| CHAPTER 7 |

IN G-D WE TRUST, NOT THE MEDIA

The Press Has a Job to Do—You May Not Like It

“Know that the amount of criticism you receive may correlate somewhat to the amount of publicity you receive.”

—Donald Rumsfeld

A large part of public relations is feeding information to reporters, for attribution or not. Reliable sources are so important to reporters and writers that many have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources. For example, former reporter Judith Miller of The New York Times spent 85 days in prison to protect a source in the notorious Valerie Plame leak case; freelance writer Vanessa Leggett spent 168 days behind bars for refusing to release materials related to a murder investigation; an academic researcher spent more than five months locked up for refusing to reveal sources in a study he did of a radical environmental group, and the list goes on. Journalists go right into war zones to cover stories, and many have died on the battlefield. How willing would you be to sacrifice your freedom or your life for your profession? Journalists do it regularly.

In fact, hardworking reporters rely on information, both on and off the record, from a wide range of sources for leads, story ideas, and background. Every day, sources work hand in hand with journalists to create narratives, provide tips, and share information. These informants jockey for placement with writers who are pushing for more and better exclusive leads, tips, and facts. When reading newspapers, I can often discern between stories that came from a PR pitch and those that resulted from a tip, whether a corporate or industry “insider,” a politician, or a blogger. All in all, there is a tremendous amount of sharing that goes on between writers and sources that can result in a feature or news story placed being above or below the fold or in the “scroll” (whether on a physical newspaper or a screen), which are often evident to a trained or informed eye.

The process requires a certain level of trust between parties. Without trust, the journalism industry wouldn’t—couldn’t—function. While it’s important to understand that developing friendly professional relationships with reporters is vital to your brand’s success, it does not mean that reporters are your friends. They aren’t. The story always comes first for them and it always will, just as your personal story, brand, or job comes first for you.

IT’S OKAY TO SAY NO

Most businesses that want to build their brands have to talk to the press and communicate directly with constituents. Let me offer a caveat and a word of reassurance. You are never obligated to talk to the press (and you don’t have to plead the fifth in order to keep your mouth shut in front of a reporter, either). There are companies and personalities who have a policy of not talking to reporters. I understand why Supreme Court justices rarely grant interviews, or why certain novelists (Anne Tyler and the late J.D. Salinger come to mind) don’t grant face-to-face interviews or make personal appearances. We have some clients for whom the same is the case. Some individuals don’t need the press to accomplish their goals, and often, the press can get in the way of their goals.

  Anita Dunn, a former Obama administration advisor, had it right when she said, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job if it weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give. We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.” It’s a constant balancing act—one where we give a little and take a little.

There are many situations where I advise clients to keep quiet. We have several clients who retain 5WPR specifically to keep them out of the press and public eye. Strategic avoidance of the press is an art. We have a client in a business with ridiculously high margins, in a business where many could attack him for what he does, and he gets upset when maybe once a year the media attacks him. My response to him has been consistent: you’ll never win with the media in your business, so be quiet, build an impenetrable barrier for yourself online, and keep doing great work to make your clients happy. One negative story a year is the price of success for this client. We will battle to make it as balanced as possible but it won’t be great. Don’t get drawn in and try to go proactive with the media and get noticed. In this circumstance, it will only bring more attention and it’s a fight you won’t win; negative media can bring many negative consequences. Winning for him is being quiet and making money; he’s better off staying below the radar and avoiding the media. And we regularly self-produce positive content to feed to search engines, which helps to counterbalance (and push back) potential negative stories.

Some of the companies and brands that seek out media exposure need to carefully calculate the access they give the press. There’s no reason to accept every invitation or grant all media requests. Some yield to the temptation to get as much exposure as possible. Do your homework so you know when to say yes and when to decline.

There have been many times I have fought with reporters over access to a client, and they ask why we won’t just cooperate since they are just doing their jobs. I always respond in kind: we are also doing our jobs by protecting our clients. The media can get angry if we say no, and I sometimes retort, “Sure, we can say yes if I have final approval of the story.” And then they say, “Well . . . but  . . . ” and I respond, “Well . . . no!” We have to protect our clients.

Anita Dunn, a former Obama administration advisor, had it right when she said, “The press corps wouldn’t be doing its job it if weren’t demanding more access than we’re willing to give. We wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t occasionally irritate the press.” It’s a constant balancing act—one where we give a little and take a little.

The decision to pass on an interview request is a decision we make after checking into a reporter’s or news organization’s background and past performance on issues related to the client in question. It’s easy enough to do background research and find out what reporters, writers, bloggers, and television anchors have said before saying yes to access. Know what they cover and how, and learn everything you can about their point of view. Once you have a good idea where they’re coming from, think about the potential story or headline that might result from an interview. Is it good for the brand? If it’s not, and you have a choice, why ante up with a reporter you’ve predetermined to be biased against your position when there are so many other journalists you can gamble on to better the odds?

Have Faith: If the Media Wants to Hurt You, It Will.The Question Is—How Much?

