How to get a boring story on A1: Take a shot at Don Cherry

/

A Toronto brain surgeon has used a tried and true PR technique to get his story on the front page of one of Canada's national newspapers. And good for him. But you can rest assured the other shoe will drop this Saturday night.

On A1 of the National Post, there's a story titled 'A shot at Don Cherry'. At its core, this is a story about hits to the head and concussions in the game of hockey. In this case, the messenger is Dr. Charles Tator. His story is an important one. He's calling for the sport to better protect its players from hits to the head, which may lead to devastating long-term health effects.

And while the story might be important, it's also boring. Few journalists will feel compelled to write a story about something that has been happening in a sport for decades, and which may cause negative health effects years down the road. 

To make a story like this appealing to a reporter, Dr. Tator had to hang it on one (or more) of the three drivers of news: change, controversy or human interest. He chose controversy, opting to attack one of hockey's most recognizable personalities, Don Cherry.

"I think he (Don Cherry) is a negative influence because he applauds aggressive hockey," Dr. Tator is quoted as saying in the article.

The tactic worked. A story pitch that should have ended up in the 'deleted items' file instead wound up on the front page and will surely generate coverage in radio and TV throughout Canada this week. Given that he is a brain surgeon (let's face it, there's a certain degree of intelligence implied), Dr. Tator is undoubtedly aware that he will be in Mr. Cherry's crosshairs at approximately 8:00 pm this Saturday night during Cherry's 'Coach's Corner' segment on Hockey Night in Canada.

Don Cherry does like aggressive hockey. But he also preaches the need for a return to the type of respect that players had for one another in the good ol' days. Cherry has long been a supporter of safe play in the game of hockey. He is the driving force behind the 'STOP' decal program that gets young children to think twice before hitting another player from behind.

Dr. Tator refers to these efforts as "window-dressing" that won't lead to a cultural shift.

If the good doctor wanted to truly effect change in the way the game is played, he might have been better served to call NHL commissioner Gary Bettman to the carpet. In this case, however, he simply wanted to get his story on the front page. And by taking a pot shot at one of Canada's most popular and beloved senior citizens, he has succeeded. But there is a price to pay for draping your boring story in controversy at someone else's expense. We'll just have to tune in to Coach's Corner this Saturday Night to see what that price is.

Read More

Globe and Mail's Salutin takes cheap shot at PR

/

In his column in the Globe and Mail this morning, Rick Salutin reveals a serious bias against the PR industry. What's that, you say? A reporter who's got an axe to grind against PR?

Everyone (particularly a newspaper columnist, who's paid to fan the flames of controversy) is entitled to his/her opinion. On that note, here's mine. This column is an unwarranted cheap shot at the PR profession.

Salutin uses the Michael Bryant affair as his platform (the recent case in which a former Ontario politician, in the car with his wife, was involved in an altercation with a bike courier which resulted in the courier's death). After noting that the media coverage of the event has served the public well, Salutin writes, "But there's one element that irritates me severely. It's the presence, since very early, of a public-relations firm aiding Mr. Bryant."

The rest of the column doesn't seem to have a clear point. It just rehashes journalism's old disdain for PR. He also suggests that the other problem at play is that many journalism grads end up in public relations. And that a "depressing quantity of news stories, especially in areas such as medicine, now come from well-produced PR packages sent on behalf of pharmaceutical firms and the like."

He bemoans the fact that PR people "may put words in client's mouths, vet their ideas and advise on whether to speak at all".

Is this guy for real? Salutin has been at this game a long time. His feigned naivete on the role of PR comes off more like a columnist's device than genuine concern. If a prominent public figure gets tangled up in a situation like Bryant did recently, their first two phone calls should be to their lawyer and a PR firm. The man's career, reputation and freedom are on the line. And given the media's love of 'David versus Goliath' stories, the bicycle courier starts out as the clear favourite in the court of public opinion, even though the truth has yet to emerge. Bryant likely has a million things going through his mind. Hiring experienced professionals for council on how to handle his one shot when the TV cameras are shoved in his face is not shocking, insulting, or devious. It's common sense. And if Salutin happened to be the unfortunate individual in the car that night, I'll bet he would have the Globe and Mail's PR firm (that's right, the Globe and Mail has a PR firm) on speed dial - pronto.

Read More

How NOT to respond to a negative review of your new book

/
Don't post anything on a blog that you wouldn't want to see printed in the Globe and Mail. Or the National Post. Or the New York Times. Well, you get the idea...

Caleb Crain recently wrote a review of Alain de Botton's new book for the New York Times Book Review. The review was less than flattering. Rather than taking it with a grain of salt, Mr. de Botton posted the following venomous comment on Crain's blog:

"I will hate you till the day I die and wish you nothing but ill will in every career move you make."

The flaming blog post has made headlines around the world (including the publications mentioned above).

Mr. de Botton has said that next time, he would "put this message in an envelope, not on the Internet."

Read the NYT coverage of the story here.
Read More

N.L. Premier Danny Williams blows up at reporter on live radio

/

Earlier this week, Danny Williams (Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador) called into a live radio show and got into a testy exchange with host Randy Simms. Williams called in specifically to criticize Simms for being 'too negative', just hours after the announcement of the approval of a multi-billion dollar offshore oil project.

Williams was apparently angered when the host asked what the Premier was going to do for the province's troubled forestry and fishing industries.

"It's irresponsible and reckless," Williams told Simms on air. "We don't need that kind of crap and pessimism coming out of your mouth. I refuse to listen to pessimists like you and we are going to move forward despite you."

The call ended with Williams hanging up on Simms.

This on-air blowup is getting a lot of play in the Canadian media. It also defeats one of the most basic principles of conducting effective media interviews: "Never get into an argument with a reporter." Not only did Williams get into an argument, he made a special phone call specifically to get into an argument with the on air host.




Read More

Obama makes rare Oval Office call to reporter

/

15obama_spanLast week, President Obama took the unusual step of calling a New York Times reporter from the Oval Office to clarify a point from an interview that took place earlier in the day. Obama was concerned that he had appeared to dismiss a question from the reporter about whether he was a socialist. The President phoned the reporter personally and said the following:

"It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question." He then went on to say that there was "just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares in banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -- the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can't say the same."

I like this proactive call by the President. While reflecting about the interview earlier in the day, he pinpointed something that he thought might become a larger issue in the paper the following day. Instead of waiting to do damage control after the fact, he called the journalist personally to eliminate any confusion about his response and pre-empt a negative story characterizing him as a socialist.

This unorthodox call also serves another purpose. It puts the media on notice that the President is paying attention and that he will vigorously defend himself and his administration in the press if he feels they're crossing the line. I would bet that as a result of this call, more than a few White House reporters will be thinking of that phone call while they're putting the finishing touches on their daily stories.

If you want to check out the original coverage of this story, it's here.

 

Read More