Top Public Relations Blog

  • A blog by Gutenberg Communications

The Fortune.com Tech Team Opens Up at PRSA Event
by J. Bonasia

Write Comment

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) recently sponsored a lively roundtable talk with the tech editorial team of Fortune.com. Highwire PR hosted the packed lunchtime event at their offices in downtown San Francisco.

Fortune Senior Editor-at-Large Adam Lashinsky outlined the three main planks of the Fortune franchise, including the 86-year-old print magazine, the newly revamped Fortune.com news website, and Fortune’s Live Media events including the well-known Fortune Brainstorm Tech show.

Photo credit: Highwire PR

Left to right: Highwire PR Principal Kathleen Gratehouse, Fortune Editor Adam Lashinsky, Katie Fehrenbacher, Michal Lev-Ram, and Jonathan Vanian of Fortune. (Photo credit: Highwire PR)

Lashinsky was excited about Fortune recently hiring several veteran tech writers from the now-defunct Gigaom website, bringing them “into the Fortune fold” to beef up enterprise coverage. Katie Fehrenbacher and Jonathan Vanian both came over from Gigaom, which is now in the process of being acquired by Knowingly, a startup that plans to re-launch the tech news site in August.

Fehrenbacher explained that her coverage area at Fortune focuses on energy and water resource issues, including solar power and electric cars. Lately she has been “obsessed” with battery technologies. Fehrenbacher advised the room full of PR execs to craft their pitches to her based on her recent coverage. “Find out what excites me, and hopefully your client fits into that area,” she said.

Vanian covers enterprise tech for Fortune, including data centers and network infrastructure. He said he spends most days tracking Twitter for story tips and news leads. Varian also enjoys studying the federal financial disclosures of public companies.

Fortune Senior Writer Michal Lev-Ram described her dual roles as a telecom reporter and co-chair of Brainstorm Tech and Fortune’s Most Powerful Women: Next Gen conferences.

Gute blogger J. Bonasia is one of many Bay Area PR execs who crowded into the basement of Highwire PR for a Q&A with the Fortune staff in San Francisco on May 21, 2015. (Photo credit: Highwire PR)

Gute blogger J. Bonasia is one of many Bay Area PR execs who crowded into the basement of Highwire PR for a Q&A with the Fortune staff in San Francisco on May 21, 2015. (Photo credit: Highwire PR)

When asked about story interests and pet peeves, Lashinsky expressed his growing distaste for the sheer amount of startup funding stories out there today. “I think a lot of these stories on our competitors’ sites really suck,” he said bluntly. Another concern for Lashinsky involves news embargoes: “I think they produce bad journalism and I have ample evidence of doing better stories that come out two to three days after the embargo.”

Lashinsky explained Fortune’s overarching theme for tech coverage from the viewpoint of Fortune Editor Alan Murray: “He believes all business leaders need to understand the underlying technology, no matter what business they’re in, so technology coverage becomes central to the coverage of the business overall.”

In assessing the current state of tech journalism, Lashinsky noted that the industry remains in flux because online media “still hasn’t found a business model that works.”

“There is an existential battle between content on one hand and journalism on the other, and we do journalism” at Fortune, he said.

Lashinsky wrapped up by saying the best way for PR pros to develop a relationship with Fortune is to deliver acclaimed sources who are hard to get for interviews. No surprise there, but for lots of PR agencies that work with small and midsize client firms, such a “get” remains an ongoing challenge.

Social Media Tips for PR Professionals
by Keya Balar

Write Comment

Photo credit: Islam21C

Businesses are increasingly interested in using social media to promote their brands and connect with customers. Below are four tips for PR pros who are using social media for their clients.

1. Understand your client’s goals and current reputation
Before starting a social media program for your client, you both should be on the same page and know what the goals of the social media program will be. One of your clients may want to work on promoting their brand through social media, while another client may want to connect and interact with customers. One client may want to start fresh with an entirely new social media strategy, while another may want to perfect their current strategy. Along with knowing what your client’s goals are, you should also know your client’s current reputation on social media. Sometimes company employees can create a reputation for themselves on their personal accounts, while still maintaining an association with their employer. Employees should make sure their social media accounts are representative of their employer’s values, especially if the accounts are publicly viewable. Employees have been fired because they posted controversial or offensive content on their personal social media accounts. Earlier this year, Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign office hired Ethan Czahor as their CTO. Reporters uncovered dozens of offensive tweets posted by Czahor in 2009, and he was forced to resign 36 hours later.