We represent some of the leading Christian ministers and evangelical churches in the United States. There is one for whom we do not grant interviews with certain reporters, specifically those reporters who don’t pray or at least have some religious understanding and sympathy. If a client does only a few interviews a year, why let someone hostile to Christianity or organized religion conduct those interviews? I don’t believe that a person who hasn’t prayed to G-d or doesn’t believe in G-d will be impartial about religion. Is a person who hates the opera (or knows nothing about it) the most qualified person to write about Tosca? Does someone who wears the same clothes day in and day out have the best perspective on designer fashion? Journalists need to know something about a topic beyond just pre-interview background reading or book learning in order to write effectively and with objectivity. And I do think that if you have a predisposed opinion about a topic, it isn’t easy to push that opinion away when covering it as a writer. Bias exists and has an impact on stories. Journalists should recuse themselves from covering certain stories when they cannot overcome a bias.

I have one client, a preacher with a large church and following, including on television, and I challenge him every single time he wants to do secular media interviews. I fight him every step of the way because this minister feels in his heart that people are naturally good and fair-minded, and if they hear what he has to say, he will win them over. Problem is, neither he nor I are going to write and edit the final story, and the media has a certain picture of him they don’t want to change.

I remember fighting off a producer from 60 Minutes on behalf of another religious ministry. The producer “threatened” not to call me again for an interview with this client if I didn’t grant this one (the show had been asking for an interview for a long while). My response was, “Is that a promise?” I wanted him to assure me he wouldn’t call again, but he thought he was threatening me. Really, though, we were on the same page. This particular client is better off without 60 Minutes. We don’t need to do an interview that we know from the get-go will be hostile and won’t score points for our client. When we want to do an interview for this client, we’ll be better off doing it with Fox News or a Christian broadcaster, for example, where the odds would be in our favor for a fairer outcome. At any rate, both of these outlets reach the client’s core audience more frequently than 60 Minutes does.

I had a similar situation involving a reporter from a daily newspaper who had dogged a client, the head of a church, for a year. She was a religion reporter who also happened to be a member of a church diametrically opposed to everything my client’s church stands for. We knew that someone from inside our client’s church who had an ax to grind was feeding the reporter rumors and information—some true, most not. The things that were true were made to sound scandalous when, in fact, they weren’t. It was doubtful the reporter would give the pastor we were representing a fair shake.

In fact, given the tone of the reporter’s questions, and the questions themselves (which centered around his finances and success), it was clear she had already made up her mind about my client and wanted to set about “proving” a set of nasty preformed beliefs she had about him. Part of her point of view was that spiritual or religious people are doing something unethical and dishonest if they are financially successful. At issue, in the reporter’s mind at least, was the pastor’s alleged “lavish lifestyle.” He is a successful minister, writer, and speaker, and leads a large congregation, which he had grown quite successfully. The reporter had a problem with someone being successful and spiritual (and made her position on this clear in discussions we had).

Once she makes that assumption for readers, it’s clear which angle her story will take. (I also believe that on some psychological level it bothered her that a pastor was making more money than she was.) Not all religious people take vows of poverty. In fact, some pastors preach the Prosperity Gospel, a belief based on the idea that followers have a right to the blessings of health and material wealth and that these blessings can be obtained through sowing the seeds of prosperity via positive confessions of faith and faithful payments of tithes and offerings.

I vividly remember a discussion I had with that client about shopping. A family member of the pastor had visited a local furniture store and purchased a few thousand dollars worth of merchandise, which the person had paid for with her own money, so there was certainly no wrongdoing. However, the shopping “spree” became a lead story in the pastor’s city. I recommended that the pastor tell his family that if they wanted to buy things they shouldn’t do it a few minutes from their home, where people could be watching and talking. It’s not a question of doing something wrong; it’s a question of perception. Be discreet and drive an hour away to shop. Once you have “made it,” your every move is highlighted and noticed, and even if you don’t know everyone, they all know you.

The reporter’s story didn’t uncover any legal improprieties, but it did create fodder for the town gossip mill since it presented, in tabloid fashion, the supposedly indulgent lifestyle the pastor and his family enjoyed. It led to blog postings, and local TV and newspaper stories as well.

In a crisis it’s necessary to counter every accusation. There was nothing the pastor could have said to win this reporter over or persuade her to present the pastor’s side of the story fairly, but we were able to minimize the damage. Ultimately, our efforts resulted in a story that was 20 percent negative instead of 90 percent, which we considered a victory. Unfortunately, many reporters (this one included) have an agenda that affects the kind of story they write. Often, part of the agenda can be to destroy successful people with whom the reporter disagrees. Part of PR is fighting these personal motivations, as I explain in more detail in the “Know Thy Enemy” section later in this chapter.

Similarly, we represented televangelist Paul Crouch, founder of Trinity Broadcasting Network, the world’s largest Christian broadcasting network, during a legal battle regarding an alleged high-profile homosexual affair with a man named Lonny Ford. Reporter William Lobdell of the Los Angeles Times was writing stories alleging all sorts of terrible things about Crouch, one of the world’s most prominent Christian leaders. Lobdell’s stories generally glossed over the fact that Ford was a repeat felon, and that the $425,000 Crouch paid Ford was to settle a wrongful-termination lawsuit, without Crouch admitting guilt, and to avoid a lengthy and expensive trial. This is a tactic often used by companies per the recommendation/demand of their insurance companies, attorneys or advisors. For a high-profile, high-powered person, “nuisance” lawsuits are distracting, and very often cost more in terms of time and distraction to fight than simply settling. That said, settling these kinds of suits is not an admission of “guilt,” and that is certainly true here, as Crouch did not admit guilt. Unfortunately, settlements can be wrongly perceived as such by uninformed people; a belief that may be egged on by a reporter’s innuendo.

