformed dullards with a penchant for one-liners, lurid headlines and celebrity gossip. Given that possibility, perhaps the problem, after all, doesn't lie with the propagandists.

arceil posted 06/19/2009:

We're still in the honeymoon that every new president enjoys. The press even swooned over Nixon in the early going. It adored Reagan, and it fawned over Clinton and Bush43 for a time. It won't last. It never does.

brucepilgrim posted 06/19/2009:

"Propaganda" has gotten a bad rap, mostly thankis to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's mouthpiece. If you look at the definition of the word without that baggage, it is a fairly succinct definition of what we prefer to call PR. Every president of the modern era has used propaganda to persuade others, to present themselves in the most positive light possible, etc. The Obama folks are very good at it, though. As far as "objectivity," I think that only happens in an ideal world. We all have points of view. TV networks certainly do, as well. The one that calls itself "fair and balanced" is neither, nor are any of the others. We all view things through the lenses of our experiences, background, influences, etc. The best of the best of journalists have always had a point of view because they are human.

Gayle posted 06/19/2009:

Bingo! Whatever happened to the objectivity lessons journalism schools used to teach students? Apparently, objectivity has gone the way of the fax machine - almost totally irrelevant today.