2. Engage with your audience
Social media platforms allow for some promotional language, but followers don’t want ads thrown at them. Businesses can enhance their brand and image by making thoughtful, newsworthy posts, and interacting with followers. Instead of treating social media like a one-way ad platform, PR pros can engage with their client’s followers in a meaningful way by starting or contributing to conversations. Firefox uses their twitter account to reply to every tweet that mentions them, and to respond to users’ tech problems with helpful solutions. By engaging with the audience, you can learn more about them, and understand what they like or don’t like about your client’s brand.

3. Don’t ignore critics
Companies are too often under the impression that they can wipe away negative comments from consumers on all of their social media pages without any backlash. Instead, suppressing negative comments just fuels the fire. A recent example of a poorly thought-out social media campaign is Sea World’s attempt to engage with critics. Sea World had been battling negative press after the 2013 documentary Blackfish condemned the company’s captivity of orcas. In March, SeaWorld launched a social media campaign on Twitter with the open hashtag #AskSeaWorld, and invited people to ask questions about the company’s treatment of animals. Critics predictably asked Sea World questions about their mistreatment of animals, but instead of responding with truthful answers, Sea World chose to call critics trolls. Aside from the fact that a company as controversial as Sea World would have been better off taking questions in a more controlled environment, the company should have actually answered the questions it was asked. By calling critics trolls and refusing to answer their questions, Sea World created a more negative image for themselves. Don’t ignore your client’s critics when you’ve offered to engage with them.

4. Be brief
People hate reading walls of texts. Although people won’t admit it, they’ll skip over social media posts that are too long to read. On social media, messages should get straight to the point. This can be done by avoiding formal language, and speaking to your audience in the same way you’d speak to a friend. However, long posts that are compelling can also draw people in. The Humans of New York Facebook page does a great job at engaging followers by posting long, compelling stories.

How the Inventor of Instant Replay Changed American Culture Forever
by J. Bonasia

Write Comment

Photo credit: NHPR

The great television impresario Tony Verna passed away this month from leukemia at age 81 in Palm Desert, Calif., after producing many of the biggest televised events in American history.

Verna’s five decades in the TV business included directing five Super Bowls, two Olympic Games, 12 Kentucky Derbies, the famed Live Aid global concert in 1985, Pope John Paul’s TV special, and numerous NBA Championships and Stanley Cup Finals.

Despite these landmark achievements, history will remember Verna as the inventor of TV’s instant replay. By launching this rather innocuous advance, Tony Verna arguably helped change the face of American culture forever.

Verna was a young CBS sports producer assigned to cover the annual Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia on Dec. 7, 1963. He had developed a new production trick that he wanted to try out on viewers during the big rivalry, which featured star quarterback Roger Staubach playing for Navy.

Verna’s breakthrough technology initially ran into technical problems. When he tried airing replays several times in the game’s first half, the designated tape would only show prior clips from “I Love Lucy” or soap commercials. Finally, Verna was able to make the tape loop work correctly, and our world has never been the same since.

Sadly, no video record of that special game exists today. Verna’s broadcast showed the world’s first instant replay of Army quarterback Rollie Stichweh crossing into the end zone for a 1-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter. Fans were shocked when they saw his teammates celebrating, only to watch Stichweh make the exact same play just moments later.

Phone lines quickly lit up at the local CBS stations. Confused viewers were trying to understand what had just happened. Announcer Lindsey Nelson had to explain that Army had not scored a second touchdown. Rather, home viewers had just witnessed a historic “immediate video replay” of the TD, as it was called.

“This is not live,” Nelson exclaimed. “Ladies and gentlemen, Army did not score again!”

Granted, sports fans should be forever grateful for the ability to analyze important plays in excruciating detail, watching the action loop over and over again in super slow-motion. But, in many ways, instant replays introduced an era of technical cynicism to our sports coverage, and to U.S. culture more broadly.

First, consider the meaning of the term itself: instant replay. “Instant” implies an urge for instant gratification, of knowing the precise outcome right away. “Replay” implies the ability to do things over, to witness events repeatedly and relive critical moments again and again.

