Why does the press do such a bad job dealing with the press? The New York Times' handling of the Jayson Blair scandal is just the latest in a long line of examples of brilliant news organizations making dumb choices when it comes to themselves.
As a media strategist who has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton during rough times (and good ones), part of me is chuckling that one of the news organizations that lectured them most frequently on how to handle their troubles could not figure out how to handle its own. But I also have a lot of sympathy for Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Howell Raines, or anyone else caught in the maelstrom of a scandal. And the media have struggled with their share.
Time magazine, when caught darkening a cover photo of O.J. Simpson, first claimed it was "art." Newsweek, when caught hiding the identity of the author of "Primary Colors" while running a story speculating about the author's identity, went on the attack. ("Get a life," it said dismissively.) CNN was slow to fess up about its inaccurate "Tailwind" report on nerve gas used during the Vietnam War. CBS toned down a "60 Minutes" interview with tobacco industry whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand; months of bad press followed before it ran the full interview. What's the problem here? Why does it take America's best journalistic organizations so long and so much public embarrassment to come clean about their mistakes?
I think the first problem is that journalists are surprisingly naive. Although they've been on the other side of a feeding frenzy, it's impossible to know what it's like until you're there. Think of pilots who get caught in storms without navigation equipment and don't know what's up or down. Then imagine that happening at supersonic speed. It's disorienting. It's maddening. It can be terrifying.
I think the experience may be particularly difficult for journalists who tend to have a sense of righteousness that often comes without self-awareness. The truth is that journalists are used to judging others and not being judged.
When politicians or corporate executives have their integrity questioned, they often bristle. Journalists never understand this. They think it is arrogance or ignorance. But when the reputation of a news organization is at stake, the defensiveness is usually even greater. The instinct is to minimize what's happened, to point to all that's good in the organization and to insist that everything is back on track. The New York Times' first statement -- that the Jayson Blair case was just about Jayson Blair -- is a classic example of this.
And unlike people in most other public companies these days -- companies that have had to become increasingly adept at dealing with the public, their stockholders and the press -- journalists and media companies remain quite insulated. There is more reporting about the media than ever before, but still, the average newspaper editor is less likely to face press scrutiny than the average CEO. When trouble hits, few people are used to being accountable to the press.
What should a newspaper or network do when faced with a scandal?
First, remember some of the cliches you reach for when trouble hits the politicians you report on: "The coverup is worse than the crime." "Everything that can be known will be known, so get it out fast." They're cliches, and they're true. Yet, once you're inside the feeding frenzy, you'll see, as Raines did, what tough advice this is to follow.
Second, don't trust your gut. The first instinct of most people or organizations in trouble is to close the door and hunker down with your closest associates. This is usually the worst thing to do. You have to assume that none of you has the perspective or expertise to deal with the problem you are facing.
Think about the four-page article the Times ran, supposedly telling all about Blair. From the self-congratulatory tone of the piece and the editorial that day, it was clear that the Times thought it was putting the scandal behind it. But any casual reader -- not in Times management -- could have told them that this "tell-all" told nothing about the heart of the story. The questions of race or the Times culture or Raines's personal style were glossed over.
I know that for most journalists, communications strategy is anathema. Reporters spend their days trying to pierce the spin of the people and institutions they cover. When a scandal hits, rather than develop a smart communications strategy and execute it, news organizations tend to resist. They don't want talking points. They don't want strategy. They find all that contemptible. They think they'll just tell their story and everyone will understand. It rarely works that way.
Damage control requires being independent enough to assess the depth of the damage. It means defining the audiences you need to communicate with -- Raines clearly lost his constituency within the paper as much as the outside world. Then you need a credible message, credible messengers (inside and outside your organization) and effective channels for communication.
It's good that the Times mess comes at the start of a presidential campaign. Surely there will be some scandal or feeding frenzy between now and November 2004. Even if they don't work at the Times, journalists will, one hopes, pause and reflect before they sink their teeth into the next one.
The writer is a Democratic media consultant.