Repeated calls from community and national leaders to Lobdell on Crouch’s behalf didn’t stop Lobdell from reporting in a scandalous manner on the story. Neither did it stop a judge from awarding Crouch $136,000 in legal fees to be paid by Ford for his violation of the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically the prohibition against discussing the settlement’s details after it was awarded, which he had. And where’s reporter Lobdell now? He’s published a book entitled How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America—and Found Unexpected Peace. He was the “unbiased” religion reporter at the Los Angeles Times?Lost his faith but was the faith reporter? He did resign his post as a religion reporter, but not soon enough, in my opinion.

We have worked with other pastors of the evangelical Christian world whom I cannot and will not name. So many in the media have such a burning desire to destroy these people because they don’t agree with their views. While the rules of engagement for Christian churches and religious leaders may not necessarily be the rules of engagement for your business, there is still something to be gained from what we’ve learned working with certain religious organizations and the press.

1. Beware of the media using stolen or falsified documents: in the Christian world there’s a well-known dumpster diver who literally retrieves the trash of big churches finds information and then shops it to national and local media, hoping they’ll run a damaging story. He supplies it to government agencies and others. Similar people rummage through the trash of businesses and celebrities. Have and use a shredder to destroy sensitive documents. Know the law—the media isn’t permitted to use stolen documents, nor documents they can’t verify are 100% authentic (i.e. not fabricated, doctored, etc.). Call them on it aggressively if they try. Media is a business, too—and it doesn’t like being sued any more than the next guy.
2. Beware of letting employees have access to sensitive information. You can’t—and shouldn’t—trust all employees. Success and access can quickly become major PR issues, so learn about passwords, firewalls, and what you need to do to protect information from prying eyes. Have a system of seniority related to access to sensitive or financial information. Lock up your data or files, otherwise you may see them in the media tomorrow. A security breach can become a major PR problem when documents are leaked.
3. If you know there is going to be a story about you, consider scooping the news and breaking it first in a friendlier outlet. Scoop the report and deliver the news on your terms before anyone else gets there. A business can use local or friendly trade papers to help diffuse a harmful story. Or consider releasing it yourself via YouTube or on your own website (or, as LeBron James did, albeit poorly, produce your own prime-time show around a major announcement). The digital world gives you more power to get your point across—take advantage of it when necessary: self-publish content regularly, as I have said throughout this book.
4. Understand that good PR can act as a security system for your brand, protecting it from predators in the media and elsewhere. Be proactive and be paranoid.

Know Thy Enemy

Saying yes to someone who isn’t interested in promoting your cause or writing a positive story is a slippery slope. Consider the musical artist M.I.A. (Mathang “Maya” Arulpragasam), who was profiled by Lynn Hirschberg in The New York Times Magazine in May 2010. After the story came out, M.I.A. tweeted to her 111,000-plus followers the journalist’s cell phone number as a way to express her displeasure with the reporter’s clearly negative story. Wow! Read the article and you’ll understand why M.I.A wasn’t happy; it was engaging and interesting but unflattering, to say the least. Why did M.I.A. do the interview in the first place? Was no one aware of the kind of in-depth pieces Hirschberg writes? She’s a newswomen, not a celeb reporter known for fluffing the egos of pop stars, who had previously written an extremely harsh article about Courtney Love called “Strange Love” for Vanity Fair’s September 1992 issue. The opening paragraph should have given M.I.A.’s people some clue to what was in store for them:

Courtney Love is late. She’s nearly always late, and not just ten, fifteen minutes late, but usually more than an hour past the time she’s said she’ll be someplace. She’s late for band rehearsals, she was late when she used to strip, she was even an hour late for a meeting with a record company executive who wanted to sign her band, Hole. Courtney assumes that people will wait. She assumes that people will forgive her as they stare at the clock and stare at the door and wonder where the hell she is. And they do forgive her. Until they can’t stand it anymore and then get mad, fed up, and move on. But by that time Courtney is gone—she’s off keeping someone else waiting.

Right off the bat, you’re inclined not to like Love very much. Did hearing “Well, she’ll be on the cover of The New York Times Magazine?” seduce someone on M.I.A.’s team? Lines ranging from, “Maya is not a trained musician but instead a brilliant editor, able to pick and choose and bend the talents of others to fit her goals” to “Unity holds no allure for Maya—she thrives on conflict, real or imagined” did the star no favors, nor did the criticism Hirschberg included of the singer’s alleged limited understanding of the politics of Sri Lanka, about which she talks and sings with abandon.