As Verna’s invention started taking hold in society, America endured the Civil Rights Movement, several brutal political assassinations, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal which culminated in the only resignation of a U.S. president – by Richard Nixon, a diehard football fan no less. This was the dawn of the modern era when America arguably lost its innocence, and the instant replay was just one small thread woven into this much larger national tapestry.

Of course, the instant replay has greatly improved our sense of fair play by reversing bad referee calls, and exposing players who actually stepped out of bounds. On the other hand, the replay technology has prompted untold delays for sports fans while officials “go to the replay booth to check the tape.”

The replay has become so ingrained that we reflexively accept this slowdown of action, which in turn fuels doubts about every single call made on the field, depending on which team the fans are rooting for. Nobody believes in the umps or refs anymore, because all humans are fallible. In some very real sense, the instant replay has reinforced our faith in technology at the expense of human trust.

Now replay cameras crowd our baseball outfields to show when any hit lands foul, and they surround our basketball courts to show who got fouled. Over time, our expanding doubts and fears have introduced replay cameras into every stadium, along with every shopping center, office, bank, store, housing complex and street corner in the United States.

In the wake of recent violent police altercations, virtually everything we do now gets filmed for replay, even down to police officers carrying cameras on their helmets to capture footage of all public interactions. If we can’t trust our refs, how can we possibly trust our cops armed with guns? And so it goes.

In short, we have become an instant replay society so consumed by our capacity to double-check errors that we have forsaken the ability to quickly forgive mistakes and move on. It’s much more fun to fixate on the instant replays and scream at the on-screen blunders in high-definition over and over again. Come to think of it, that’s probably appropriate because it’s what Tony Verna would have wanted all along.

Media’s Shifting Gaze
by Stefanie Cannon

Write Comment

The lines between editorial and advertorial are becoming increasingly blurry with Fortune’s recent announcement of its “Trusted Original Content” model. As Media Bistro reports, “[The project] will involve the magazine’s editorial teams creating Fortune-branded articles and video/other media content for marketers and PR pros to distribute on their own channels. So these pieces will bear the Fortune name and be written by real journalists, but they won’t qualify as native advertising…”

It’s evident that media outlets are looking for unique ways to make up for lost ad revenue, but at what cost to objectivity and quality content? According to the recently released State of the Media Annual Report by Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, nearly one-third of consumers have abandoned a news outlet because it no longer gave them what they had counted on, either with fewer or less complete stories.

Interestingly, the report notes that CNN, the cable channel that has branded itself around deep reporting, produced story packages were cut nearly in half from 2007 to 2012. Across the three cable channels, coverage of live events during the day, which often require a crew and correspondent, fell 30% from 2007 to 2012 while interview segments, which tend to take fewer resources and can be scheduled in advance, were up 31%.

More recently, CNN faced criticism from other journalists for its cover skewed coverage of the Steubenville verdict.

The Pew Research report noted that the news industry as whole is more “undermanned” and “unprepared” to uncover stories, dig deep into emerging ones or to question information put into its hands.

Media is bound to have an occasional hiccup when it comes to news coverage. However, when outlets are implementing unique business models to drive ad revenue and words like “trust” are added to emphasize legitimacy, it might begin to make the consumer question the quality of content.

Without consumer trust in the way stories are reported, what will media outlets have left?


End of an Occupation – End of a News Cycle?
by Liana Hawes

Write Comment

Brookfield Properties owner and former New York City Planning Commission Chairman John E. Zuccotti has a public park named after him in the Financial District of lower Manhattan where Trinity Place, Cedar Street, Broadway and Liberty Street converge. The site itself was formerly known as Liberty Park Plaza, one block south east (or thereabouts) of the World Trade Center. If you’ve ever had a day job in the Financial District, you’ll know what an important respite this Plaza, with its trees and seats, was (is) to a weary workers on lunch break. 

Zuccotti’s real estate, and the area surrounding it, has a place in history as defending private commercial interests. While the plaza itself has been used frequently in the 20th century for public demonstrations and the staging of protests, back in the 17th century the ground was part of the Dutch Colonial settlement “New Amsterdam”, an extension of the Dutch Republic. The settlement was just outside of Fort Amsterdam (which protected the interest of the Dutch East India Company’s fur trade operations on the Hudson River) and strategically situated on the southern tip of Manhattan Island. This region, including the settlement and the Fort which was the Colony’s capital, eventually became known as New York City.  In recent history, as the Towers fell, Liberty Park Plaza was covered with debris and in the aftermath was used as a staging area for recovery efforts.

