Feb 02
Tell it all and tell it fast in a crisis
In our media training and crisis management workshops, I usually show a slide with the simple phrase, “Tell it all and tell it fast.”
I came across that phrase probably 25 years ago when I was first getting into the crisis management business. The words graced a page of the first crisis plan I had ever read. Although very basic, that simple sentence has helped guide our firm in helping organizations cope with crisis situations for a very long time.
With some major crises in the news recently, I was wondering if the folks at Toyota and Johnson & Johnson might have benefited from that simple sheet of paper.
Although Toyota was initially praised for its unprecedented actions in halting the sale of cars that may be dangerous due to sticking accelerators, the talk seemed to change rapidly to “why didn’t they act more quickly?” A similar complaint was lodged against Johnson & Johnson, once praised for its swift and deliberate actions in recalling tainted Tylenol in 1982. Now with customers complaining of “moldy” medicine tablets – including Tylenol – the Food and Drug Administration and others are saying Johnson & Johnson should have acted sooner in recalling the drugs.
I have always interpreted the “Tell it all” phrase to mean that in a crisis, an organization should release as much information regarding the crisis to the public as fast as it can. That doesn’t mean holding back information that the company thinks might not ever become public. When under the media’s microscope, it is unlikely that few corporate secrets will remain secret, anyway.
And while organizations will probably never act as quickly as the media and their consumers would like, they need to act as quickly as they possibly can.
Reporters will always be asking the prosecutorial question: “What did you know and when did you know it?” If you can’t answer the question, “We acted as fast as we could, once we knew there was a problem,” then in the court of public opinion, you didn’t act fast enough.
Just reviewing some of the newspaper and internet comments on the Toyota crisis, it seems much of the public feels Toyota knew about its problems long before it ever announced actions to cope with it.
In an environment in which the media and much of the public is skeptical of big business to begin with, a crisis is not the time to create suspicions that you are dragging your feet on coping with the problem.
Tell it all and tell it fast. It is more than just a phrase. It is what organizations need to practice to the degree they can in times of crisis.
Dec 23
Dealing with the changing news media
Dealing with the news media has never been more of a challenge than it is today.
For starters, exactly what media are you dealing with? Is it the traditional media, the new media, the social media? Will it be television (cable or broadcast)? Will it be newspaper (print or web site)? Will it be radio (broadcast, satellite or internet)? Or, in stratospherically rising popularity of the internet, will it be a reporter from a web site you’ve never even heard of before?
In the past very few years, the news media have gone through more of a transformation than ever before. Newspapers, the one-time most powerful form of media on the planet, may still have some power, but there are fewer of them and even fewer people reading them as a primary source of news.
Television, according to most recent polls, remains the primary source of news for the majority of Americans. Newspapers, based on most polling information, aren’t even a close second.
The internet is where more and more Americans are getting their news. And it is growing as a primary source of news for more Americans every day.
“All I know is what I read in the newspaper,” the late humorist Will Rogers is quoted as saying back in the mid-20 Century. If he were alive today, he’d be in an absolute minority.
Newspapers, although declining in circulation, size and numbers; are still out there. And so is television, both broadcast and the 24-7 cable news outlets.
But it is the internet that may be creating tomorrow’s news media nightmare, particularly for the unsuspecting and unprepared business spokesperson.
Take the “twitterverse,” for instance. That’s the term used for the community of Twitter and their collective voice. Remember the “Tea Party” demonstration in Washington? Well, think what would happen if a “twittermob” of upset customers appeared in front of your corporate headquarters? A mob organized and activated entirely via Twitter.
The blogosphere is growing in numbers, popularity and power. Some internet news organizations rival their traditional print and broadcast competition today, both in staff size as well as the number of people who depend upon them for news.
What does all this mean for the corporate crisis manager or company spokesperson today? Primarily, it means they need to be aware of the changing news media and they need to be prepared to deal with it.
They need to know not all reporters work for traditional media outlets. They need to know which outlets they need to monitor and which outlets they need to communicate with in times of crisis.
Nov 30
Can consultants make a crisis "go away?"
“Make it go away.” That seemed to be the goal of a one-time crisis management client of ours several years ago.
The client had gotten itself into hot water with the news media and government regulators and instead of seeking advice in how to make the best of a bad situation, they simply wanted to engage a crisis management firm that would perform a disappearing act for them. They didn’t seem to care how it was done. They were willing to pay as long as we got rid of the problem and it didn’t take too much of their time or effort.