What was the artist’s team trying to accomplish by allowing an interview with Hirschberg? If the goal was to stir up controversy, there were other reporters with whom it could have been done more effectively, as I don’t think the interview did the Sri Lankan–born singer any favors. I would have declined had I been her rep, and if M.I.A. wanted a high-profile story to talk politics, I would have found and pitched the singer to someone who would be inclined to write something more balanced. The other piece of the puzzle, which the public doesn’t hear about, is that Hirschberg likely made many promises to be fair in meetings prior to formal interviews. It’s like the cops on Law & Order who get the suspect a cup of coffee and sweet-talk and lie to him . . . right before they slap on the cuffs and haul him off to jail. Don’t fall for flattery or media lies.

If you feel you must consent to an interview with a reporter known for brutal investigative reporting or in-depth pieces, set the ground rules early and battle for every single inch of the story. If he breaks the ground rules, have a good litigation and media attorney at your disposal and take it to the mat. They matter. I have a client who had consented to do a story with a major network as part of a documentary on entrepreneurs. The producers and reporter lied to my client and to us, saying that the show was going to be an upbeat and positive look at entrepreneurial pursuits when, in fact, it was a negative portrayal of the specific business sector in which my client worked. We hired a high-powered attorney to threaten the network for various misrepresentations and legal wrongdoings. Ultimately, the network did not include our client in the story for a variety of reasons. It does not matter how benign a request seems—in the end some reporters will lie, so you have to do your own due diligence and carefully set the ground rules for interviews and access. Beware!

  Don’t fall for flattery or media lies.

Consider recording the interview. It’s strong “insurance” against misquotes and out-of-context editing. Always have someone in the room. If you wouldn’t talk to the cops without a lawyer, why would you talk to the media without your PR representative? Consider releasing the tape if the reporter doesn’t abide by the ground rules. If a reporter is not taking no for an answer, consider turning the tables. Consider hiring private investigators to dig up dirt on the station, the reporter, the people doing the research, and so on. Yes, I’m serious. For example, does someone who is connected to the story or the reporter have a personal interest at stake in the story? We found a reporter’s family member working at an organization actively opposed to one of our client’s business goals. That information allowed us to put a stop to the story. Don’t be a sitting duck. The reporter’s job isn’t to assist you—it is to get the story and do his job. Your job is to protect yourself. Do so in a smart manner as in, “Sure, I’d be happy to talk to you, as long as you don’t record me, or as long as I can record you at the same time.”

  If you wouldn’t talk to the cops without a lawyer, why would you talk to the media without your PR representative?

Lying in Wait

Then there’s the question of “ambush journalism,” which makes for great media. It’s a form of reporting that has risen in popularity because media outlets are looking for ratings, and a good ambush is one way of getting ratings and high-profile coverage of your reporting. A “good” (read: dramatic) ambush story, even from a regional news station, can get picked up by national markets as filler and go viral on the Internet. You don’t deal with ambush journalism by sticking your hand in front of the camera or yelling a response while running away—there are better methods.

A local video that went viral in May 2010 involved the response by Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center to a story on the San Francisco ABC affiliate that alleged the hospital misused funds designated for patient welfare. The reporter and his crew came into the “hospital to disrupt operations,” according to the PR representative, and the video of the altercation found its way to the Internet.

The video features a very aggressive reporter attempting to confront a female hospital administrator. She was on her way into a meeting; the male reporter stood directly in the path of this petite hospital administrator as she entered the room. He was inches from her face, blocking her path to the podium. He was trying to maintain his position as some sort of bulldog reporter. As she walked away, he pursued her. The hospital PR person put his hands in a gentle manner on the reporter to deflect attention from the administrator. The PR pro said the hospital would issue a statement to reporters, but the ABC reporter wouldn’t take no for an answer. The reporter and the PR fellow got into a verbal argument—the reporter didn’t want to be touched. The PR guy should not have put his hand on the reporter’s back and he was wrong to do it but he wasn’t hurting him; in fact, he was much smaller than the reporter. Yet the reporter made a big deal of it.

I am not defending the PR person in this situation. I don’t think he should have put his hands on the reporter. However, while I can sympathize, he may not have had the experience or training to deal with an aggressive, unpleasant reporter. Like it or not, the PR person’s role is to manage the media, and this reporter clearly came looking for a fight. Using a camera as his bully pulpit, the reporter was able to disrupt a planned meeting. The PR rep was widely condemned for his behavior during the encounter with the reporter, but really, these kinds of pit bull situations are very difficult to manage. Should the hospital PR person have allowed his employer to be irreparably damaged by a sensationalist reporter out to burnish his own reputation? To my mind, the hospital spokesman was trying to protect his staff (similar to how a good attorney would), even though his approach was clumsy and unskilled.

If you, or someone from your company or organization, are unfortunate enough to be ambushed by a reporter, either through unexpected telephone calls or on-the-street encounters, it’s best to say nothing at that time—period. Granted, that’s easier said than done if someone is badgering you, but just keep walking. It’s vitally important to remain composed. Remain silent until you have had time to gather your thoughts and can articulate your position calmly, rationally, and on your terms at another time. Be calm and don’t yell or push; just walk away with your head held high. If someone is on your private property, you have the right to ask him or her to leave. Do it calmly, quietly, and with dignity. If the person refuses, you have the right to call security or the police and have them escorted off your personal property or arrested if they put up a fight. I’d advise you to do so away from the cameras, but stay dignified—and don’t take their shit. They can and will destroy you and will never look back. Protect yourself. They are looking to destroy you and won’t apologize.

