Of Mammograms and Double-Speak

The Critical Importance of Message Development

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®


The most egregious mistake made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force before releasing its recent report on mammograms was either the failure to prepare a comprehensive and understandable communications plan, or believing what sounded like double-speak to lay people and even other doctors would be quite clear. Also, you have to wonder if the task force failed to anticipate the controversy it would be igniting.

Its spokespersons have served only to confuse and contribute to women’s concerns.

I’ve embedded several pieces of video in this post, making it longer than most. But if you’re looking to make a case for thorough message preparation and practice, then please take the time to watch each of them. And feel free to share this post with others.

What I've gleaned from the stories I've seen and read, the report's conclusion is that women under 50 should consult their physicians and then decide for themselves about the need and frequency for mammograms. I’m not interested in arguing the wisdom of that; I’m not a doctor.

The task force’s report has incited concern, anger, debate and vociferous disagreement, all fueled by a flurry of ambiguous and confusing statements and interviews. Their repeated missteps have managed to keep the story alive for a number of news cycles.

CNN American Morning co-anchor Kiran Chetry interviewed a breast cancer survivor who is well under 50 and, fortunately, discovered a tumor, thanks to routine testing. Then, Chetry turned to task force member Dr. Lucy Marion, Ph.D., RN and dean of the School of Nursing at the Medical College of Georgia (click on video).



CNN’s resident medical expert, Dr. Sonjay Gupta, participated in the interview and, as he listened, you could see the concern—if not anger—tighten his facial expressions. He questioned Marion--quite legitimately--from a doctor’s perspective on how to advise patients (click on video).



As confusion mounted, anchor Chetry asked Dr. Marion about the possibility of the task force reconsidering its recommendations (click on video).



The live interview ended there. But Gupta’s concerns did not. He continued interviewing Lucy Marion off-air and then played it back later in the morning, wondering how the task force's value of a human life came into play (click on video).



Meanwhile, ABC’s John McKenzie interviewed another U.S. Preventive Services Task Force member, Dr. Timothy Wilt. The result was only slightly better (click on video).



Like CNN’s Chetry, McKenzie asked Wilt if the task force might reconsider (click on video).



Yet a third task force member did tell correspondent McKenzie that she is consulting with fellow members on ways to clarify their message.

There’s an old saying, “Better late than never.” But you have to wonder if, in this case, it’s too late, that too much damage has been done by the task force because of its inability to deliver a clear and compassionate message.

Also the body language of Drs. Marion and Wilt did nothing to help them. Their wandering eyes and, in Marion’s case occasionally closing her eyes for a protracted period of time, detracted from their credibility and made me wonder if even they believe in the conclusions of the task force. Clearly, neither one seemed very comfortable with the messages.

Commander-in-Chief Rewind: Mishandling the News Media

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Are these really the same people who ran Barack Obama’s brilliant campaign? And is this president the same man who, as a candidate, talked about bringing an end to a politically polarized Nation’s Capitol?

It's too difficult to refrain from commenting on this “war” between the White House and Fox News. You can tolerate such stupidity only so long. And it is stupid.

By declaring war on Fox, the administration serves the best interests of Fox. Now all the other networks, as well as other national and local media nationwide are talking about Fox. You can’t buy that kind of exposure. And where does any administration, Democrat or Republican, get the right to ordain which media are legitimate news organizations. Additionally, where does their chutzpah originate to tell other networks not to follow administration stories that Fox breaks.

Especially interesting about that suggestion is that it came right after senior editors at both the Washington Post and New York Times admitted they failed to follow up the two major Fox stories on green jobs czar Van Jones and ACORN. Apparently, those mea culpas alarmed administration insiders.

There are other stupid things about this White House campaign. Fox dominates the cable news ratings by better than 2 to 1. Yet senior advisor David Axelrod and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel fired shots on separate networks a couple of weeks ago. That followed the first volley from Obama communications director Anita Dunn. And then, Valerie Jarrett, one of the president’s closest associates and advisors, joined the fight on CNN (click on video below). Ironically, she chose the network that comes in 4th in a four network race and where the smallest audience was watching.

There’s been some conjecture that the White House picked this fight now in order to divert attention from other things, like health care reform. But, has this ill-conceived offensive actually backfired and validated Obama’s fiercest critics?

Instead of their ongoing boycott of Fox News, the president and his senior aides could get a lot more mileage by making themselves accessible to the number one cable network. Since Fox has the largest, most diverse audience, it simply makes much more sense to reach out to all those people instead of alienating them.

Some other observations. If the administration continues trying to divide and conquer...that is, convince other news media to ostracize Fox, it might just find itself arming a bigger army of defenders. After all, the others have to figure if today it's Fox, tomorrow it might be us.