Unfortunately for them, crisis management doesn’t really work that way. At least not in the world we’ve been working in for the past 20-plus years.
Crisis management, at the least, takes a degree of cooperation and effort by the organization that’s involved in the crisis. While you may be able to buy your way out of some crises with the right consultant, I have yet to encounter that type of case.
Pardon the comparison, but it almost sounds like trying to hire a “hit man” to get rid of your problem.
Crisis management, I believe, is a team effort. It involves the organization affected, as well as the consultant…and sometimes additional players. A consultant alone – regardless of his experience and talent and how much he charges – is facing an almost impossible uphill battle if he tries to battle the crisis single handedly.
A crisis management consultant can offer advice and they can help implement strategies, but at the end of the day, it’s the organization’s reputation that’s on the line and the organization has to be in the center, starring role of any successful attempt to manage a crisis.
While the vast majority of the clients we’ve had the opportunity to work with over the years have been more than cooperative in providing any help we asked for, we do occasionally run across a prospective client now and then who just doesn’t seem to understand how crisis management works in the real world.
During the past several months, we’ve had multiple occasions where clients have wanted to hire our firm to handle crisis management much as they would hire a gardener to get rid of the weeds in their garden. They wanted us to make the crisis go away, but they didn’t want to get their hands soiled in the process. They seemed to figure with enough money, they shouldn’t have to involve themselves any more than writing a check now and then.
True crisis management begins with the formation of a crisis team. The team needs the talent and resources and expertise to handle the job. Yes, the team will probably need some outside assistance from time to time, but the team needs to maintain control of the process. You simply can’t outsource crisis management to a PR firm or crisis consultant.
In the best of circumstances, the team already has a relationship with a crisis management consultant. In the worst circumstance, they are looking for one at the worst-possible time.
A good crisis management consultant will offer advice and hopefully lessons from past experience that can help resolve the situation. At the very least, he or she should be a good sounding board for the crisis team’s own ideas of what should be done.
The consultant is not a substitute for the team’s own experience, or its knowledge of the organization and the industry. In the end, it is the role of the crisis team – not the consultant – to make decisions on what direction it should take in a crisis. The consultant only provides advice and counsel. Whether the team follows that advice and counsel is up to team members.
Together, the consultant and crisis team – along with the organization’s management and key players – have the best opportunity for forming a successful strategy. That opportunity is severely compromised if the team relinquishes its leadership and simply tries to hire a consultant who can make the problem go away.
Oct 27
Should spokespersons show emotion in a crisis?
In a recent individual media training session, I was asked by the student how I felt about spokespersons showing emotions during a crisis situation, particularly when the crisis involved injuries or possible deaths of employees.
As a female executive in a primarily male-dominated industry, she said she felt it was necessary to put a lid on her emotions as much as possible, if she wanted to be treated seriously by her subordinates and colleagues. It was something she said she had been working on since her early days in management. Now, as a potential corporate spokesperson, she asked if it was something she needed to continue.
I could only tell her what I’ve been telling other spokespersons and potential spokespersons over the years. As a spokesperson, particularly in a crisis, your credibility is your most important asset. And, I told her, that means you not only have to believe what you’re saying, but you have to believe in yourself, as well. That means, you have to be yourself.
A spokesperson can say all the right things and package their statement in perfect sound bites, but it means little if they are not believable. Unless you are an extremely good actor, it’s far better to be yourself than to try to be someone you think you ought to be. There are too many unemployed actors, as it is.
Personally, I feel a plant manager who is not somewhat emotional about the death of one of his or her workers is probably not going to be the organization’s best spokesperson. Sincerity, concern and compassion are all important in tragic situations, but they need to be real, not an act.
Overwhelming emotions, however, can present a problem. There are times when circumstances may dictate that someone with a better handle on their emotions might make a better spokesperson. That’s one reason we try to always have backup spokespersons available “just in case.”
Showing emotion is not only acceptable, it is expected in many circumstances. But, to be an effective spokesperson, you need to be able to keep your emotions under control. You can’t be an effective spokesperson, if your emotions keep you from speaking.
This debate over whether to show or not show emotions has far too often entered into the equation of who should speak for the company in a time of crisis. Is the person who appears to be a bit more emotional a better spokesperson than the person who genuinely just doesn’t show emotions that often? What about gender? Are women better spokespersons in a tragic situation, than men? Some people think so, including a lot of public relations professionals.