DANGER! ALL PRESS IS DEFINITELY NOT GOOD PRESS

There is a tremendous balancing act you play when dealing with the media, between projecting your (or your client’s) image and agenda and, at the same time, protecting yourself (or a client) by keeping the press at bay sometimes. You may offer a representative to the media with the hope—and perhaps even the expectation—that a reporter will present a positive narrative. Yet anyone worth his salt in public relations knows that allowing media access, by its very nature, presents the possibility of either a good or a bad story.

If you’ve got a strong feeling that a story is not going to be positive, it may make sense not to participate or consent to an interview. In fact, it may be necessary to do everything you can to deny access to potential sources and hope the reporter doesn’t have enough of a story without them. Think of it this way: what is the headline you want? Not all of them are good. “Brand X Is Not Corrupt” is not a great headline because people read it in their mind as, “Someone Thought Brand X Was Corrupt. Maybe They Are.” Moreover, and this is crucial, you need to know what to do when a reporter has gotten it wrong, is being aggressively adversarial, or has decided to grind his ax on you or your business (they’re human, you know). When a negative story does come out, you often need to respond strategically and fiercely.

Some writers feel they are untouchable. Whether they sense the potential for a career-changing story, don’t like a subject for whatever reason, or had a fight with their spouse that morning, the camera can be their “bully pulpit.” Many reporters are also incredibly ambitious and have an ability to smell blood before a drop has been spilled. Sometimes they can cause those drops to be spilled. These bloody messes can win them prizes, get them promotions (and promote their own personal brands), and can be very good for them. Fortunately, the same media (including social networking and the blogosphere) that can make or break you can also help you maintain your brand and repair any damage that was done by unflattering coverage.

Get There First: Frame the Debate

Many of us buy into the idea that the media alone sets the terms of public discourse. The media banks on this public perception (and fear). You can maintain control over your brand or business by establishing the ground rules first in terms of your message and point of view. You have to get into the proactive business of providing real information to reporters and become known as someone who is generous and knowledgeable. This requires work. Good reporters have a pretty strong BS meter and they’re not interested in simply hearing how great your company or product is.

If you’ve done your job and “expert-ized” yourself, you have valuable research and trend insights that are media capital for your brand. Sharing your wisdom and insight with reporters is a great way to frame the debate. Acquaint yourself with writers and get to know them on your turf. They’ll be more inclined to check with you first when they hear a rumor or get a tip that could be harmful; it offers you a chance to kill a report before they spend hours researching it and feel the need to write something because they’ve invested time and resources in it.

When talking to the media or tweeting, writing, or blogging, be mindful of the words you use. Simplicity and clarity are key elements—big words and industry babble or academic-speak require too much effort on the part of your audience. Carefully chosen words, including the kinds of expressions and metaphors you use to state your case, win over, or educate journalists and their readers, are crucial to being in charge of your message.

  Sharing your wisdom and insights with reporters is a great way to frame the debate. “Groom” writers and get to know them on your turf.

PR and the Art of War

My agency has been active in political and issues-based work. The state of Israel is, for me, a personal and professional passion, and with love I will say that Israel does a horrible job when it comes to PR. The simple message that Israel is a tiny, democratic country surrounded by murderous despots doesn’t get through—not to governments, the media, or the public. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said it so clearly on May 24, 2011, in his address to the joint session of Congress: “Of 300 million Arabs in the Middle East, the only ones who are truly free and live in a democratic country are the Arabs who live in Israel. Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East.”

It doesn’t really matter what you personally think about Israel. My point is that the state of Israel should be forcefully communicating sympathetic messages to the world but isn’t. Case in point: many people don’t understand the difference in size between all of the Arab states and the Jewish state. The total area of the state of Israel is 7,951.6 square miles and is surrounded by Arab nations—Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan—and the Mediterranean Sea. Egypt alone covers an area of 386,659 square miles. Israel has a population of about 7.5 million people, and the Arab nations surrounding her total 300-plus million people.

Everyone can relate to concepts about distance and size, such as the fact that Israel is the size of New Jersey and is completely surrounded by much larger countries with huge swaths of land and bigger populations who would like to see the tiny country destroyed. Still, the media worldwide writes of the “Jewish settlements” and “West Bank” as key conflicts between the Arabs and Israel. Leaving aside the perspective of just how tiny these areas actually are, or that Israel won them in a defensive war, is like blaming a flea for a pit bull’s aggressive behavior.

The state of Israel is in real danger, partially because of its flawed public relations and communications work. In contrast, terrorist organizations Hamas, Hezbollah, and certain Arab nations have hired PR agencies to lobby for them in the press and on the world stage. Terror groups have engaged reporters and journalists, share meals with them, drink with them, and win their favor. In 2009, Fenton Communications, a New York City–based PR firm, signed two contracts with the Arab state of Qatar to develop an 18-month campaign to essentially delegitimize Israel by orchestrating an international anti-Israel campaign aimed at breaking the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Israel doesn’t use PR agencies in the United States. It doesn’t even pay for its diplomatic employees to use cell phones after hours or on weekends because of archaic and bureaucratic rules—a necessity in today’s 24/7 media world.