Over the past few weeks the park has again taken a place on center stage as it’s been a staging area for the OWS movement. On a recent visit to the Occupy Wall Street encampment, I was particularly struck at how impressively the OWS drum battery was staged in the Plaza. They sounded terrific and beat a call for all the tourists and onlookers who walked by in curiosity, disgust, wonder, ignorance and encouragement. 

After throngs of spectators trampled through the Park’s maze over this past weekend of assemblage, protests and camping, the Plaza was yet again strewn with debris – trash – which has since been cleared – along with the Protesters. It was empty and clean this morning and glam shots of pristine Zuccotti Park evoked the Liberty Park Plaza of yore, New York’s Financial District in all its glory where the Towers once stood strong and Liberty could be felt.  Although I’m not sure why this Park was ever dubbed “Liberty”, maybe for Liberty Street?   

Why did Mr. Zuccotti and his team at Brookfield Properties insist on a name change from Liberty Park Plaza and will he want to go down in history for his role as OWS’s landlord, tolerant of their presence yet pushing for their removal by enforcement? Will the name Zuccotti Park forever be tainted with images and stories about the health, legal, and safety threats the authorities said this particular OWS camp posed to the public at large?  This rather than the cause that actually inspired the Occupy Wall Street movement and other camps to subsequently form in cities across the U.S. in national protest?   

So far, the news media has focused on the logistics of the Camp, the occupation itself, the costs to taxpayers, law enforcement and the legal and removal strategies of the City authorities. Now that the occupation’s over, I’d like to see more stories about the core message in the protest and the rallying cry against the financial establishment, for it was strong and passionate enough to inspire similar “Occupy” protests throughout the nation. I’d like to see Mr. Zuccotti, for whom the Park is named, going head to head in a nightly news roundtable discussion with an OWS operations official. 

How did Mr. Zuccotti get private money to renovate the Park after 9/11?  What were the goals of the renovation and how was Zuccotti Park designed to function as public space? 

This was an $8M renovation by a prestigious firm which installed trees, granite sidewalks, tables and seating as well as in-ground lighting.  It seems like as good a place as any for an urban camp. While the granite is hard as a sleeping surface, it’s great for outdoor cooking and the tables are conducive to networking discussions, training, interviews, chess, dining and computing – all things that make for a successful protest.

The Occupiers will find it hard to be removed but they might be more comfortable if they can go home to a good night’s sleep and a meal and prepare properly for the days and nights of protesting ahead.  Or is the movement made stronger by the camp itself and the community it fostered among its inhabitants? Camps are powerful structures when it comes to group cohesion, defense, protection and taking a stand.

I’m following updates and Tweets on these developments from the New York Times City Room and WNYC news among others. These seem to indicate that the City and Brookfield say that while the Camp must go (and has) the protests may continue.  Now that camp’s over, perhaps the news media will no longer focus on camp logistics and we’ll get to the meat of the story with investigations now turning towards the reasons for the protest and what, if any, are the key messages behind Occupy Wall Street.

An Evening of Philanthropy, Tech and Celebrities
by Tracy Rodrigues

Write Comment

This month Gutenberg had the pleasure of supporting the US launch of The Cherie Blair Foundation’s Mentoring Women in Business Programme. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair opened the evening with remarks on his wife’s passionate support of women across the globe. His comments were followed by a panel moderated by ABC News anchor Christiane Amanpour with Melanne Verveer, US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Nikesh Arora, Senior Vice-President, Google and Aeneas Chuma, UNDP Resident Representative, UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Kenya.

In addition to the dignitaries, press and potential donors, other noteworthy guests were in attendance. Mentees from emerging countries in Africa, South Asia and the Middle East came to the event and lest anyone forget, it was really their story to be told that evening.

The Foundation’s mentoring platform is powered by Google. Mentees use Gchat, Gmail and Google docs to connect with their mentors in other countries and gain practical business advice. Given the different geographic locations and time zones these partnerships span, Google’s tools are a valuable and conveniently free resource. The program is unique for its focus on emerging markets and women that have already established businesses in their communities. The Foundation is empowering women with the drive to succeed simply by giving them the resources to do so.