More than once, we’ve seen companies nominate a woman as their spokesperson in a crisis because they thought a woman would come across as more sincere and compassionate than a man. Does it make sense? What do you think?
It’s my belief that the best spokesperson is just that; the best spokesperson. If it happens to be a woman, that’s great. But don’t pick a woman simply because she is a woman. The same goes for her male counterpart.
If credibility is indeed the prime consideration in selecting a spokesperson, it stands to reason that the best person for the job is someone who knows what happened, is concerned about what happened, and is in a position to do something about it. Whether that person is male or female would appear to be irrelevant.
Ultimately, that person has to feel comfortable with what he or she is saying. They have to believe what they are saying. They have to be able to speak with conviction. And, to do all that, they have to believe in themselves and be themselves.
Sep 29
How much does media training cost?
Over the years, our firm has received literally hundreds of inquiries from prospective clients asking how much our media training sessions cost. When we tell them, some feel our prices are a bargain while others continue shopping for someone with a lower-priced package.
How much media training should cost is always a dilemma, both for the buyer, as well as the seller. Obviously, no media training firm wants to price their product out of reach for potential buyers, but at the same time; they can’t afford to lose money. And for the buyer, the best media training program in the world is worthless, if they can’t afford the purchase price.
Part of the problem, unfortunately, is that potential buyers often only see the quoted price as an equation that goes something like this: Fee + expenses divided by # of students (or program hours) = cost per hour or cost per student. Either way, the result can appear to look a bit hefty.
What they don’t see and sometimes don’t take into account is the cost of developing the program, equipment, staging and fine-tuning a workshop to make sure it is applicable to the client’s needs. Unfortunately, all clients’ needs are not alike and the expense of tailoring a program to meet the clients’ expectations can be formidable for the media training firm.
We were once asked to basically justify our workshop fees for a government agency that required annual contracts for our services. A simple flat fee for a daily workshop of media training, or a mock disaster, was insufficient, they said. They wanted to know how we arrived at the fee we were charging. They wanted it broken down to an hourly rate that would translate to the proposed fee.
To honor their request, I began keeping detailed records of the amount of time I spent in preparing for a workshop, along with the time spent by my colleagues. We also calculated what it would cost to rent the equipment we provided, the cost of workbooks, travel time, admin costs and everything else that went into the program. We did not include our costs for developing the program in the first place, or even attempt to put a price tag on the experience and expertise we brought to the equation.
The final result: if we had charged them our standard hourly rates – not including anything for developing the program - the price would have been dramatically higher than the fee we had proposed.
In the final analysis, however, the client rarely cares how much it costs the firm to conduct a media training workshop or mock disaster. Their concern should justifiably be centered on how much value it provides to them. Just as the media training firm can’t afford to put on programs that lose it money, the client can’t afford to pay for programs that provide little or no value.
In response to a question on media training costs posed on Crisis Management Forum.Com a few months ago, I commented there is some truth that you get what you pay for and advised against going with any firm, based on price alone.
Here are some factors I feel you should definitely think about before ever hiring a media training firm.
First, what is the firm’s experience? How long have they been doing media training and is it their full-time business, or just one of the services they provide? There is no certification nor licensing of media training firms, so just about anyone can put themselves out as a media trainer. Look up “media training” on Google sometime. There are literally thousands of firms to select from. Of those, relatively few work with major corporations and organizations day in and day out on a continual basis.
Who has the firm worked with in the past? What’s their client list look like? Does it include companies or organizations like yours? Can they provide references?
Who will be providing the training? What are their credentials? What is their experience? How long have they been doing training?
What’s the program look like? What does it include? What kind of instruction? How many on-camera interviews and critiques? Will it be tailored for your organization?
What’s included in the price? Does it include the camera and camera operator, study guides or workbooks, travel time and time for preparation?
Do you go to them, or do they come to you? Which way works best for you?
How large are their classes? Do they cap it at six or eight, twenty? Is it an “open enrollment” workshop for a number of students, or is it one specially designed for your organization?
Does it sound like it would fit your specific needs?
As I mentioned on the forum, fees for media training can range from a few hundred dollars to $10,000 or more. The industry standard, if there is one, probably lies somewhere in the $4,000 - $7,000 range for one-day group workshops, excluding expenses.
So how do you know if you’re getting the “right price?”
Talk to the firm. Talk to some of their clients. Make sure you’re comfortable with the firm, their presenters and their program. And, hopefully, you’ll find a firm that meets your needs, along with your budget.