Israel’s PR does a poor job of framing the debate—its spokespeople are ineffective and have a poor grasp of the English language. (Israel regularly sends diplomats to countries where the diplomat doesn’t speak the native language.) There is a lot that can be done to fight and influence. It’s a question of shaping concepts and of speaking in terms and metaphors that the world understands. Look at what happens when private investors legally buy property in eastern Jerusalem and legally build homes for Jews. An Internet search reveals that the media see such construction as evidence of Jewish “occupation” and a primary reason why there will never be peace in the Middle East. Why not create messaging about how a Jewish person can legally build a home and live anywhere in the world—except Israel? A Jew can buy and build in Harlem or East Los Angeles, Paris, or Moscow, but not in Jerusalem. They can buy real estate and coexist elsewhere—why not there? That is the message they should be sending.

I lived in Israel for nearly two years after graduating from college. Along with two friends, I formed an organization called Yerushalayim Shelanu (Our Jerusalem). My two cofounders are today among the youngest members of the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) and rapidly rising political stars: Danny Danon (current deputy speaker of the Knesset) and Yoel Hasson. In 1997, one of the first activities we undertook was participating in an action where Jews moved into a home that had been purchased legally in an area of eastern Jerusalem.

The neighborhood’s construction provoked an international storm in September 1997 and the United States pressured Israel not to go ahead with the plan. The pressure was rebuffed by then (and current) prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and backed by then Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert. I conducted hundreds of worldwide media interviews at the homes of the new Jewish residents of the area. All of them were done as I held an Israeli flag, with the Temple Mount (where the recognizable Dome of the Rock is located) in the background. That way, no matter how reporters editorialized about this “disputed” area of Jerusalem, viewers could see just how close this territory was to the Jerusalem they recognized. No matter what the reporters said, the pictures didn’t lie. As of 2011, more than 70 Jewish families live there and conditions on the ground in that area of Jerusalem have changed, with Israeli schools, bus service to the Western Wall, and other benefits making the area connected to western Jerusalem. This effort, while effective, was a drop in the bucket.

Israel is a young country and it often learns things painfully. A justified cause is not enough to be right these days, either in politics or in business. Anyway, being right does not help you frame the debate nor does it keep you from being constantly on the defense. It’s not enough to simply convey a message—you need people to listen. Preparation for war includes a PR battle plan because PR is a crucial element of any war today.

Having worked with and for the Likud Party, the mayors of Jerusalem and of Tel Aviv, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel Ministry of Tourism, and a slew of other Israeli government officials and offices for many years, I know that Israel has so much rich history and many incredible attractions, from the Bible to its beaches. It needs to put them to use actively and to employ a comprehensive, systematic “PR machine” that generates regular positive content.

Israel also needs to make its own case, because that case is not being made widely, often, or clearly enough. The advice I have for Israel stands for any organization or group with an “underdog” status or that is suffering the consequences of being misunderstood. The following points are useful for any brand or business that wants to control its own narrative:

Make your own case. Be proactive and passionate in educational PR efforts. In Israel’s case, for instance, there should be a concerted PR effort to continually refute “moral equivalency” myths that are perpetuated in many corners of the press and taught in college classrooms around the world, myths that equate Palestinian suicide bombings with Israeli efforts to stop bombers before they act. Refuting the myths can be done through op-eds, reports, videos, blogs, outreach programs, and so on. But it can’t be saved for a crisis; it has to be ongoing.

Argue on your strengths, not your weaknesses. Harmful framing by the media or others can be handled effectively only with counterframing—presenting your narrative without debating the negative frame (thereby giving it credibility) or trying to justify yourself against it. In doing so, you give credence to and reinforce a point of view you’re actually trying to dismiss. In this case, Israel needs to start a conversation on her own terms and provide the media with multiple stories that discuss its innovations in technology, security, and other advances. Israel needs to talk about how it “made the desert bloom.” From its founding in 1948, it transformed a land that is 65 percent desert into a country rich in diversity and teeming with technology—Intel, Microsoft, and IBM have all developed robust, profitable, and innovative businesses in the country. Israeli doctors have won important prizes in the medical development field. The country today thrives financially as well, with a booming economy and an independent stock market. It also has the only true democracy in the region.

Consistent and united PR. There is nothing more counterproductive and irritating to a spokesperson than having to compete with a colleague who is operating with a different message. This is the case with Israel—spokespeople for the state often speak at cross-purposes with the press and contradict each other. The same goes for a company. Can you imagine what would happen if the media had to compare two or three different sources within the same organization to discover the firm’s stance on an issue? Always make sure those who speak to the press are on the same page and understand and communicate a unified message.

Act with rapidity. Israel is agile and dynamic. It can use this to its advantage. Imagine a boat the size of the Titanic, which takes considerable time and effort to change course and redirect. In comparison, imagine Israel as a small lifeboat that maneuvers quickly and easily within the waters of world affairs. In PR terms, Israel can change key messages quickly and deftly when necessary. The ability to respond quickly has many benefits.

