Dec
Tiger’s tale: everyone’s a PR expert
Andrew Berthoff
Tiger Woods’s recent travails have once again brought to light the debate about what constitutes good and bad media- and public-relations. Journalists I suppose are well positioned to debate the topic, but reporters analyzing the efficacy of communications I find disconcerting.
The other night on CNN (inventors of Reality TV) a USA Today reporter appeared with Campbell Brown as a PR expert. She applauded the Tiger Woods “camp” for staying perfectly “on-message, and that message is ‘We have no comment.’”
So, according to this particular reporter-cum-PR-expert, the message is no message and they’re doing well to stay on-message . . . which is none.
The Tiger Woods story is not so much about what actually happened, as it is about his communications. Everyone seems to have an opinion about how he should communicate, and the media itself seems to accept that it’s okay for them to speculate and report innuendo and inference, simply because he’s not saying much.
If CNN and Fox and the like aren’t interviewing other journalists about Woods’s media relations, they’re talking to “publicists” who are really in the business of celebrity offense, not defense. They’re experts at getting attention for their clients, no matter what the cost. They are not experts at handling a true crisis.
But, according to the media, it’s Tiger’s own fault for not saying enough. When there are no facts to report, what’s a poor mainstream journalist to do but make it up? The irony is that it’s truly the lack of news that makes the Tiger tale so newsworthy, and therein lies the lesson.
Ultimately, the unknown is more interesting than the known. Fiction is more interesting than fact. What you don’t know is a more entertaining story than reporting the facts, which, as we know, get in the way of a good story. It’s an unfortunate trend in “news” reporting today.
I find it interesting (and disturbing) that a reporter would claim that consistent “no commenting” is a PR success. Aren’t journalist’s supposed to be hard-wired to push for facts? And not report on heresay, rumours or un-sourced observations?
But as per your point, in many cases this is exactly what reporting has become: imaginative story telling. There are so-called news professionals out there who should remove the term “Reporter” from their job title and replace it with “Pontificator”. A sad trend indeed – but hopefully one that will fizzle out once smart media consumers get tired of the blubber and start demanding facts once again (hey, a girl can dream…)
I know many are criticizing Tiger’s stay-out-of-sight strategy but it’s worth considering the merits of the opposite. The impact of a photo of him with facial wounds (no matter how caused) would be sensational and haunt him for the rest of his career. Considering how much money the paparazzi are likely being offered for photo of him, it will be interesting to see if Tiger’s able to stay hidden.
Once again, society’s obsession with celebrities, fueled by low budget news media, is disturbing. There are so many more important stories in the world. Also upsetting is the onging trend toward enjoying the misfortune of others. Even though Tiger’s behavior in unjustifiable, people are tuning in excitedly to the sad meltdown of a family. Personally, I wish them luck and am now changing the channel.
[...] as Andrew pointed out in a recent blog post, reporters are also getting in on the storytelling game, filling in the blanks that facts [...]