Sep 15
When mock disasters become real
Sometimes a mock disaster can take on a life of its own.
Take September 11, 2009, when the Coast Guard in the Washington, D.C., area held a mock disaster on the Potomac. A CNN reporter picked up some of the radio traffic believing it was real. President Obama was speaking at the Pentagon for the 8th anniversary of 9/11. The story ran on CNN until they found out later that it was just a mock disaster. NBC ran it on their nightly news.
I’m sure CNN would like to have known from the start. The Coast Guard said they will review their operations procedures for disaster drills in the future.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported more recently that a pharmacy technician in New Jersey is suing her company for staging a mock holdup that included a masked gunman demanding OxyContin. She said the man burst in and told her he was holding another worker hostage. When she called for help, the phone didn't work. She later found out that it was all a drill. She is claiming assault, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. Another mock disaster gone bad.
For more on that story, go to http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20090914_Lawsuit_in_Burlco_over_mock_holdup.html
The point is that while mock disasters or disaster drills can be extremely valuable in preparing organizations to handle real disasters, those participating need to know exactly what they are from the beginning. They are called "mock" disasters for a reason.
Every phone call, every walkie-talkie call needs to begin and/or end with the words, "This is an exercise." Signs stating that the event being seen by passers by is a mock disaster need to be placed in public areas.
Everyone participating in the drill needs to know it is just a drill, not the real thing.
Believe me, I learned the hard way.
Years ago, our firm did a mock disaster for a hospital in which the CEO asked that only a handful of players would know that it was a drill. We went along with his request, figuring that everyone would know within minutes that it was an exercise. It didn't turn out that way. Even when we told them it was an exercise, some people didn't believe us.
Today, we won't always tell people what the exercise is about or exactly when it will take place, but they certainly know from the beginning that it is an exercise and not the real thing.
I heard about another hospital a few years ago that staged a mock disaster involving a gunman in the emergency room. They didn't tell people and the "mock" gunman almost got shot himself.
So if you want to stage a mock disaster, go ahead. Make it as realistic as you can. You don't have to spill the beans on what scenario you'll use or when or exactly where it might take place. But please, please make sure everyone participating and even those who may be watching from the outside know from the very beginning that it is a mock disaster.
There's no reason why a mock disaster needs to become a real one.
Sep 10
Myths, lies and crisis management
When did lying become such an acceptable part of political public relations?
That was a question I was asked during the heat of the debate on healthcare reform in America.
I really don’t know the answer, or even if it is becoming more acceptable today to lie in the name of winning a political campaign; whether it’s in support of a ballot issue, congressional legislation, or win majority control of Congress or a state legislature. Personally, I don’t think so, but I do know that lying is becoming more and more mainstream in politics.
On the national level in America, lying seems to have hit a new low when opponents of healthcare reform began crying out that the legislation being pushed by the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Obama Administration would require “death panels” to determine the future of our country’s elderly. Despite being debunked by the news media, the AARP, GOP political pundits and even many top Republicans in Congress, the lie continues.
It’s similar to the campaign by the so-called “birthers,” who claim that President Obama isn’t qualified to be president under the U.S. Constitution because he wasn’t born in America. Again, despite being debunked by just about everyone, the campaign continues. And yes, Hawaii is part of the United States and yes that is where President Obama was born. He was not born in Kenya.
In Ohio, there is a campaign today to allow gambling casinos in the state. Both campaigns are accusing the other one of lying. And, who knows which one is telling the truth.
The loophole that seems to open the door for lies these days is to say something “could happen.” Under that philosophy, just about anything is possible. So does that make lying more acceptable?
Lying, and how to confront it when the lies are being lodged against you, your campaign or your company isn’t new in America, but it does seem to be reaching new levels.
A national fast-food chain, years ago, had to respond to malicious allegations that there were “worms” in its hamburgers. Other consumer products have had smear campaigns linking their products to Satanism. The campaigns against those lies were long and costly even though there was never any truth to the allegations.
The problem is that no matter how ridiculous the lie may seem at the time, if it is told often enough, some people will ultimately believe it. That was the case years ago in America and it is even truer today, in part due to radio and cable talk-show hosts and the ever-present internet.
Despite the belief that America is a country of intelligent and well-educated people, we are – at least in part – a nation of individuals who at times can be extremely gullible and will believe what we want to believe, even when it is not true.