Use social media frequently. Social media shouldn’t be used only as an emergency channel or to impart pearls of wisdom a few times a year. Social media should be used on a daily basis, and in a positive way. In the long run, it is the daily actions of a brand that determine its overall image. A daily blog post helps build a reputation, as do regular speaking engagements and consistent outreach and public events. Social media, in cases like this, allows you to at least go directly to your supporters and customers.

ENGAGE WITH FORCE: DON’T ACQUIESCE WHEN YOU KNOW YOU’RE RIGHT

There are times when someone starts a fight, and a direct and strong response is required. In general, I do not believe in appeasement. From my earliest years, I was taught that doing the right thing and standing by your principles was more important than being popular, and I continue to live by this standard today. So it’s no surprise that I believe in engaging full throttle when a controversy lands on your doorstep that could adversely affect your business. Especially when you know your “opponent” has got it wrong. This takes not only guts and confidence but strategy and tenacity as well.

A client started a unique moving company based on the realization that moving is tremendously stressful, and to compound that—moving company estimates never turn out to be accurate and customers are stuck with big bills for all sorts of extras they basically have no choice but to pay. My client established a company that would give customers one fixed rate for moving—no matter what the circumstances. It’s raining outside on the day of your move, or your table can’t be taken apart in six pieces, but instead requires ten? No problem—the price is the same as quoted. No surprises, no hidden costs. The price quoted is the price you pay no matter what, and the service will be professional, efficient, and careful. The idea naturally took off.

This is a guy who built an innovative business from the ground up that succeeded by addressing a common problem faced by many Americans. His company became known for being hard-working, honest, ethical, and for surpassing expectations for service. It rapidly became one of the most successful moving companies in the United States.

Like many businesses during the recent economic downturn, the company had layoffs; the moving and storage business is tied very closely to the real estate market, which was imploding at the time. A tiny group of former employees contacted unions, and the unions attempted to recruit inside the moving company. Adding to the drama, the union spread falsehoods about the company and stood outside its headquarters yelling at employees entering the premises. The spectacle included a giant inflatable rat bouncing in the breeze, a favorite prop of pro-union activists. (Those of you who live in New York City and other urban centers may be familiar with the sight of the 12-and-a-half-foot ugly, grimacing gray rodent placed in front of offices.)

The union’s false accusations and accompanying drama outside the office came as a surprise and personal attack to the management of the company, which had low turnover, high morale, and high employee satisfaction. The company went so far as to install private showers and marble bathrooms for employees to use. Moving is a job where workers sweat, so the company wanted its staff to work the right way and feel good when they were finished with tough jobs.

The union organizers standing outside yelling about so-called unfair practices were a tiny group, but they made a lot of noise and attracted attention. And they were motivated to make as much of a stink as possible. As I have learned, union bosses are very well paid. By many accounts, union bosses make anywhere from $200,000 to $600,000 a year or more. Nice work if you can get it, and it’s a whole lot more money than movers make. As such, union bosses need to recruit as many paying members as possible because a portion of the union dues goes right into bosses’ paychecks. The union members standing outside this small business handed out forged fliers with fake pictures of the head of the union with President George W. Bush and New York City Mayor Bloomberg—they were clearly and almost comically fake cutouts. It was really absurd, but someone with an agenda may not have seen it for what it was—a shabby cut-and-paste job.

The message was clear: we are powerful and can help you. Unfortunately, this kind of ploy can work on a lot of employees because, let’s face it, the boss is often painted as an asshole. The grass is always greener on the other side. Employers are easily painted as the bad guys and scapegoats—them versus us.

  From my earliest years, I was taught that doing the right thing and standing by your principles was more important than being well liked, and I continue to live by this standard today.

This campaign of misinformation was starting to take a personal toll on the mild-mannered CEO of the company and could have had serious consequences for his business and employees. This was a PR nightmare that had very real consequences. Unionization of small businesses is often devastating and can result in layoffs, increased expenses for both worker and employer, and numerous other headaches that don’t improve anyone’s job. Higher wages and perks imposed on small businesses can be too much for them to afford.

This union came to the company, made a lot of noise, and contacted media with blatantly false claims. There had been an ongoing attempt to get the interest of New York media. The union called the media with absurd claims day after day after day. It was a nonstop fire drill. The company needed someone on hand, and I wanted to personally lead the PR campaign because the owner had followed all of the necessary and numerous laws governing conduct leading up to a union vote. They used proper messaging, legal tactics, and distributed positive, truthful information to their employees.

After a while, the screaming activists caught the interest of a local reporter at a New York cable news station. I remember one dispute I had with the reporter. The reporter had called me to say the local news station was going to do a story on how poorly the moving company treated its employees, and how it discriminated against them. The reporter had no interest in listening to the other side of the story at all; he had made up his mind without performing any due diligence, meeting anyone from the firm, or visiting the company’s headquarters.