Also interesting is the mentors themselves. It may be the effects of attending a women’s college, but I couldn’t help notice how many of the mentors were men. This was brought up later in the panel discussion and the question was met with brutal honesty. Why men? Because they generally have more resources and are more successful. While the event highlighted the needs of other countries, the panel discussion brought home the challenges the UK and US now face.  How can we empower our own women to succeed in technology and business?

The event gained attention from CNN’s new show Erin Burnett Outfront, Entrepreneurship Magazine and Bloomberg, among others who were in attendance. Congratulations to Cherie, The Foundation and Google on a successful US program launch!

If you’re interested in learning more about The Cherie Blair Foundation for Women or becoming a mentor please visit:  www.cherieblairfoundation.org

Pay-to-Play Editorial: The New Norm?
by Susie Hayne

Write Comment

The public relations profession has undergone many changes since its inception in the early 1900s, when it was viewed as “engineering of consent,” defined as the art of manipulating people. Over the course of the 20th century, public relations practitioners worked hard to overcome that perception and prove our place in the business world by establishing credibility with journalists and building relationships to enhance the umbrella field that is communications, and ultimately to provide unbiased editorial content to consumers. Yet in today’s Internet-connected, social media-heavy world of communications, the landscape is changing and more and more publications are moving away from a relationship-driven model to a pay-for-play editorial model.

I was recently told by the editor of a publication their editorial focus is “unique in the sense that the majority of our coverage is either directly or indirectly tied to advertising.” Knowing that, how can you be sure when you pick up that publication that the information you are getting is REALLY the best on that topic if they willingly leave out reputable sources that maybe cannot afford to advertise in the publication?

Even Newsweek, a publication that still falls into the rare category of more than 1.5 million subscribers, has said that the Internet has changed everything, and not necessarily for the better. In that same article economist Joseph Schumpeter calls the advent of the Internet “creative destruction,” sweeping away everything in the media landscape as we knew it. 

The proliferation of the Internet and social media has slashed publication advertising dollars, leading to publishing houses being forced to cease print publications, eliminate test labs and lower head counts – all of which drastically change the practice of public relations. With a smaller revenue stream publications are being forced to look at alternate ways to stay in business and the trend of accepting pay-for-play editorial content, in this PR practitioner’s humble opinion, is a giant step backward, washing away all of the blood, sweat and tears that our PR forefathers have shed to pave the way for unbiased, honest editorial content that consumers can trust.

If the PRSA is on Your Case, Maybe You Should Listen
by Hugh Burnham

1 Comment

Rosanna Fiske, Chair of the PRSA, just issued a statement around Rupert Murdoch’s response to the growing crisis surrounding News Corporation, criticizing News Corp.’s CEO for trying to protect his closest lieutenants as more and more revelations surfaced of wrongdoing. The July 4 revelation that reporters working for the News of the World had in 2002 deleted messages from the voicemail of missing schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, turned the phone-hacking saga from something that interested a few lawmakers to a national scandal in the U.K.  Over the weekend, as News International CEO Rebekah Brooks was arrested and brought in for questioning, the fallout from the scandal seemed to mushroom exponentially.

Wrote Fiske:

“In unsuccessfully trying to save the careers of some of his top lieutenants, including former News International CEO Rebekah Brooks, Murdoch is damaging the reputation of all his media properties.” 

And indeed, according to any accepted doctrine of crisis communications, Murdoch’s approach is dead wrong.  News Corp. needs to find out exactly where the wrongdoing occurred, communicate that openly and transparently to the public, and root out and expel those responsible for the egregious practices. 

News Corp. competitor Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek itself has a huge cover story this week devoted to the culture that gave rise to such practices and an inside look at Rupert Murdoch himself.   Yet, crisis communications does not come innately to many businesspeople, particularly when it comes to those that are close to them. Brooks, according to BusinessWeek, was like a daughter to Murdoch.  Losing her from his company was a very deep wound.  And a crisis like this, by its very nature, comes up on a company with little warning. The potential impact at its outset can be difficult to gauge.  After all, these allegations against the News of the World had been around since 2007.  How was Murdoch to know that the phone hacking would mushroom into an issue capable of costing him his empire?   In fact, argue the Bloomberg BusinessWeek reporters, the very culture of News Corp. was to obfuscate and challenge whenever allegations like this were made.

