and finally...
Truthful hyperbole, direct and dishonest
Our PRs could learn from the US presidential approach to media relations, says Chris Proctor
B
efore the historic visit of Trump fades in the memory, we should be sure we have learned some important
lessons from his happy stay. The US has much to teach us, especially in the area of media relations. One key element is directness. Unlike
our own media, which often concedes a degree of grey in most discussions, the US sees the world exclusively in black or white. There is no in between. Take the case of Michael Wolff, the
journalist and columnist who took to enquiring about relations between the president and Jeffrey Epstein. The White House’s top PR expert was fetched to give his considered response and he outlined the template for dealing with hostile questioning. Director of communications Steven Cheung dismissed Wolff as “a lying sack of shit with a peanut-sized brain”. You see? A straight, unequivocal response, leaving no room for doubt. None of this ‘economical with the truth’ evasion of our own public relations practitioners. Previously, when challenged about the president’s assessment that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country”, Mr Cheung told reporters, “That’s a normal phrase that is used in everyday life” and to think differently is “racist or xenophobic”. In one simple statement, he swats aside criticism and claims the moral high ground. It’s simple and effective. And what do you do if unreasonable
presenters of chat shows persist in criticising The Leader? The president,
as he left our island, suggested that networks such as ABC, which only give him bad publicity, should “maybe have their licences taken away”. The obvious thing to do is pull down the shutters. Shut the stations. Problem solved. The furore was caused by chat show host Jimmy Kimmel’s suggestion that the Trump administration was “trying to score political points” from the death of Charlie Kirk. It was, of course: even before they knew who the assassin was, pro-Trump officials in Utah had labelled the murderer “indoctrinated with leftist ideology”. Of course, wild anarchists like trade unions, including the Writers Guild of America and media union SAG-AFTRA, complained about Kimmel’s suspension, calling it “a violation of constitutional free speech rights”. Such unreasonable moaning may provide an argument for shutting down trade unions as well but that hasn’t appeared on the agenda. Yet. An effective tactic employed by our
transatlantic cousins is brazen denial then a quick exit. Donald employed this when asked by UK journalists about the sacking of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador. He had met Mandy the previous week; there are pictures of them both in the Oval Office; he’s on record saying, “I like the guy” and commenting on his ‘beautiful accent’. Faced with this evidence, in his press conference with Keir Starmer, he was direct. “I don’t know him,” he said. And so the matter was resolved,
quickly and without fuss. UK media gurus would have wasted time prevaricating or thinking up excuses. The US approach saves time. He also apparently doesn’t know
Harry, Mr Sussex. In his banquet speech, he congratulated the King for raising ‘a remarkable son’. Just the one
son. The lesson here is that if you don’t care for someone, simply erase them. Elevating the notion of a ‘deal’ to sanctified heights has proved a splendid PR innovation. In the Trump context, a deal radiates machismo, forthrightness, success and advantage. If you want to look good, say you’ve done a deal. Even if you haven’t, as with his Putin talks, you can always deny it the next day. When Starmer risked a press conference with Trump (despite the experiences of Volodymyr Zelensky and Cyril Ramaphosa), the front of the rostrum was emblazoned with the three blessed words ‘Tech prosperity deal’. A useful tip shown here is that, when basking in the kudos, details or facts should be kept as vague as possible. This ‘historic moment’ was a fine
“ ”
An effective tactic employed by our transatlantic cousins is brazen denial then a quick exit
example of the strategy. We celebrated the signing of The Deal, but were left fuzzy about trivia such as how much it’s worth. The New York Times says $350 billion, Starmer says £250 billion and the stingy BBC says £150 billion. But, in Trumpland, figures – like words – are unimportant. Also it was difficult to be exact about what The Deal means, apart from it being groundbreaking and having something to do with artificial intelligence, nuclear energy and maybe quantum computing. Things like that. Equally, we’re not sure who will profit from it . But it doesn’t matter. It’s a deal and hence a very good thing. He also advises making things
‘historic’. People enjoy ‘big, great and spectacular’ news, so why not give it to them? In the book he sort-of wrote, he calls this ‘truthful hyperbole’. UK media types can learn
unprecedented amounts from his visit which was, incidentally, the most popular, productive, courageous and important voyage made by any man in the history of humankind.
theJournalist |27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28