I didn’t want the story to air at all since the reporter didn’t seem willing to even listen to our version of the facts, tell both sides of the story, or acknowledge that the material he was basing his story on was fabricated and false. In situations like this, lawyers are often hesitant to act because damage hadn’t been done so they don’t like to send legal letters. But I knew a harsh letter had to go to the station explaining that the company would sue them and the reporter if the story went on the air because doing so would be disseminating blatant falsehoods. He was basing the story on a bald-faced lie.

While we were fighting the station, we were also waging an information war to inform employees. This is PR on a very localized, internal scale—all companies need to do PR with their employees. The unions were trying to take advantage of the workforce and it was up to us to educate them exactly what being a union member would mean for the company (and their wallets). We did research on the cost to the employees of organizing and showed them that they would actually be earning less money and receiving fewer benefits if they did vote to join the union. Unions make a tremendous amount of money from dues, which come out of the employees’ pockets. Moreover, we documented that the union doctored the photos with politicians to prove its leaders weren’t trustworthy.

Before seven thirty the next morning, the reporter asked to speak to us outside, with cameras filming the demonstration. I was acting as the company spokesperson, and said I would be happy to speak to him inside, with the cameras initially off. I was eager to show him the company office, its unique environment, and excellent employee conditions. There was no way I was going to do a street interview on film, with a rat in the background and a handful of people yelling. Why would I do an interview in the street?

This wasn’t a street fight. It would be like responding to accusations of being a racist on live television. Answering “No” to, “Are you a racist?” in this situation would have resulted in a 5 p.m. headline: “XYZ Company Says It Isn’t Racist.” Accompanying this banner would be a large photograph of a giant rat and screaming union members. That’s not a visual we wanted.

We had an extensive off-camera discussion, and the reporter finally agreed to my terms so we went inside. I explained to him that not only would we sue the station for reporting a fabricated story but also sue him personally for damage to the company as his story was inaccurate and completely false. At that point he started giving me his “facts”—which were blatantly false lies. We had the authentic documentation he claimed to have and showed him within minutes exactly how he was wrong. The reporter didn’t run the story because—finally—he had to admit that all the information he had was wrong. There was no story, and he ended up apologizing. When it came down to a vote, the company thankfully wasn’t unionized.

DON’T JOIN A FIGHT YOU’RE NOT IN

Don’t voluntarily join conversations that may detract from your brand. There may be something going on in your industry that you initially feel you should address, but it can be strategically advantageous to avoid the discussion because the press may seize on your comments in ways that may not be beneficial.

We represent a small but prestigious European consumer brand that was and still is smart to underplay its hand in a controversy in their industry, and as a result hasn’t had to deal with it in the press. The company knows two things: one, its audience is not specifically “environmental” and two, the company is not a target of the environmental movement.

This industry has gotten a bad rap from environmental activists in recent years because of the energy it requires to produce the product, and the additional landfill waste it creates when the product is disposed of. The industry is also big, so naturally it’s a good target for greenies who want to get their points across (environmental groups have some of the best PR around; I respect organizations like PETA and Greenpeace for the way they get their messages out).

We have made a conscious decision not to make a green statement of any kind; it’s not the market leader and we calculated that activists wouldn’t bother with the company. We simply do not engage in the debate; no one is asking the company to take part in the green discussion, so why call attention to itself on this issue? It’s unnecessary and could be detrimental. Sometimes less (or none at all) is more. Sure, the company wants to be environmentally friendly and it is, but “green” is not its fight. Instead, this company accentuates the positives by focusing on its exclusivity and health factors. As a result, it is a brand that wins despite all the challenges in its industry because it sticks to its messaging and to angles that it can win.

Another interesting example of avoiding the conversation was with a political advocacy organization we represent. When there was a move from various organizations to persuade advertisers to boycott a certain opinion news program, our advocacy group wanted to place ads of support for the show and its host. We knew this would just call more attention to the boycott attempt and help it along. Ultimately, our client wisely decided not to place the ads, as the move would most likely have further galvanized the issue. The boycott could have gained momentum and the story would have turned into a much longer fight and a bigger story for the program’s host. The boycott blew over and the show continued to pull in incredible ratings and many new advertisers, despite the short-lived boycott.

Consider potential outcomes and repercussions before getting into any kind of public conversation. Sometimes getting involved in a fight is a loss—think of two people screaming at each other in the middle of the street. If you walked by during the altercation, it would be hard to tell which one was right and which one was wrong, and who the aggressor was. All you see are two people screaming at each other. Meanwhile, if you had seen the situation from the beginning, you’d know that one guy was bothering and harassing everyone who walked by, and the other had tried to stop him. One guy was clearly the good guy, but how many people are aware of that? Join the pigs in a fight and you risk getting dirty.

I don’t mean to imply that all media relations are adversarial. When the media—or a lone angry person with a blog—goes into combat mode, you have to know that you do have a say. We all need each other, but as in any relationship, tensions rise and then recede along with our anxieties, obligations, moods, and desires. We’re human and we bring our humanity, warts and all, to the process. Even the most professional and seasoned journalist can get caught up in the seductive possibility of a career-changing story. The most close-to-the-vest PR guy or businessperson can let emotions and passion overtake him. You have to get up every day and try again—make your case, talk to reporters, do your homework, read, stay on top of trends, and maintain your values no matter what. And stay in the fight.