And for those of us in crisis management, fighting the "believable" lie may be one of the most difficult tasks we can face.
You can’t ignore lies. Not with the internet. Not with bloggers and talk-show hosts who will repeat them, even knowing there is no truth to them.
But how do you take them on? You can identify them for what they are; mistruths, myths, fabrications and lies. But you have to do it with credible statements and credible spokespersons. It is not easy and there is no guarantee that even that will work.
Over the past two decades in crisis management, I have often stated that the best quality a corporate spokesperson can possess is credibility. If people don’t believe you, it doesn’t make any difference whether you’re telling the truth or not.
Unfortunately, the opposite also exists today. If you’re an incredibly credible spokesperson, people may believe you even when you lie.
Aug 27
Crisis Management and the Web
For the past several months, one of the forums on this site has been discussing the demise of newspapers throughout the U.S. and how the web has become a more and more important way for Americans to get news.
The next question, for those of us in crisis management, is how does the shrinking role of newspapers and the growing role of bloggers, forums and online news sites change the way we do business?
For one thing, no one in crisis management can afford to ignore what happens on the internet. A misstatement at a public meeting can be captured on a videophone and end up on YouTube within seconds. So much for the daily news cycle. You can even forget about the continuing news coverage of cable television. Now it’s 24/7 on the web, worldwide.
What we’re finding in our practice is that the declining number of reporters on newspapers and possibly local television stations has been more than made up for by a flood of new “journalists” on the World Wide Web.
There was a time when you might have only worried about the three major networks, CNN and Fox, local television, your local daily and possibly a handful of other publications that might have an interest in what you were doing; particularly when what you were doing had the scent of a crisis.
Not to worry, but today you can be contacted any time of the day or night by a “reporter” or “columnist” for an online web site you’ve never even heard of. And, the fact that you’ve never heard of them doesn’t mean they don’t have just as much – if not more – power than your local newspaper might ever have had.
That happened to one of our clients the other day. The PR guy got a call from a freelance “reporter” with quite a following on the blogosphere. She was demanding, pretty much pre-determined what she wanted to do and she wanted it “now.” She had already called some of the company’s executives the night before and got through. Now, she just wanted to wrap up her story.
The risk with reporters like this one is not that different than some of the local newspaper reporters in the past. A “local” story can be picked up by the Associated Press and become national or even international within hours.
With the web, it works much the same although a story that begins on the web may end up on Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh within a few hours. All of a sudden you find yourself faced with trying to defend your company’s actions with a talk show host who has already made up his mind that you’re wrong. And, possibly his or her guest contributor on the show, is – you guessed it – the blogger who wrote the piece to begin with.
So how does this change the way we do business in crisis management?
For starters, you have to take every call from a “reporter” seriously. It doesn’t make any difference whether they’re writing for the New York Times or a web site. It also means you have to start watching the web a little more carefully because they may just write about your company without ever talking to you.
But, when you respond, if you choose to do so, you still need to react with a carefully constructed message that gets your point of view across. And, you need to respond quickly.
Trained spokespersons and crisis teams that can develop the right strategy and the right message are more essential today, perhaps, than they’ve ever been.
Just because the news may be moving more and more toward the web doesn’t mean that it’s gotten any easier to get your message across. It just means you’re dealing with a new medium. A sound bite is still a sound bite. A corporate message is still a corporate message. And a carefully orchestrated crisis strategy is still vital for your survival.
Aug 10
The Power of corporate apologies
Have you ever been running through an airport to catch a flight and then got up to the gate agent only to find out that your flight has been canceled? If so, then you know firsthand how important a simple apology might have felt at the time.
Instead, however, most of us get to the gate agent – often angry and upset – only to be told that the agent has (1.) no control over the problem, (2.) that it was an Air Traffic Control problem, (3.) that they’ll book you on the next flight out sometime next week, or (4.) good luck finding a hotel room at this time of night.
A little less excuses and a little more empathy and yes, even an apology, would go over real nice about now.
Perhaps it’s the potential legal repercussions or they just don’t feel responsible, but much of corporate America seems to have a problem with saying they’re sorry.
Years ago, we were working with a corporation that had been accused of wrongdoing that impacted the nation’s school lunch program. It was if, one news organization said, they were stealing the change out of little kids’ pockets. When we started looking into the problem, we found out that some of the company’s executive’s had indeed been involved in some shady behavior. In addition to trying to make the situation right, we went on network TV with a statement from the company’s second-highest ranking official.