The answer is that someone near Murdoch needed to make it clear to him that the very serious allegations which first surfaced in 2007 were true, and the potential outcome could be disastrous for News Corp.   Unfortunately, it may be too late to save Rupert Murdoch’s empire, even for those diligently counseling him now.  Three days ago, Murdoch visited Milly Dowling’s parents to apologize for the egregious behavior of News of the World.   But it may be too little too late.  Murdoch may or may not lose his iron grip on News Corporation, but the costs to his reputation have been steep and a break-up seems a very real possibility. 

The newspapering business is a tough one.  It seems that the very aggressive tabloid culture that sold so many newspapers and created shareholder value, has now come back to haunt Murdoch.  Let’s see how he responds to the issues ahead.

Do the Math
by Hugh Burnham

Write Comment

In a Forbes Blog Post on Friday, (and I don’t blame Forbes, I credit the publication for having such great blog content)  the London Bureau Chief, picks on Burson-Marsteller for taking on  “unsavory clients” in the wake of the revelation that they are working on attacking privacy issues for Google.

This post left me scratching my head.  With so many similar articles out did it occur to anyone why PR firms often get hired? It is often BECAUSE their clients are in unsavory positions or they have thorny issues to tackle!!!  PR firms have been doing this kind of work since the industry was created. Only occasionally, when it’s a big (or in this case) two big high profile companies, does it become a big deal.

Burson, while it is now forced to backtrack and tell the world that this is against its ethical policies to not disclose their client, is hardly the first PR firm to have its own PR issues.   PR firms do this all the time.  When I worked at one of the world’s largest PR firms, we were booted out of the American Lung Association after a week when it was discovered that we were simultaneously representing a large tobacco manufacturer.    And Wal-Mart’s former PR firm Edelman was taken to task for having PR people pose as “bloggers” while spreading a great message of how wonderful the company was.

Amongst the “shocking” details revealed in the Forbes post is that Burson has a “reputation” for representing this kind of client.  The list included the Saudi government after 9/11, Romanian dictator Nicholae Ceausescu and the Argentinian junta after the disappearance of 35,000 civilians, amongst other things.   But this is why PR firms get hired. So they can represent these companies or governments’ best interests. 

No one would point the finger at a law firm that represented these clients, would they?  And if you looked at other large PR firms, they surely are representing clients with similar issues.   Why the finger pointing?   What is it about the media that just makes it so simple to muck rake for no reason? While it might not be 100% savory to think that companies attack other companies with widespread PR campaigns, you had better believe it happens all the time.  They just aren’t Google and Facebook, most of the time.

A Fog Of War
by Hugh Burnham

Write Comment

Nine years and seven months since I watched the World Trade Center towers fall from the edge of Bowling Green in Lower Manhattan, Osama Bin Laden was killed in a covert operation by the U.S. Military in Abbotabad Pakistan.

Then came the real murder. In the press.  Late on Sunday night, after leaking the news to the American media, President Barack Obama addressed the nation to give us the official version of how Bin Laden died.

It was a masterful example of perception management, the ultimate spin job. Obama gave us some facts about the mission – including a pat on the back for Pakistan (the country that the U.S. mistrusted so much it preferred to create a specially modified Black Hawk helicopter that could fly undetected by radar) for their help in catching our bad guy.

Here’s what we were told.  Bin Laden lived in a “million dollar mansion” (it cost $48,000 to buy six years ago). He was heavily armed (he wasn’t). He hid behind a female human shield (he didn’t). Never let facts get in the way of a good story.  

The White House’s account of the raid that killed Bin Laden has undergone so many iterations in the past week – a fact attributable, according to White House press secretary Jay Carney, to a “fog of war.”  It’s doubtful that a “fog of war” really accounts for the many inaccuracies and outright untruths reported on by the White House.

In a White House briefing, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Expert John Brennan insisted that “If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.”   And later, the White House told us that Bin Laden, while unarmed, acted in a “threatening manner.”  The White House had a lot of dancing to do, in order to ensure that the raid seemed not only legal, but ethical. 

In the end, reporters got annoyed at the backtracking, but the White House had a lot of room for forgiveness. They had after all, killed the man who had perpetrated the worst attack on U.S. soil ever.  Details that might have been a big problem if more had gone wrong, or the results had played out differently were largely overlooked.   That’s how the media works. 

Subscribe by email:



Web Analytics