Bush Administration Needed Better PR Advice
August 15, 2007 by Eric Eggertson
Filed under Marketing
What do you do when the leader won’t admit there’s a problem? Worse, when it’s the most powerful political figure in the world?
The Bush administration’s tendency has been to surround itself with like-minded thinkers, and accuse everyone else of being soft on terrorism.
In days of yore, Jon Stewart would be the court jester, poking fun at the monarch, while cutting through the B.S. to offer honest feedback.
This week, Stewart offered excellent PR advice: acknowledge your mistakes before asking us to trust you. Some Stewart quotes from Monday’s show, as he discussed the Iraq situation with Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard:
"You feel President Bush has been a steadfast leader…. I know where he’s displayed stubbornness. Where has he displayed leadership? … Isn’t leadership bringing along a country, and not chastising those who disagree and making them feel like pussies?"
"Here’s what (critics) say: Al Queda and terrorism were a huge threat. And going into Iraq was a big mistake that diverted our resources from that actual fight. And as you see them become resurgent in Afghanistan and that area of Pakistan. By not acknowledging that … it is hard for people to get past original sin. It’s hard for people to get past it."
Good advice. And pretty much what The Daily Show anchor has been saying for years.
So why hasn’t the administration been able to adjust its game plan and show some humility? Why, instead of straight talk, has there been spin, bluster and misdirection?
Author and PR consultant Fraser Seitel describes Bush as the worst PR president ever, calling him "virtually inarticulate". Seitel was interviewed by Brooke Gladstone for On the Media (interview transcript). Note Gladstone’s shock that public relations might be something other than professional lying:
BROOKE GLADSTONE: So what would you suggest that the President do now to recover some of that public relations mojo?
FRASER SEITEL: What public relations can help you do is become more candid and more honest. I think it was a genius stroke to hire Tony Snow because he isn’t afraid to defend the policies. General Petraeus is a very good spokesman for the administration policies because he’s candid and honest. I’m just afraid that it’s too little too late in this particular case.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: And do you honestly feel that simple disclosure would have made much of a difference in their numbers?
FRASER SEITEL: Well, what would have made a difference is listening. A good counselor of public relations interpreting not only the President to the public but, equally important – in this case you could argue much more important – interpreting the public back to the President, would have counseled the President to learn that there were mistakes made and that we should acknowledge them; to learn that maybe some mid-course corrections here are in order.
So yes, a stronger public relations presence, technically defined, as I define it, could have helped this administration, absolutely.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: You astonish me. That is the technical definition of public relations, a two-way street, something indistinguishable from diplomacy?
This is pretty straightforward counsel, that any qualified public relations person should be able to provide to a business or political leader. Be honest. Be open. Listen to what people say, and use the feedback to influence your decisions.
Every business or government strategy requires a communications plan, and every plan must include some way of identifying a disconnect between what you’re saying, and what your audience expected to hear.
Often you soldier through complaints and criticism, knowing that the short term pain will pass. Once a change has been made, there’s a chance to reframe the issue, and show the direction you’re taking people in, and why that’s a good thing.
But many times, the complaints are valid, and require you to rethink your assumptions. It took Bush’s team more than four years to arrive at that conclusion. Either they were getting bad communications advice, or they were ignoring good advice. Probably a bit of both.
Tags: communications, george bush, iraq war, public relations, politics, fraser seitel, jon stewart, spin, feedback, honesty, on the media
The most amazing thing to me is that Bill Kristol has a great sense of humor. It gives me hope to see polar opposites intelligently debate and still keep things friendly, and even fun.
Which makes them different from the vast majority of political bloggers, who seem incapable of talking about an issue without getting antagonistic and dividing down party lines.
(The end of the interview is priceless, when Kristol tells Stewart the new Defence chief thinks he’s a pussy.)
Man, don’t get me started! I think Karl Rove’s departure may help, but in the end, Cheney is the real PR villain of the administration.
When you start at a conclusion and then reverse engineer the problem, and do it with an unlimited amount of money, its not hard to see that you get the mess that we have… The problem is that Bush doesn’t even know that there is a problem. In his world view the rhetoric IS the reality.
What I find most interesting, as an organizational communications instructor as well as an American, is that the lack of PR and communication does not seem to affect the ability of the president to get reelected nor to set policy. He seems to get whatever he wants for the war, and while that does not translate to high approval ratings, that does not seem to affect anything. Strangely ironic and not very satisfying, but perhaps he is not interested in clear communication or PR; it has not yet seemed to matter.
It took Bush’s team more than four years to arrive at that conclusion. Either they were getting bad communications advice, or they were ignoring good advice.
Jeffrey Keefer’s right. In fact, I wonder if Bush’s couldn’t give a sh*t attitude about what anyone thinks actually added to his appeal. You’ve seen it in business meetings… when there’s apathy all around, people let the blowhard who seems most certain and determined take the reins, even though they know he’s an idiot. Everybody’s secretly glad they’ll have him to blame id and when it all blows up. How else could they “re”elect this guy?