And, in the video below, CNN's Campbell Brown asked Jarrett if she believes MSNBC, often accused of being an administration lackey network, also is biased. Jarrett evaded the question and then proceeded to make vague accusations that Fox has aired inaccurate, inflammatory stories. Brown, a veteran reporter formerly with NBC News, failed to press Jarrett on the MSNBC question, and did not ask for specifics on Jarrett's claims against Fox. As a result, her timidity provided more evidence to CNN's own critics that it, too, is "carrying water" for the president.

Public Official to Reporter: “Do you know that Jesus loves you?”

Former County Executive Joe Ortwerth


By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Is your local public servant supposed to be doing God’s work? That question probably would receive conflicting—and contentious—responses.

The video below concerns a new juvenile justice center built in St. Charles County, Missouri. The county executive, Joe Ortwerth, had been at odds with county judges who wanted more security for the building before it was opened and populated. But, Ortwerth stood in the way. As a result, the multi-million dollar complex remained empty, yet had already started draining tax dollars.

Following a county commission meeting, a local TV reporter approached the county executive with questions about the dispute and related costs. Ortwerth first told him he’d only entertain questions submitted in writing. That's his first mistake. (As a former reporter I can tell you that requests like that only turn up the heat in the exchange; demands like that are an affront. In effect, they’re attempts to strip us of our duties and responsibilities to gather, edit and report.)

But this example goes from the ridiculous to sublime stupidity. As the reporter persisted, the executive asked THREE TIMES him if he knows that Jesus loves him.

Public officials spend public money, and they need to be prepared to answer for their decisions. Hiding behind Jesus is not among their responsibilities. Even the most religious among us should be offended by this former official’s outrageous method of refusing to answer for how he was conducting public business.

Attitude!

CNBC's Joe Kernen interviews Xerox CEO Ursula Burns (left); Yahool CEO Carol Bartz

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Attitude is key! How you feel about an interview going into it plays a big part in what you get out of it.

Negative feelings find a way to come out. Facial expressions, overall body language, even tone of voice (critical to phone interviews), can sabotage your prettiest words. And, vice-versa, positive feelings emerge the same way and are quite validating to what you say.

Here are two very positive examples of two women, both CEOs, who quite clearly enjoy the give-and-take of the interview.

Established relationships with the media often play a part in your attitude. The new CEO of Yahoo, Carol Bartz, obviously has some history with CNBC and the way she communicates verbally and non-verbally is very much in synch. In this video she has some fun with Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen during a recent early morning interview.



In a separate interview with Xerox CEO Ursula Burns in this next video, she uses humor to answer a question about the company stock price which provokes some laughter and warms the environment.



Bartz took over Yahoo after founder and CEO Jerry Yang was forced out by a board of directors angered over his refusal to accept a lucrative acquisition offer from Microsoft. Of course, that came up while Bartz was talking to the Squawk Box gang, and her reaction in this next video serves to dramatize further her complete sense of being at ease.



Finally, Burns’ great attitude helps her correct what she feels is an incorrect premise posed in a question from co-host Kernen. Watch the interview and make note of the fact she does not argue or talk down to Kernen. Indeed, she even relates to his world of work in her response.



Because these two CEOs are so comfortable with themselves and the interview environment, they leave a great (and persuasive) impression with audiences they wanted/needed to reach. Both are very articulate, but it’s their body language, reflecting great attitudes, that speaks loudest of all.

Making a Case Against Luxury Taxes

New revenue injections?

By Eric Seidel, CEO
The Media Trainers®

Luxury tax: A tax placed on products or services that are deemed to be unnecessary or non-essential. This type of tax is an indirect tax in that the tax increases the price of the good or service and is only incurred by those who purchase or use the product.

You’ve no doubt heard about some of the “creative” taxes being talked about and—in some cases—perhaps even close to reality. They are ideas your local, state and federal representatives may be dreaming up to fill in the recession-led shortfall they’re experiencing .

There’s the sugar tax, ostensibly to combat obesity in kids while also thinning your wallet. Coca-Cola Company CEO Muhtar Kent thinks it’s a bad idea. No surprise there, but he supports his position with one particularly interesting fact:

A study that says an excise charge on products like his extensive line of colored and clear sugar waters would be about .02% effective in reducing Junior's blubber. He recently made his case quite persuasively on CNBC. Watch for his proactive body language in this video, especially how he leans forward and punctuates points with his hands.

Then there’s the suggested Botax on Botox and related vanity medical expenses. Those ideas cut too close to home for plastic surgeons. To her credit, Dr. Jennifer Walden admits at the outset in a Fox News interview that any vanity tax would be bad for her business. She also makes a case for patients who need her services as a result of some kind of mishap, like an accident. And she takes it a step further, saying a Botax would be discriminatory (click on the video).



Dr. Walden definitely had her message prepared, and she probably rehearsed, too, which is advisable. But while turning away from her interviewer to face the camera may have seemed a cute little move, it came off as contrived and it was a distraction.