His message: What happened was wrong. We will take actions to see that it never happens again and – oh yes – he apologized to anyone – particularly the school children – who were in any way impacted by his company’s actions.
A few years later, we were involved with a hospital where a nurse was involved in a scenario in which she was believed to have stolen powerful pain medications from post operative patients. When the hospital’s president went on television to talk to reporters, the message was once again: What happened was wrong. We will take actions to see that it never happens again, and – once again – he apologized to anyone – particularly the patients and their families – who in anyway may have suffered as a result of the nurse’s actions.
A similar statement has been incorporated in our consulting work for many years now, ranging from incidents of racial discrimination to people being evacuated from their homes due to chemical spills.
It was never said because it might help reduce the number of lawsuits (which it has in some cases), but because it was the right thing to do.
Today, more and more hospitals are inclined to take responsibility for their actions when someone does something wrong and patients are negatively impacted. The same thing seems to be happening to some extent with other industries.
Still, there are those who maintain that apologizing for an inconvenience or upsetting someone is not the way to go, even though ultimately it might work very much in their favor.
Although I’ve been a firm believer in the power or apologizing for some time, I was even more convinced when I heard a student in one of my media training classes tell the story of his brother who was involved in a car-truck accident.
He said while his brother was in the hospital hoping to recover from his injuries, the officials with the company that owned the truck went out of their way to make sure he got everything he needed and that the family was taken care of. All of this, he said, was done very quietly, without any fanfare whatsoever.
Following his brother’s death, the student said some members of his family wanted to sue the truck company for what they had done to his brother. But the victim’s mother spoke up. She asked, “How could we possibly sue them after all they’ve done for us?”
The bottom line was that she didn’t have to. The company could do absolutely nothing to bring back her son, but they did about everything that could have been accomplished in a lawsuit without ever having to go through the time and turmoil.
For more that two decades, I have been preaching that crisis management often can be defined as just “doing the right thing.” You don’t do it to avoid lawsuits. You don’t do it to save money. You just do it because it is the right thing to do.
That includes apologizing once in a while in times of crisis. Sometimes, it is just the right thing to do.
Jul 18
That's the way it was
Hardly a week goes by in our media training classes that we don’t hear complaints from our students regarding the news media. Often, it is about the media’s lack of objectivity. Often, they believe the news media is too opinionated.
We hear that Fox News is too conservative, that CNN is too liberal and that most newspapers are terribly biased in their reporting.
Oh, for the good ole days when reporters kept opinions to themselves.
That was one of the comments I heard Friday, just a few hours prior to learning of the death of the legendary Walter Cronkite: the most trusted man in America.
I was a student when Walter Cronkite first took over the anchor chair and I vividly remember sitting in a high school study hall when he reported on the death of President John F. Kennedy. In Vietnam, I used to view his newscasts – usually days later – after they were flown over to our information office. It was interesting to be in the war and see how it was being covered back home. It provided us with a perspective you couldn't get anywhere else. Partly as a result of his broadcasts, I changed my personal perspective on the war. Much of America did the same and as a result, Walter Cronkite changed American history. President Lyondon Johnson figured if he had lost Walter Cronkite's support, he had lost middle America's support.
Year’s later, I remember his reporting on Neil Armstrong becoming the first man to step foot on the moon. I’ll never forget it. My son was born the next day.
By the time Walter Cronkite was covering the Watergate scandal, I was a political reporter and saw his newscast as the one all other journalists used as a yardstick to measure their professionalism.
I was overjoyed at the thought in 1976 that I was going to scoop CBS on Jimmy Carter clinching the Democratic presidential nomination. But Walter wasn’t going to let that happen. He led with it the night before my paper could run the story.
Then there was the story I broke in China in 1978 about student unrest at the universities. Walter led with it and attributed it. I was in Seventh Heaven when I learned about it. To me, having Walter Crokite use your story was the gold standard. It couldn't get much better than that for a young reporter.
I never had the chance to meet Walter Cronkite, but clearly he was a big part of my life, as he was part of most Americans’ lives who watched television news in the 70s and 80s.
When I first started in public relations, Walter was no longer the CBS anchor, but he was still very much a part of journalism. My opinion is that he always will be.
As for the charges that many of today’s reporters and news anchors lack objectivity, it depends on whom you are comparing them with.
If Walter Cronkite is the standard, no one else will ever measure up. There will never be another Cronkite. And, that is just the way it is.
5:14 PM Mar 9